|
On October 21 2012 09:23 Matoo- wrote:
This gif was obviously made from a TV broadcasting. So what is your suggestion? Prevent TV stations from doing crowd shots? Make everyone entering a stadium sign a consent form? Or just allow it on TV but not on the internet?
that's actually how it works, when you give your consent to a reporter to use a picture of you in the local newspaper because you just won a charity marathon, the media is defined in the act of consent
if someone publish the same picture on TV or internet without making you sign the proper act of consent then it's illegal
that's how it works in most of the world i believe
the fact that the internet believe image rights, copy rights and more... don't exist is irrelevant
On October 17 2012 02:24 Battleaxe wrote:
I think TL should institute an anti-reddit policy for anything non SC2 or DOTA2, this shit is just getting stupid.
reddit (well...stupid people on reddit) is the reason our sponsors get mailed with bullshit
reddit (and stupid people) shouldn't have the right to talk about anything slightly related to sc2 or esport
|
internet is full of creeps, but meh, watcha gonna do about it. It's not like they can ban all the IPs and close all those websites
|
On October 21 2012 13:16 DOUDOU wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 09:23 Matoo- wrote:
This gif was obviously made from a TV broadcasting. So what is your suggestion? Prevent TV stations from doing crowd shots? Make everyone entering a stadium sign a consent form? Or just allow it on TV but not on the internet? that's actually how it works, when you give your consent to a reporter to use a picture of you in the local newspaper because you just won a charity marathon, the media is defined in the act of consent if someone publish the same picture on TV or internet without making you sign the proper act of consent then it's illegal that's how it works in most of the world i believe
This isn't true at all. That girl is unlikely to have signed a release, and the collection of people behind her in the crowd certainly have not. If reporters and photographers had to collect media releases from every person in a crowd shot at a stadium, nothing would ever get published.
It varies a little by country (so I'm about to make some blanket statements that may not be true in specific places), but a release is usually only required if the image is used for promotional purposes.
The most obvious promotional purpose is advertising - eg. your face on a billboard - but can also include less obvious things like being on the cover of a magazine or newspaper, since that's what people see when they consider buying it. In these cases, the subject will often be paid prior to or as part of signing the release. Note that this does not apply to a random photo on page 22.
In a lot of Western countries, people do not have the right not to be photographed. Simply having a photo of you published somewhere doesn't constitute an offense or require your consent, unless it's promotional or indecent, defamatory or otherwise a gross violation of privacy. Those metrics tend to be deployed on a case-by-case basis.
For creepshots, the images are indecent violations of privacy, so they do fail, but taking a person's photo without consent and posting it on the internet is not, in itself, an illegal act
|
i was just refering to the "just allow it on TV but not on the internet?"
|
United States17920 Posts
If you are video taped in a public place your image can be used on any news broadcast or any rebroadcast of it. That is covered by the first amendment.
If you are filmed by a cameraman as part of a show that will be sold for profit and aired they must obtain a signed release.
Furthermore, most football stadiums are not public spaces. The people in that crowd purchased tickets to watch the game and waived consent to be filmed.
|
I don't get it, cant people just report Reddit, and its users to the government and throw them in jail, it's that bloody simple, just imagine if one of you guys daughter or wife were on Reddit, please just think about that for a second
|
United States17920 Posts
Believe it or not, no, we can't arrest people that aren't committing crimes. Or arrest people retroactively with new laws for old crimes. Read more here
You'll notice that the pictures of children or anything that looks like it was taken through a bedroom window was in fact reported to the police.
|
lol still can't believe the President did an AMA on that terrible, perv-filled site.
|
Lot of thin skin on this website. This shit is always going to happen stop trying to whitenight it. The more attention you give it the bigger it gets.
|
I thought we had laws for internet bullies like this?
|
People looking at other people! Terrible! I demand death sentence.
|
yeah morons pollute the internet with their garbage... doesn't sound like new stuff to me 
|
United States17920 Posts
On October 17 2012 01:57 floor exercise wrote:It's kind of typical reddit logic to violate people's privacy in a far greater way to show how they are against the violation of people's privacy. I never saw the subreddit but it doesn't sound much different than laughing at the fat people at Walmart that people sneak pictures of, or the crazy people caught on youtube or WSHH. None of those people gave permission. This stance on privacy while in public seems to be entirely derived from white knighting. I found this gif on the front page of Reddit, is this not an egregious violation of this girl's public privacy? Did she sign a consent form to be filmed? + Show Spoiler +
Hey buddy I found a new gif from the game yesterday that you can use for your awesome argument
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YMrPy.gif)
Let's all save these poor victims of online predation. If only they knew people were watching 
To people I'm not directly making fun of: I don't mean the people who were posted on creepshots I mean these two gifs, chill.
|
On October 21 2012 14:22 broz0rs wrote:
lol still can't believe the President did an AMA on that terrible, perv-filled site.
Yeah cause one board really represents all of the users right .. making comments like these makes you more an idiot than those "pervs"
|
United States43362 Posts
On October 21 2012 14:22 broz0rs wrote:
lol still can't believe the President did an AMA on that terrible, perv-filled site.
He did it on that perv infested internet, it's full of porn.
|
On October 21 2012 20:47 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 14:22 broz0rs wrote:
lol still can't believe the President did an AMA on that terrible, perv-filled site. He did it on that perv infested internet, it's full of porn.
He did it on a perv-filled planet. It's full of murderers, rapists, thieves, pedophiles, catholic priests, idiots and assholes.
|
On October 12 2012 06:33 Chill wrote:
The internet is getting really scary and creepy.
That's because freedom of speech, expression and so on were originally meant for adult, intelligent people. Now that mindless masses, teenagers and all sorts of people - who shouldn't have - have gained acces to it it's starting to spin out of control.
|
SRS strikes again!
And there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth among the Redditors... but then they went back to their porno sites with stolen usernames and passwords off Pastebin.
|
On October 21 2012 20:05 3772 wrote:
People looking at other people! Terrible! I demand death sentence.
Shit is this supposed to mean. The women didn't give consent to have their photos taken and put on a website for others to view for a strictly perverse reason. Are you honestly suggesting you don't have problems with shit like this? Again the exactly same treatment was given back, people posting info about these creeps and then suddenly they are up in arms over it. God damn hypocrites.
|
On October 22 2012 05:56 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 06:33 Chill wrote:
The internet is getting really scary and creepy. That's because freedom of speech, expression and so on were originally meant for adult, intelligent people. Now that mindless masses, teenagers and all sorts of people - who shouldn't have - have gained acces to it it's starting to spin out of control.
I see no way in which arbitrarily defining who is 'meant' to have freedom of speech could be a problem.
On October 22 2012 06:20 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 20:05 3772 wrote:
People looking at other people! Terrible! I demand death sentence. Shit is this supposed to mean. The women didn't give consent to have their photos taken and put on a website for others to view for a strictly perverse reason. Are you honestly suggesting you don't have problems with shit like this? Again the exactly same treatment was given back, people posting info about these creeps and then suddenly they are up in arms over it. God damn hypocrites.
Pictures are personal information aren't even remotely the same thing - the latter can lead to actual harm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/X7BWb.gif)
