3 ms·

It doesn't change the fact that Boyle is still, legally, in the clear. Just to clarify, is that a legal opinion? I fully understand it's a legal question. But

It doesn't change the fact that Boyle is still, legally, in the clear. Just to clarify, is that a legal opinion? I fully understand it's a legal question. But a civil suit for intentionally disseminating embarrassing information is very different from a Fourth Amendment case. This is a case where someone intentionally broadcast to the Internet a couple's marital issues (otherwise known only to a handful of people in a restaurant) with the apparent intent to ridicule them. You still haven't convinced me Boyle is 'in the clear'.

potatolicious 15y ago
I am not a lawyer, but I am a photographer who has deeply studied this issue for my own protection. This is, and continues, to be a hot-button topic amongst photographers, so I would consider myself to be more informed than most people need to be. So no, this is not a professional legal opinion, but it's one based on solid information about the laws of the United States. If Boyle is to be sued, it won't be over anything related to use of likeness. More likely it will come from a defamation or libel angle - but that's entirely separate to the issue of privacy in public spaces.
- vannevar 15y ago
  "...it won't be over anything related to use of likeness." I'd I agree with you there: it's not the likeness that's the problem. It's the wide dissemination of embarrassing private information without any apparent legitimate informative purpose. Like an upskirt photo, the fact that many people in the restaurant might have the same view doesn't mean it's OK to tweet the image to the world at large.
  - potatolicious 15y ago
    I agree - but this really is just a sign of the times. Technology has made our previous implicit social contract re: privacy somewhat out of date. We need to (and we are, naturally) developing new codes of conduct in its place. Incidents like this will push this evolutionary process in the right direction. Not sure why we need to get involved, legally. This seems like one of those things where we really can just let it regulate itself. I am fairly certain Mr. Boyle is receiving his lesson in respecting boundaries as we speak.

potatolicious 15y ago

I am not a lawyer, but I am a photographer who has deeply studied this issue for my own protection. This is, and continues, to be a hot-button topic amongst photographers, so I would consider myself to be more informed than most people need to be. So no, this is not a professional legal opinion, but it's one based on solid information about the laws of the United States. If Boyle is to be sued, it won't be over anything related to use of likeness. More likely it will come from a defamation or libel angle - but that's entirely separate to the issue of privacy in public spaces.

vannevar 15y ago
"...it won't be over anything related to use of likeness." I'd I agree with you there: it's not the likeness that's the problem. It's the wide dissemination of embarrassing private information without any apparent legitimate informative purpose. Like an upskirt photo, the fact that many people in the restaurant might have the same view doesn't mean it's OK to tweet the image to the world at large.
- potatolicious 15y ago
  I agree - but this really is just a sign of the times. Technology has made our previous implicit social contract re: privacy somewhat out of date. We need to (and we are, naturally) developing new codes of conduct in its place. Incidents like this will push this evolutionary process in the right direction. Not sure why we need to get involved, legally. This seems like one of those things where we really can just let it regulate itself. I am fairly certain Mr. Boyle is receiving his lesson in respecting boundaries as we speak.