4 ms·

He published the image online, publicly, himself. It's kind-a hard for him to claim it's violating his privacy.

by tomp 12y ago

vidarh 12y ago
EU privacy laws does not work that way. EDIT: To expand slightly: That you have published something yourself, in one context, does not automatically imply that publication in others contexts is ok. It may be sufficient in this case, because the article is hardly all that controversial, but you can not automatically assume that publication implies consent for publication elsewhere.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  I wish people would give more consideration to this (whether they are legally required to or not).
- tomp 12y ago
  > you can not automatically assume that publication implies consent for publication elsewhere. I'm not automatically assuming that - the guy explicitly licensed his photo as CC-By-Sa - I don't think any reasonable person would assume that means "don't republish" or "republish, but only where I approve"!
  - vidarh 12y ago
    First of all, I was responding to your statement that publication in one context is sufficient to imply that there's no privacy issue. It is not that clear cut - privacy is not binary. The recent controversy over the "right to be forgotten" is a good illustration: The "right to be forgotten" is not something that is explicitly part of law, but the result of an interpretation of EU privacy rights and the interplay with freedom of expression. The outcome of which was a judgement to allow people to reduce the level of exposure of information even when that information was already out there, and despite deciding that removing the information from the source in that case was going too far. Secondly, copyright is by no means the only law that governs your ability to publish something, and in Europe "any reasonable person" ought to at least consider that depending on their specific country and specific circumstances they may run afoul of one or more other laws if they republish without checking with the photographer and subjects in the case of photographs that includes people. The license only governs the rights to reproduce the image, but depending on other laws and situations, privacy rights, moral rights (droit d'auteur/authors rights) and portrait rights may all come into play (moral rights belong to the author (photographer); portrait rights lie with the subject - both are usually non-transferrable in the countries that recognise them; basic moral rights are explicitly recognised by the Berne convention).
  - belorn 12y ago
    Actually, Berne Convention and thus copyright covers this under the description Moral rights (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights). In the US, slander and libel is mostly used to cover this. For example, the publishers are liable if they cause harm to the reputation of the photographer or anyone in the pictures.

He published the image online, publicly, himself. It's kind-a hard for him to claim it's violating his privacy.

by tomp 12y ago

He published the image online, publicly, himself. It's kind-a hard for him to claim it's violating his privacy.

EU privacy laws does not work that way. EDIT: To expand slightly: That you have published something yourself, in one context, does not automatically imply that publication in others contexts is ok. It may be sufficient in this case, because the article is hardly all that controversial, but you can not automatically assume that publication implies consent for publication elsewhere.

maxerickson 12y ago
I wish people would give more consideration to this (whether they are legally required to or not).
tomp 12y ago
> you can not automatically assume that publication implies consent for publication elsewhere. I'm not automatically assuming that - the guy explicitly licensed his photo as CC-By-Sa - I don't think any reasonable person would assume that means "don't republish" or "republish, but only where I approve"!
- vidarh 12y ago
  First of all, I was responding to your statement that publication in one context is sufficient to imply that there's no privacy issue. It is not that clear cut - privacy is not binary. The recent controversy over the "right to be forgotten" is a good illustration: The "right to be forgotten" is not something that is explicitly part of law, but the result of an interpretation of EU privacy rights and the interplay with freedom of expression. The outcome of which was a judgement to allow people to reduce the level of exposure of information even when that information was already out there, and despite deciding that removing the information from the source in that case was going too far. Secondly, copyright is by no means the only law that governs your ability to publish something, and in Europe "any reasonable person" ought to at least consider that depending on their specific country and specific circumstances they may run afoul of one or more other laws if they republish without checking with the photographer and subjects in the case of photographs that includes people. The license only governs the rights to reproduce the image, but depending on other laws and situations, privacy rights, moral rights (droit d'auteur/authors rights) and portrait rights may all come into play (moral rights belong to the author (photographer); portrait rights lie with the subject - both are usually non-transferrable in the countries that recognise them; basic moral rights are explicitly recognised by the Berne convention).
- belorn 12y ago
  Actually, Berne Convention and thus copyright covers this under the description Moral rights (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights). In the US, slander and libel is mostly used to cover this. For example, the publishers are liable if they cause harm to the reputation of the photographer or anyone in the pictures.