November 9th, 2004, 04:03 PM
Privacy Issues of Pictures on Websites
Was just woundering what laws, rules or otherwise there is that governs the displaying of pictures on a website without the persons consent,
eg - say a picture of you is taken and its displayed on a website without your consent with your name underneath it, what rights do you have for its removal? under UK law ideally - if there is such a thing.
November 9th, 2004, 05:35 PM
Basically the situation is the same as for other media such as newspapers and magazines. The item is being "published"
If the picture was taken in a public place then it is quite legal to publish it. Unless, of course, you happen to be a judge "in sessions" It is illegal to photograph them
If you have a "model release" or other such contract, then it is also legal. This would also covered syndicated materials that you have paid for, or is in the public domain.
In general, the copyright will remain with the photographer, unless it has been assigned, so you just can't go helping yourself to other people's work. just the same as newspapers and magazines.
Hope that helps
November 9th, 2004, 06:27 PM
I have found that most people will remove a picture off a website if you ask. (If it contains you in the picture) Have you asked to have them take it down?
N00b> STFU i r teh 1337 (english: You must be mistaken, good sir or madam. I believe myself to be quite a good player. On an unrelated matter, I also apparently enjoy math.)
November 9th, 2004, 06:47 PM
Most of the time if you ask them, they will take it down.
One time I was at the bar and was wasted. They were having a pudding wrestling contest and I was front and center watching it. All of a sudden I got pulled into it with the two girls (barely dressed... wearing some skimply underwear). They started wrestling with me (I didn't resist... just let them try to "toss me around") and a "bar hopper" style magazine got photos of it. They published them on their website.
If my gf would have seen those pictures... I'd have been in trouble.
She is always on those sites too... looking for friends and such.
One of them was in bad taste and she wouldn't have approved of it.
I called and they blurred out my face for me.
is a firefox extension that gives you stats on how long you have quit smoking, how much money you\'ve saved, how much you haven\'t smoked and recent milestones. Very helpful for people who quit smoking and used to smoke at their computers... Helps out with the urges.
November 9th, 2004, 09:23 PM
Yea its a non commericial website, and I asked them to take my picture down - said I didnt like it how it had a mugshot of me with my full name on there, yes i am a paranoid freak and no im no embrassed of the picture, just concerned about my privacy
cheers for the replys, was trying to find a law that relates to this so that I could quote it in an email to the web space provider if I need to.
November 9th, 2004, 09:46 PM
Well it depends on how they got the picture and who owns it. Your best bet would be infringement of copyright, but as I don't know the circumstances, I cannot advise with any certainty.
If they don't own the copyright and haven't got permission from the owner they are bang to rights, and must remove it.
November 9th, 2004, 11:31 PM
US copyright law says the pictures taken are property of the photographer, not the models. If they're intended for public or commercial display, however, the *featured* models must sign a consent waiver. Spectators, or 'incidental' subjects are not covered under the consent requirements...
So, in the case of Phish's pudding wrestling shots, since he was incidental to the subject of the photograph, his consent wasn't necessary, nor could he take legal action against the photographer if he were to have suffered damages from it (ie his girlfriend did see it and stole everything he owned).
Another fine exception to the 'Model Consent' rule is that if the action is taking place in a public location, no consent is required. This is how we get those wonderful 'girls gone wild' videos and pics on voyeur sites legally. Mardi Gras, Spring Break, and any other 'event' involving some sort of nudity is sure to attract a plethorae of photographers for this reason.
A caution to potential photographers however - age is very much covered by the Consent rules - if you're on the nude beach snapping away pics, best not catch any kids in them, or you're had.
A second caution which stems from all the voyeur sites - there is legislation being drafted to govern what exactly constitutes 'public' and what does not - the cases that specifically started this were 1. A woman had a picture taken of the inside of her dress, while she was wearing it, and sued the photographer. and 2. A female found a hidden camera in a public restroom/dressing room at her local pool, and sued the state. Since there were no laws governing either situation, both cases were dismissed and the pictures are still out there on the web, but Congress is trying to eliminate that problem.
 The more I read through this the more I see the potential 'what about our right to privacy?' question popping up, so I'll address it here too -
I challenge any of you to point at a clause in the US Constitution that guarantees the right to privacy to anyone. No such animal.
Yes, your employer, government, or anyone else can post a camera in a public restroom under current laws. Anyone with a non-subscription satellite dish can attest to that - on any given sunday during network cutaways for local commercials, the men's room cam is usually what pops up - (at least it used to, on CBS). [/edit]
Even a broken watch is correct twice a day.
Which coder said that nobody could outcode Microsoft in their own OS? Write a bit and make a fortune!