4 ms·

Require commercially used photos to not contain identifying information (face license plate) without consent of the owner (of the license plate/face). This alr

by huem0n 11mo ago

Require commercially used photos to not contain identifying information (face license plate) without consent of the owner (of the license plate/face). This already happens a lot on Google street view.

kevin_thibedeau 11mo ago
License plates are owned by the government.
- cwillu 11mo ago
  So what?
- dghughes 11mo ago
  But not where it is in real-time or its location history.
- pseudalopex 11mo ago
  Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.[1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- rootusrootus 11mo ago
  AFAIK that is not correct. They are issued by the government. Required by the government to be displayed on the car if you are driving on public roads. But the plate is not physically owned by the government. The biggest distinction seems to be that in some states it becomes part of the car, and in other states it stays with the driver when ownership of the car changes hands (or the owner of the car can choose either option when selling the car). As an aside, these days I am guessing the latter is the truth in most states. So many specialty and personalized plate options out there that people are going to want to keep for themselves. Obviously the government does own a small number of plates, of course, because they attach them to government owned vehicles.
ceejayoz 11mo ago
> Require commercially used photos to not contain identifying information… So CNN can't put Trump's photo up unless he consents?
- pbhjpbhj 11mo ago
  Just like copyright you'd have an exclusion for news reporting. A lot of these apparent 'gotchas' will be well known to lawyers and law drafters.
- cwillu 11mo ago
  Lots of countries already have nuanced laws around public figures vs private citizens.
- cycomanic 11mo ago
  There have always been different standards for a person of public interest compared to the general public. So what is your point?
  - ceejayoz 11mo ago
    The point is the simple sounding proposal has a lot of complexity hiding behind it. If I’m a photographer, do I have to get consent from both the divorced parents to photograph the kids? The kids themselves?
    - johnnyanmac 11mo ago
      >the simple sounding proposal has a lot of complexity hiding behind it. Okay? We're not on a legal forum drafting the 50 page law to cover all those loopholes. I'm nor even sure if the posting limit here would faciliate that. I trust some decent lawyers can take the high level suggestions and dig into the minutae when it comes to real policy. And I find it a bit annoying to berate the community because they aren't acting as a lawyer (and no one here claims to be one AFAIK). >If I’m a photographer, do I have to get consent from both the divorced parents to photograph the kids? The kids themselves? Check your state laws. The answer will vary immensely. Another reason a global forum like this isn't the best place to talk about law.

by huem0n 11mo ago

kevin_thibedeau 11mo ago

License plates are owned by the government.

cwillu 11mo ago
So what?
dghughes 11mo ago
But not where it is in real-time or its location history.
pseudalopex 11mo ago
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.[1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
rootusrootus 11mo ago
AFAIK that is not correct. They are issued by the government. Required by the government to be displayed on the car if you are driving on public roads. But the plate is not physically owned by the government. The biggest distinction seems to be that in some states it becomes part of the car, and in other states it stays with the driver when ownership of the car changes hands (or the owner of the car can choose either option when selling the car). As an aside, these days I am guessing the latter is the truth in most states. So many specialty and personalized plate options out there that people are going to want to keep for themselves. Obviously the government does own a small number of plates, of course, because they attach them to government owned vehicles.

ceejayoz 11mo ago

> Require commercially used photos to not contain identifying information… So CNN can't put Trump's photo up unless he consents?

pbhjpbhj 11mo ago
Just like copyright you'd have an exclusion for news reporting. A lot of these apparent 'gotchas' will be well known to lawyers and law drafters.
cwillu 11mo ago
Lots of countries already have nuanced laws around public figures vs private citizens.
cycomanic 11mo ago
There have always been different standards for a person of public interest compared to the general public. So what is your point?
- ceejayoz 11mo ago
  The point is the simple sounding proposal has a lot of complexity hiding behind it. If I’m a photographer, do I have to get consent from both the divorced parents to photograph the kids? The kids themselves?
  - johnnyanmac 11mo ago
    >the simple sounding proposal has a lot of complexity hiding behind it. Okay? We're not on a legal forum drafting the 50 page law to cover all those loopholes. I'm nor even sure if the posting limit here would faciliate that. I trust some decent lawyers can take the high level suggestions and dig into the minutae when it comes to real policy. And I find it a bit annoying to berate the community because they aren't acting as a lawyer (and no one here claims to be one AFAIK). >If I’m a photographer, do I have to get consent from both the divorced parents to photograph the kids? The kids themselves? Check your state laws. The answer will vary immensely. Another reason a global forum like this isn't the best place to talk about law.