4 ms·

But it’s not yours. You don’t own your “image”, just like you don’t own your DNA. It’s not reasonable to expect to require permission for someone to use your

But it’s not yours. You don’t own your “image”, just like you don’t own your DNA. It’s not reasonable to expect to require permission for someone to use your image that they captured. What if it’s for news purposes? What if it’s related to, say, and insurance fraud investigation? If you keep trying to draw the line, it gets harder and harder to draw. So what’s reasonable? If you have an expectation of privacy that’s violated, that seems far. But if you do not, i.e. you are in public, you have no such expectation. Now, photographs shot through a window? Close your blinds or shut up. It’s all up to you.

DanBC 5y ago
> But if you do not, i.e. you are in public, What if you're on the street outside an HIV clinic? Or an abortion clinic? Or an STI clinic? Or a substance misuse clinic? Or a narcotics anonymous meeting? What if you're on the street, but have clearly just exited the door from that clinic? This isn't idle noodling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v_MGN_Ltd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v_MGN_Ltd
- mcguire 5y ago
  "The House of Lords held MGN liable by majority vote, with lords Nicholls and Hoffmann dissenting. Baroness Hale, Lord Hope and Lord Carswell held that the picture added something of 'real significance'. The court engaged in a balancing test, firstly determining whether the applicant had a reasonable expectation of privacy (thus determining whether Art.8 ECHR was involved). It then considered whether, if the claimant was successful, this would result in a significant inference with freedom of expression (balancing Art. 8 with Art. 10). It was held that Campbell's right to privacy (ECHR, Sch 1, Part I, Art 8) outweighed MGN's right to freedom of expression (ECHR Art 10)." So there is a specific legal cutout for those cases. The legal system is not usually made up of complete idiots.
  - randombits0 5y ago
    > The legal system is not usually made up of complete idiots. Certainly not. There is the “evil asshole” contingent as well, but I expect a bit of overlap between the two.
pomian 5y ago
Why, don't I own my dna?
- randombits0 5y ago
  Your “flesh and bone” are certainly yours. But DNA? You didn’t create it, it’s not original, and yours is 99.9% identical to mine. You cannot copyright or patent it. And you’re pretty sloppy with it, leaving a trail of it everywhere you go.
KennyBlanken 5y ago
In the united states you do in fact own and have a right to control commercial exploitation of your image / likeness, with exceptions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights#United_Stat... News coverage is a common exception. A fraud investigation is not commercial exploitation. > If you keep trying to draw the line, it gets harder and harder to draw. You're not qualified to make statements like this.
- randombits0 5y ago
  > You're not qualified to make statements like this. Maybe, maybe not. Who the f*ck are you? (See how that works?)

DanBC 5y ago

> But if you do not, i.e. you are in public, What if you're on the street outside an HIV clinic? Or an abortion clinic? Or an STI clinic? Or a substance misuse clinic? Or a narcotics anonymous meeting? What if you're on the street, but have clearly just exited the door from that clinic? This isn't idle noodling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v_MGN_Ltd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v_MGN_Ltd

mcguire 5y ago
"The House of Lords held MGN liable by majority vote, with lords Nicholls and Hoffmann dissenting. Baroness Hale, Lord Hope and Lord Carswell held that the picture added something of 'real significance'. The court engaged in a balancing test, firstly determining whether the applicant had a reasonable expectation of privacy (thus determining whether Art.8 ECHR was involved). It then considered whether, if the claimant was successful, this would result in a significant inference with freedom of expression (balancing Art. 8 with Art. 10). It was held that Campbell's right to privacy (ECHR, Sch 1, Part I, Art 8) outweighed MGN's right to freedom of expression (ECHR Art 10)." So there is a specific legal cutout for those cases. The legal system is not usually made up of complete idiots.
- randombits0 5y ago
  > The legal system is not usually made up of complete idiots. Certainly not. There is the “evil asshole” contingent as well, but I expect a bit of overlap between the two.

pomian 5y ago

Why, don't I own my dna?

randombits0 5y ago
Your “flesh and bone” are certainly yours. But DNA? You didn’t create it, it’s not original, and yours is 99.9% identical to mine. You cannot copyright or patent it. And you’re pretty sloppy with it, leaving a trail of it everywhere you go.

KennyBlanken 5y ago

In the united states you do in fact own and have a right to control commercial exploitation of your image / likeness, with exceptions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights#United_Stat... News coverage is a common exception. A fraud investigation is not commercial exploitation. > If you keep trying to draw the line, it gets harder and harder to draw. You're not qualified to make statements like this.

randombits0 5y ago
> You're not qualified to make statements like this. Maybe, maybe not. Who the f*ck are you? (See how that works?)