View Full Version : Posting pictures without consent
Maybe its time to institute a new rule: No posting of anyone’s picture without their consent. Heavy demerits.
The rationale.
You may argue that the net itself is public, but think of it in terms of intent and respect of privacy.
Example 1: I have pics on my web server that no one would see unless I gave them a link. If someone else discovers that link by other means they can spread it around regardless of my intent to only have a select audience.
Example 2: Someone may post a pic of themselves from a GS gathering with the intent of sharing it with that particular community. Someone else from these boards could take that pic, modify it in some fashion, and post it here where there are a large number of other GS players. Hardly the person’s original intent.
Example 3: Some of our newer/younger members may not have a handle on this whole net thing, or may be naive to the ways of certain people, or could be tricked by others into doing something that could really have a negative affect on them in the long run.
Its not like this is a complex issue that I would have to detail example after example to cover all the situations in existence. Its simple. Have a little decency and respect people’s privacy.
StrayRogue
07-01-2006, 07:27 PM
Maybe it's time the boards stop's turning into a watered down version of the officials and actually becomes the hardcore reality check it used to be?
Suppa Hobbit Mage
07-01-2006, 07:33 PM
I think the key thing to remember is anyone making fun of how a person looks is just an asshole.
It would hardly water these boards down and we will never (knock on wood) get to the point of being like the officials.
Just a measure to protect everyone’s privacy equally and fairly.
Bobmuhthol
07-01-2006, 07:45 PM
Putting a picture on the internet really negates privacy.
As an example to how ridiculously NOT private anything on the internet is, Koreans tried to send thousands of emails through my computer (a ton of them were to Yahoo.com and Yahoo.jp accounts under the name Amy_Lastname, which ranged Chan to every other Korean name in existence) over the course of a day. How did these Korean fucks find my computer? Simply because it's connected to the internet. If it can be accessed by 1 person, it can be accessed by any person freely. That simply can't be stopped.
Also, I've since changed my mail server to run on port 1337 instead of port 25.
Well, whether we institute this rule or not, litigation could still be made by offended parties I suppose. Just check AP for stories on this kind of thing and its not uncommon. In fact, maybe its in the board’s best interest in case something like that does happen and Kranar ends up as a defendant and we get shut down.
HarmNone
07-01-2006, 08:13 PM
Ummm.....
http://www.forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=9856
To wit:
Unauthorized Pictures
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any member who posts a picture depicting another individual that has not been made publicly available by the individual depicted is in violation of forum policy and subject to a violation count increase of at least 5 and at most 20.
Bobmuhthol
07-01-2006, 08:16 PM
That is different than consent.
Thanks Harms. I was in the process of looking for that document when you posted that.
Maybe its time to reassess the issue and update it if necessary.
For example, that rule says nothing about “doctored” pics.
HarmNone
07-01-2006, 08:23 PM
A picture is a picture, whether it's doctored, or not. If the person has not made the picture publicly available, they can request to have it removed. That's nothing new here, really.
Bobmuhthol
07-01-2006, 08:23 PM
A doctored picture, technically, is a different picture than its original, and therefore does fall under that category.
HarmNone
07-01-2006, 08:31 PM
That is different than consent.
That's where the need to complain comes in, Bob. We can't assume whether or not something bothers another person. Therefore, the person needs to let us know that the posting of a given picture is not acceptable to them. If the picture has not been made publicly available by that person, it will be removed if that is the individual's wish. If no complaint is made, tacit permission is considered given.
Some discretion will be used in the case of photoshopped pictures that are obviously insulting in nature. Those will be removed, as will pornographic pictures, or pictures that feature frontal nudity. Also, pictures that are "over the top" (like tub girl) will be removed. Most people won't have any problem discerning what's acceptable and what isn't.
HarmNone
07-01-2006, 08:34 PM
A doctored picture, technically, is a different picture than its original, and therefore does fall under that category.
Ko-wrecked, Bob! :D
Jolena
07-01-2006, 08:37 PM
That's where the need to complain comes in, Bob. We can't assume whether or not something bothers another person. Therefore, the person needs to let us know that the posting of a given picture is not acceptable to them. If the picture has not been made publicly available by that person, it will be removed if that is the individual's wish. If no complaint is made, tacit permission is considered given.
Some discretion will be used in the case of photoshopped pictures that are obviously insulting in nature. Those will be removed, as will pornographic pictures, or pictures that feature frontal nudity. Also, pictures that are "over the top" (like tub girl) will be removed. Most people won't have any problem discerning what's acceptable and what isn't.
And just how does someone get a picture from someone else that isn't given to them? I mean, do you really think someone is going to hack into a computer and just steal a picture from them to put on on the boards? the whole picture thing seems moot to me, as if someone places it up on the boards, it has either A) been given to them, or B) has been posted by the person in the picture themselves. This is where the line becomes muddled.
Bobmuhthol
07-01-2006, 08:45 PM
<<I mean, do you really think someone is going to hack into a computer and just steal a picture from them to put on on the boards?>>
Oh man, if only that could be done through conventional methods ever.*
<<the whole picture thing seems moot to me, as if someone places it up on the boards, it has either A) been given to them, or B) has been posted by the person in the picture themselves. This is where the line becomes muddled.>>
As the immediately preceding discussion shows, an edited picture is against policy. There are other instances where this is possible, but I don't feel like giving examples. You'll see it when it happens.
Also, Leetahkin exposing her topless self on webcam is not (intended to be) public. Pretty fucking stupid, but not (intended to be) public.
* depends on whether or not the user is a fucking idiot.
HarmNone
07-01-2006, 08:45 PM
Just because someone gives a picture to YOU, that doesn't make the picture publicly available, Jolena. YOU are not the public. You are one individual. I have pictures in my possession of some of my family members. While they're great pictures, and there's nothing at all wrong with them, some of my family members just would not want their pictures posted on the internet. So, just because I have them doesn't make them public property. I hope that makes sense.
Tsa`ah
07-01-2006, 08:49 PM
And just how does someone get a picture from someone else that isn't given to them? I mean, do you really think someone is going to hack into a computer and just steal a picture from them to put on on the boards? the whole picture thing seems moot to me, as if someone places it up on the boards, it has either A) been given to them, or B) has been posted by the person in the picture themselves. This is where the line becomes muddled.
People send images privately, not intending them to be shared or plastered on message boards and such.
Images the person makes readily accessible, such as through photbucket, myspace ... etc, are pretty much fair game. An image passed through an IM or e-mail, and then later passed along from the recipient to the world at large is not fair game.
While one would expect that people in general would not be so careless about who they send images to, unless they themselves give the go ahead to make the image public, we should endeavor to acknowledge a wish of privacy. Even to sick fucks such as Klaive.
Jolena
07-01-2006, 08:50 PM
Oh it does, but I distinctly remember ( and I HATE to bring this up again as its been rehashed over and over, I know) a picture of Leetahkin in her bra that was posted a few times on these boards. I don't remember them being taken down either. Now, I could be mistaken, but isn't that the same thing you just said couldn't be done?
I'm not trying to play devil's advocate here, I'm just honestly trying to understand what is 'okay' and what 'is not'. I personally thought the whole webcam incident was really tasteless and made me feel ill, but I understand that it wasn't allowed to continue. The pictures however, I thought were.
A doctored picture, technically, is a different picture than its original, and therefore does fall under that category.
You could also say that if a doctored picture bared any resemblance to the original it is technically the same picture and falls under that category. You don’t even have to go that far with technicalities if even a handful of pixels were copied from an original. Especially if it includes a person’s identity.
HarmNone
07-01-2006, 08:51 PM
Oh it does, but I distinctly remember ( and I HATE to bring this up again as its been rehashed over and over, I know) a picture of Leetahkin in her bra that was posted a few times on these boards. I don't remember them being taken down either. Now, I could be mistaken, but isn't that the same thing you just said couldn't be done?
I'm not trying to play devil's advocate here, I'm just honestly trying to understand what is 'okay' and what 'is not'. I personally thought the whole webcam incident was really tasteless and made me feel ill, but I understand that it wasn't allowed to continue. The pictures however, I thought were.
That picture was taken down.
Bobmuhthol
07-01-2006, 08:51 PM
Leetahkin's pictures were taken down.
Alfster
07-01-2006, 08:52 PM
Oh it does, but I distinctly remember ( and I HATE to bring this up again as its been rehashed over and over, I know) a picture of Leetahkin in her bra that was posted a few times on these boards. I don't remember them being taken down either. Now, I could be mistaken, but isn't that the same thing you just said couldn't be done?
I'm not trying to play devil's advocate here, I'm just honestly trying to understand what is 'okay' and what 'is not'. I personally thought the whole webcam incident was really tasteless and made me feel ill, but I understand that it wasn't allowed to continue. The pictures however, I thought were.
I took a screenshot of my computer, someone else cropped it, and it was posted. She claimed I stole it from her, even though she's the one that sent me the invite to her webcam.
Jolena
07-01-2006, 08:54 PM
Ah I see. But, it was taken down because it fell under the policy of not putting up someone elses picture without their consent. The fact that it was sent to you on webcam doesn't matter as it was not intended for public sight, only yours.
Alfster
07-01-2006, 08:55 PM
Ah I see. But, it was taken down because it fell under the policy of not putting up someone elses picture without their consent. The fact that it was sent to you on webcam doesn't matter as it was not intended for public sight, only yours.
Well, not exactly. It's my understanding that it was in policy, but they took it down because she cries a lot.
Bobmuhthol
07-01-2006, 08:56 PM
<<I took a screenshot of my computer, someone else cropped it, and it was posted. She claimed I stole it from her, even though she's the one that sent me the invite to her webcam.>>
That's the same as taking a camera to someone's house, taking a picture of them, and putting it on the internet.
HarmNone
07-01-2006, 08:56 PM
That's a perfect example of what I was talking about earlier. Although Leetah invited Alf to view her webcam, she didn't invite the entire internet, nor everyone on these boards to view her webcam. Therefore, when the picture was posted she had the right to ask that it be removed. There was some problem, at first, understanding what had actually happened since Leetah's explanations were unclear. Once Leetah explained it clearly to Kranar, the picture was removed from the boards.
Jolena
07-01-2006, 08:57 PM
....Okay. Well then, I give up on trying to understand then. I don't post other people's pictures anyhow, except my children and even then not for a while. It won't affect me.
HarmNone
07-01-2006, 08:58 PM
Well, not exactly. It's my understanding that it was in policy, but they took it down because she cries a lot.
Nope. It was not in policy. It could have stayed if Leetah, herself, had not objected. However, she did. That put it in the position of being an invasion of her privacy and subject to removal. There are some people who would not have objected to it being here. In that case, it could have stayed.
Alfster
07-01-2006, 08:59 PM
All this drama over someone not wanting people to know who they're dating.
Sad.
Images the person makes readily accessible, such as through photbucket, myspace ... etc, are pretty much fair game. An image passed through an IM or e-mail, and then later passed along from the recipient to the world at large is not fair game.
While one would expect that people in general would not be so careless about who they send images to, unless they themselves give the go ahead to make the image public, we should endeavor to acknowledge a wish of privacy. Even to sick fucks such as Klaive.
I agree with you on everything but the photobucket/myspace/other-site issue when it comes to posting things here.
Ultimately, what I am getting at which was discussed in the other thread is privacy of the individual. Posting a remark about someone’s private life whether its typed out, logged, or presented in some form of type which we all know can be doctored easily gets posts pulled as it is now without anyone being able to verify if its real or not. Doesn’t it make sense to extend that rule along to images not originally posted here (and can be doctored) without the subject’s consent warrant the same kind of treatment if not worse?
edited for clarity
HarmNone
07-01-2006, 09:03 PM
All this drama over someone not wanting people to know who they're dating.
Sad.
That's an assumption as to reason, Alf. We can't know why someone might feel a post, or picture, to be offensive and/or insulting to them. Anything we come up with that isn't confirmed by the person in question is mere conjecture.
Bobmuhthol
07-01-2006, 09:04 PM
This is just another branch of the internet. If someone hosts a picture of themself on myspace it's a fuck of a lot more accessible and viewed than if they do it on this forum. Really, you have to be a complete moron to put a picture on myspace that you're going to regret later -- the image never gets deleted, whether or not you delete it from your profile. The owners of myspace (News Corp.) own any picture put on the site forever.
In conclusion, if you put something somewhere else on the internet, anyone is allowed to pull it and post it elsewhere (here).
HarmNone
07-01-2006, 09:08 PM
Agreed, Bob. As long as the picture isn't "doctored", if it's posted on the internet where anyone who wishes can see it, we won't remove it unless there is some kind of extenuating circumstance...such as, the person depicted did not post the picture themselves or asked, and was granted, the right to have the picture removed from the other site. Once it's no longer available for public view, it can't be made available here, either.
Tsa`ah
07-01-2006, 09:15 PM
I agree with you on everything but the photobucket/myspace/other-site issue when it comes to posting things here.
Ultimately, what I am getting at which was discussed in the other thread is privacy of the individual. Posting a remark about someone’s private life whether its typed out, logged, or presented in some form of type which we all know can be doctored easily gets posts pulled as it is now without anyone being able to verify if its real or not. Doesn’t it make sense to extend that rule along to images not originally posted here (and can be doctored) without the subject’s consent warrant the same kind of treatment if not worse?
I understand what you're saying, but when someone uploads an image of themselves to any public medium on the internet, they have essentially given up any privacy that particular image held while on their HD.
If we were to limit that sort of thing to direct uploading to this forum, it would probably have to extend to everything else, such as links to articles, blogs, etc.
If people don't want images of themselves posted elsewhere, they should password access to such images.
Suppa Hobbit Mage
07-01-2006, 09:21 PM
Wait, Alfster is dating Leahtakin (sp)? And posted her titties? And I missed it all?
I see the damage as being done immediately because the subject will never be able to say “remove every likeness of myself immediately as they are posted” up front. Subjects will have to be notified by some other member or moderator which means the damage is already done.
All I would suggest is that pics of other people are treated like personal remarks about other people, which aren’t even nearly as verifiable as an actual photo, and are removed as soon as a moderator sees it.
Just a suggestion. Like I posted before, whether this happens or not, litigation can ensue between any parties involved.
Sean of the Thread
07-01-2006, 09:23 PM
They give up privacy of that image the moment they GIVE/send it to anyone imo...a good analogy would be say Hilary Clinton sending the Times a picture of bill in the swing decked in leather and chains. It becomes the TIMES to do with as they please.
Sean of the Thread
07-01-2006, 09:25 PM
Wait, Alfster is dating Leahtakin (sp)? And posted her titties? And I missed it all?
Uhm no .. there is no possible way anyone could have missed that 6 month episode on the boards but since you did I really really don't feel like bringing you up to date.. such brutal memories.
I had a crack about your big ears ready to go for this post but I've since decided to tip toe around the board pussies out of respect for them.. I withdrew it.
Sean of the Thread
07-01-2006, 09:27 PM
I see the damage as being done immediately because the subject will never be able to say “remove every likeness of myself immediately as they are posted” up front. Subjects will have to be notified by some other member or moderator which means the damage is already done.
All I would suggest is that pics of other people are treated like personal remarks about other people, which aren’t even nearly as verifiable as an actual photo, and are removed as soon as a moderator sees it.
Just a suggestion. Like I posted before, whether this happens or not, litigation can ensue between any parties involved.
What has your panties in a bunch over this?
Daniel
07-01-2006, 09:28 PM
Putting a picture on the internet really negates privacy.
As an example to how ridiculously NOT private anything on the internet is, Koreans tried to send thousands of emails through my computer (a ton of them were to Yahoo.com and Yahoo.jp accounts under the name Amy_Lastname, which ranged Chan to every other Korean name in existence) over the course of a day. How did these Korean fucks find my computer? Simply because it's connected to the internet. If it can be accessed by 1 person, it can be accessed by any person freely. That simply can't be stopped.
Also, I've since changed my mail server to run on port 1337 instead of port 25.
Lol @ this post and the other one you made saying firewalls don't do shit.
What has your panties in a bunch over this?
Consistency on the privacy issue.
If a personal remark is made about someone on these boards the post is removed and the poster gets demerits as soon as a moderator sees it.
If a personal picture is posted of someone without their consent, and having not posted it here before, then I think the same rule should apply.
Thats it.
Suppa Hobbit Mage
07-01-2006, 09:50 PM
Man, no ones made fun of my ears since I was in 5th grade :( I'll go weep softly into a pillow now.
Hulkein
07-01-2006, 09:53 PM
<<I took a screenshot of my computer, someone else cropped it, and it was posted. She claimed I stole it from her, even though she's the one that sent me the invite to her webcam.>>
That's the same as taking a camera to someone's house, taking a picture of them, and putting it on the internet.
That's legal as long as you're on the sidewalk and not using any zoom devices that are more intrusive than the naked eye.
Ummm.....
http://www.forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=9856
To wit:
Unauthorized Pictures
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any member who posts a picture depicting another individual that has not been made publicly available by the individual depicted is in violation of forum policy and subject to a violation count increase of at least 5 and at most 20.
Ok, this is me beating a dead horse but I found this...
http://www.forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=673
By using the Players’ Corner, you agree not to:
(d) upload, post, hyperlink, or otherwise transmit Content that is invasive of one's privacy, libelous, obscene, personally threatening, tortuous, or ethnically, racially, or sexually objectionable.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
That right there takes care of what I’ve been talking about from the sound of it.
Alfster
07-01-2006, 10:12 PM
Wait, Alfster is dating Leahtakin (sp)? And posted her titties? And I missed it all?
rofl
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.