Europe votes on anti-piracy laws - Page 8

delphidb96 · 07-12-2008, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I take a different view because I see it as an invasion of privacy (and just plain rude!).

I'm sorry... WHAT DID YOU SAY?!? "Invasion of *PRIVACY*"??? How!?!

Is not the house visible to all and sundry who pass by? By your logic each and every person who glimpses it in passing is "invading your privacy". What pure BUNKUM! Now if "Joe" trespassed onto the property to take the picture or entered the house, or snapped personal images of the owners through the windows - *THAT* could be called invasion of privacy. But not taking an image while on public property.

Derek

delphidb96 · 07-12-2008, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slayda

But Joe just made a copy, albeit in a different medium, of my IP. So based on your (aptly legal opinion) I should therefore logically be able to make a copy of a pbook in an electronic medium and even sell it for profit as Joe sold his picture. (Of course I admit that logic and legality don't necessarily have any thing in common and legality often defies logic.)

Bull-patties!!! Joe made an artistic expression of his experience (and state of mind) by taking/making the image. It in no way copies the house. Thus, you're wrong. And, in the case of a book, it's not wrong for Joe to take pictures of the pages of a book.

What he *cannot* do, is sell the complete set of those pictures as a set. He *could* however, sell photos of one or two pages if they are used to express his contempt or ecstacy over what's contained in those several pages.

Derek

Sparrow · 07-13-2008, 03:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by delphidb96

I'm sorry... WHAT DID YOU SAY?!? "Invasion of *PRIVACY*"??? How!?!
Is not the house visible to all and sundry who pass by? By your logic each and every person who glimpses it in passing is "invading your privacy". What pure BUNKUM!

Not so imho, imagine you're sunbathing on the beach. Someone walks past, they happen to catch a gimpse of you. Someone else walks past, stops and starts taking snapshots.

I wouldn't object to the former, but I would find the activities of the latter an invasion of my privacy. But your logic sees no distinction.

To me, the intentions of the photographer and the casual passer-by are clearly different. One is making a permanent record for uncontrolled distribution, and the other isn't - a significant difference in my opinion; ymmv.

Steven Lyle Jordan · 07-13-2008, 10:24 AM

(Opens door. Sticks head back in. Shakes same.)

"Ah, the predictable next level of these discussions: The dreaded 'hypothetical example' that has little to do with the topic, but provides pages of pointless bickering over semantics, abstracts, and more hypotheticals, and never solving a thing. Feet: Do your duty!"

(Slam!)

"Ow!" (Door hit where dog should have bit, on way out.)

nekokami · 07-13-2008, 11:13 AM

I'm not sure you can publish a picture of a private residence without obtaining a release from the owner. (I wouldn't try it.) And I could see that varying from one jurisdiction to another.

Regarding the legal situation wrt HarryT's avatar, that wasn't settled (even though HarryT and the copyright holders of the character, model, and photograph respectively were all in the same legal jurisdiction). We didn't even get consensus on the moral question. The closest we came was agreeing that the copyright holder of the Dalek image was unlikely to come after HarryT for the usage.

delphidb96 · 07-13-2008, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Not so imho, imagine you're sunbathing on the beach. Someone walks past, they happen to catch a gimpse of you. Someone else walks past, stops and starts taking snapshots.

I wouldn't object to the former, but I would find the activities of the latter an invasion of my privacy. But your logic sees no distinction.

To me, the intentions of the photographer and the casual passer-by are clearly different. One is making a permanent record for uncontrolled distribution, and the other isn't - a significant difference in my opinion; ymmv.

Nope. If you don't want to be photographed whilst sunbathing at the beach - don't go to the beach. IOW, if you're in a public place, do NOT expect to have the right to privacy of your image.

Now this doesn't mean the person taking the photograph can use your image to *sell* something, but they sure the heck can use it to illustrate an article.

If you can't handle that, don't step outside your home.

Derek

delphidb96 · 07-13-2008, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nekokami

I'm not sure you can publish a picture of a private residence without obtaining a release from the owner. (I wouldn't try it.) And I could see that varying from one jurisdiction to another.

Regarding the legal situation wrt HarryT's avatar, that wasn't settled (even though HarryT and the copyright holders of the character, model, and photograph respectively were all in the same legal jurisdiction). We didn't even get consensus on the moral question. The closest we came was agreeing that the copyright holder of the Dalek image was unlikely to come after HarryT for the usage.

If you can make the image without trespassing on the homeowner's property, you have the right to take the image - and use it for "editorial" or "artistic" purposes. Using it for "advertising" purposes requires the homeowner's permission.

Derek

nekokami · 07-13-2008, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by delphidb96

If you can make the image without trespassing on the homeowner's property, you have the right to take the image - and use it for "editorial" or "artistic" purposes. Using it for "advertising" purposes requires the homeowner's permission.

Ok, but does this vary based on jurisdiction?

pilotbob · 07-13-2008, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Not so imho, imagine you're sunbathing on the beach. Someone walks past, they happen to catch a gimpse of you. Someone else walks past, stops and starts taking snapshots.

I wouldn't object to the former, but I would find the activities of the latter an invasion of my privacy. But your logic sees no distinction.

I disagree with your logic. If you are sunbathing on a beach you have given up the right to privacy as far as seeing you sunbathing on a beach.

You have a reasonable right to privacy in this case. Now, if someone came by and pants you then took a picture, I think you would have a case against them.

BOb

nekokami · 07-13-2008, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pilotbob

You have a reasonable right to privacy in this case. Now, if someone came by and pants you then took a picture, I think you would have a case against them.

"pants"? "paints"? (Not sure why it would matter if someone were painting you, I was just confused....)

It might be different if the subject of the photo is a minor child. We are always careful to get releases if we take photos of the kids at the Chinese School I'm involved with.

pilotbob · 07-13-2008, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nekokami

"pants"? "paints"? (Not sure why it would matter if someone were painting you, I was just confused....)

Ok, "pants" comes from school days. It where someone would grab the waist of your pants and quickly yank them down to your ankles.

BOb

delphidb96 · 07-13-2008, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nekokami

Ok, but does this vary based on jurisdiction?

Of course it does. In Saddam Hussein's Baghdad, it was a given that the photographer had "rights" - as long as the photog was doing Saddam's bidding. In post-SH Baghdad, the photog is dead meat unless surrounded by Coalition forces.

Derek

slayda · 07-13-2008, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by delphidb96

Nope. If you don't want to be photographed whilst sunbathing at the beach - don't go to the beach. IOW, if you're in a public place, do NOT expect to have the right to privacy of your image.

Now this doesn't mean the person taking the photograph can use your image to *sell* something, but they sure the heck can use it to illustrate an article.

If you can't handle that, don't step outside your home.

Derek

So following this logic, if a book is in a public place, e.g. a public library, no privacy by the author should be expected and I could take all the pictures I wanted & sell them as I wanted because they (the pictures) would be an expression of my artistic talents.

delphidb96 · 07-13-2008, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slayda

So following this logic, if a book is in a public place, e.g. a public library, no privacy by the author should be expected and I could take all the pictures I wanted & sell them as I wanted because they (the pictures) would be an expression of my artistic talents.

Sure. As individual pictures in an artistic or editorial context. But *NOT* as a book. (No, just taking a photo of each page and then "creating" a photo-essay book that is nothing more than the original book does *NOT* qualify.)

Derek

Sparrow · 07-13-2008, 03:04 PM

I think we're muddling up the legal situation and the moral situation

.

Something may be ok legally; but not ok morally - that depends on your own code of ethics.
Each individual will have their own view - all equally valid (imho).
If an act is immoral to someone, then it is immoral to them - it's acceptability to others is irrelevant.
But, 'immoral acts' are not necessarily worth getting worked up about, most of us do 'immoral' things on a regular basis

.

View Poll Results: What do you think of this/these proposal(s)?
Excellent proposition	2	4.76%
Completely insane	30	71.43%
Somewhere inbetween	5	11.90%
Spartacus! (comedy option)	5	11.90%
Voters: 42. You may not vote on this poll

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Anti-Piracy group wants to ban you from talking about piracy	Nate the great	News	39	06-06-2012 05:20 AM
Unutterably Silly Collect more 'no' than 'yes' votes	ProDigit	Lounge	52	05-02-2009 02:13 PM
Sarkozy's "Three Strikes" anti-piracy proposition struck down by European Ministers	zelda_pinwheel	News	3	11-23-2008 07:46 PM
A question:Is it true that USA copyright laws forbid to download the laws to your PC?	godel10	News	2	09-04-2008 03:21 PM
UK to consider anti file-sharing laws	HarryT	News	2	10-29-2007 10:10 AM

07-13-2008, 10:24 AM	#109
Steven Lyle Jordan Grand Sorcerer Posts: 8,478 Karma: 5171130 Join Date: Jan 2006 Device: none	(Opens door. Sticks head back in. Shakes same.) "Ah, the predictable next level of these discussions: The dreaded 'hypothetical example' that has little to do with the topic, but provides pages of pointless bickering over semantics, abstracts, and more hypotheticals, and never solving a thing. Feet: Do your duty!" (Slam!) "Ow!" (Door hit where dog should have bit, on way out.)

07-13-2008, 11:13 AM	#110
nekokami fruminous edugeek Posts: 6,745 Karma: 551260 Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Northeast US Device: iPad, eBw 1150	I'm not sure you can publish a picture of a private residence without obtaining a release from the owner. (I wouldn't try it.) And I could see that varying from one jurisdiction to another. Regarding the legal situation wrt HarryT's avatar, that wasn't settled (even though HarryT and the copyright holders of the character, model, and photograph respectively were all in the same legal jurisdiction). We didn't even get consensus on the moral question. The closest we came was agreeing that the copyright holder of the Dalek image was unlikely to come after HarryT for the usage.

07-13-2008, 03:04 PM	#120
Sparrow Wizard Posts: 4,395 Karma: 1358132 Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: UK Device: Palm TX, CyBook Gen3	I think we're muddling up the legal situation and the moral situation . Something may be ok legally; but not ok morally - that depends on your own code of ethics. Each individual will have their own view - all equally valid (imho). If an act is immoral to someone, then it is immoral to them - it's acceptability to others is irrelevant. But, 'immoral acts' are not necessarily worth getting worked up about, most of us do 'immoral' things on a regular basis .

Advert

Advert