×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Court Rules It's Ok To Tag Pics On Facebook Without Permission

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the random-acts-of-tagging dept.

Facebook 201

neoflexycurrent writes "A federal court has ruled that photos of a woman on Facebook showing her drinking were properly used as evidence in a child custody case. She had argued she was identified without permission. But the court rejected that argument. In reaching that decision, the court made the interesting observation that: '[t]here is nothing within the law that requires [one's] permission when someone takes a picture and posts it on a Facebook page. There is nothing that requires [one's] permission when she [is] "tagged" or identified as a person in those pictures.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

201 comments

tagging is fine (3, Insightful)

devxo (1963088) | more than 3 years ago | (#35471980)

Why wouldn't tagging be within law? Tagging a photo is similar to someone asking "who is that person" and the photographer telling him. Sure, Facebook gets extra data, but then you should tell your friends not to tag you in photos.

Re:tagging is fine (3, Insightful)

andrea.sartori (1603543) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472034)

Tagging a photo is similar to someone asking "who is that person" and the photographer telling him.

Exactly. Besides, she used the wrong defence: she should have said she's wasn't drinking that much.

Re:tagging is fine (1)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472112)

Of course one should consider that (1) photographic evidence of her drinking is online, and (2) the best she could do was "no fair I didn't say tags were allowed" for a defense, so most likely she's a mental midget who shouldn't be trusted to raise children. Lots of people can give birth, very few of those should.

Re:tagging is fine (4, Insightful)

Moryath (553296) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472328)

The phrase you are looking for is "easy cases make bad law [google.com].

For those who are unclear: the WORST law, in terms of setting precedents to be relied on later, comes from cases in which a defendant is "obviously guilty of something" or just plain unsympathetic. The end result is a jury ruling on the emotional bounds of what they are presented, rather than on facts in the case, or in the appellate side, a bunch of judges making "fuck it we can see they are guilty why are you bothering us with this crap" rulings.

Ironically, the counterargument - hard cases make bad law [google.com] - is also valid. Hard cases require very case-specific rulings and legal hair-splitting in order to arrive at the verdict or appellate review result, but then inevitably someone comes along and tries to apply them to completely different situations as precedent.

Re:tagging is fine (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472962)

I don't quite see the connection between a court case being having broad or narrow implications and how sympathetic or unsympathetic the defendant is.

Take for example the Betamax case, we had a very sympathetic producer of VCRs compared to some of the companies that have tried hiding under that shield, like for example Napster, Grokster, Limewire etc.

DVD-Jon was also a very sympathetic case, they couldn't find any evidence he was involved in any form of piracy, he just wanted to watch his own discs. That case settled all cases of owning and using DeCSS in Norway, at least until they passed the EUCD.

Getting an unsympathetic case doesn't have to be all bad either, if the court is forced to take action. Take for example the Thomas-Rasset case, one of the judges felt he had to step in and lower the verdict from 2 million dollars to 50,000 dollars. It went to a third trial with a 1.5 million dollar ruling so the matter is still ongoing, but if the US Supreme Court agrees with that judge they can't threaten you with 150,000$/song anymore. They'd have to say up to 2,250$/song, which is an awful lot less.

Narrow cases aren't good, but you can't avoid them. There'll always be cases where things brush up against each other, like between free speech and yelling fire in a crowded theater. Or exactly where the borders of "negligent" or "premediated" goes, or what degree of violence something qualifies for, ambiguous phrases in complex contacts and so on. Once you pick any subject there will always be a bunch of relevant case law or precedents, no matter what legal system you're in.

Re:tagging is fine (1)

Rob the Bold (788862) | more than 3 years ago | (#35473260)

Of course one should consider that . . . the best she could do was "no fair I didn't say tags were allowed" for a defense, so most likely she's a mental midget who shouldn't be trusted to raise children.

Unless she's representing herself, wouldn't this be more her lawyer's fault?

Re:tagging is fine (5, Informative)

realityimpaired (1668397) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472046)

Well, see, in countries where there's decent privacy laws, it's illegal to take a picture of somebody where that person is the subject of the photo, and then to publish that photo without their permission. You can still be in the background of a picture, as "noise" as it were, but if you're the actual *subject* of the picture, then they need permission to publish. (so those tourist photos you took of the Eiffel tower are fine: those people wandering around in the square below it are not the subject of the picture)

Such laws usually have to do with newspapers and magazines, but they could be extended to apply to people posting pictures of their friends on the 'net, but I don't think that kind of use was really in the minds of the lawmakers when they drafted this kind of law.

Re:tagging is fine (1)

andrea.sartori (1603543) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472138)

Such laws usually have to do with newspapers and magazines, but they could be extended to apply to people posting pictures of their friends on the 'net

Not wrong in principle, but impossible to enforce.

Re:tagging is fine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35472256)

I wonder if you could make the case that facebook is, in fact, commercially exploiting the pictures/tagging. In that case, all that should be needed to have the the picture removed would be to tell Facebook to do so (if the person posting the picture doesn't remove it).

But I'm not sure who/what/where;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights [wikipedia.org]

Re:tagging is fine (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472206)

and that is why it is better to live in a country with actual freedom of speech instead of "freedom of speech except when we don't like it"

in the US those same rules apply when using a photo for commercial endorsement, but freedom of speech and of the press remains protected.

Re:tagging is fine (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472684)

Oh, please, in the US copyright is used all the time to prevent unwanted speech all the time. Even Slashdot itself suffered from such censorship.

Re:tagging is fine (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 3 years ago | (#35473342)

Oh, please, in the US copyright is used all the time to prevent unwanted speech all the time.

When you speak/write/compose/etc, you own the copyrights to your words. Unless of course you're just regurgitating what someone else said, and not meeting the actual legal standards of fair use in order to be safe from infringment claims. Or, of course, unless you're writing/speaking as part of a job/contract in which you've agreed that the copyrights on what you're communicating are owned by the person who's paying you. But in general, "unwanted" speech can't be controlled by some third party copyright holder unless you're infringing as you publish whatever it is you're communicating. You may also be confusing - as so many do - libel law, patent law, and trademark issues with copyrights.

Re:tagging is fine (2)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472776)

Well, see, in countries where there's decent privacy laws, it's illegal to take a picture of somebody where that person is the subject of the photo, and then to publish that photo without their permission.

Bullshit. Newspapers do it all the time, and so do the police. Do you think they get permission from suspects every time the put up wanted posters?

Re:tagging is fine (3)

hashp (68887) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472204)

Or Facebook should give you the option to stop being tagged. But that wouldn't be in their interest I guess. A lot of people tag irrelevant photos with all their friends name, just to get their attention. I have fought with my friends trying to tell them not to do that, some people just don't get it.

Re:tagging is fine (2)

DavidD_CA (750156) | more than 3 years ago | (#35473294)

It does. One of the privacy settings controls who is allowed to tag you. Options include only yourself, friends, or specific groups of people you've created.

second post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35472006)

And watch the courts do a 180 when the specter of stalking comes to town.

Can't have it both ways.

Re:second post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35472082)

Yes you can, it's called intent.

Re:second post (1)

Moryath (553296) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472214)

Bullshit.

Someone with the "intent" to cause trouble in a custody case might have their ex followed, or try to get access to facebook info, or any other social media info.

Some stalking that person would do the precise same thing.

Re:second post (1)

similar_name (1164087) | more than 3 years ago | (#35473196)

In both of those cases the intent could be deemed criminal. Someone finding an old friend or family member would have a more benign intent and thus lawful action. The difference between manslaughter and homicide is intent. Intent plays a large role in our laws.

what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35472012)

Since when is it wrong for people over 21 to drink alcohol? Drink alcohol - no kids. Drink alcohol - we won't hire you for a job. Do people realize that just because facebook only came about recently doesn't mean that responsible people haven't been drinking for much longer without problems?

Maybe give someone a hard time if there is a picture of them cutting someone's head off with a hacksaw on facebook, but drinking?

Re:what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35472050)

From TFA:

"This was not good because her psychologist had testified that alcohol would have an adverse effect on the medication she was taking for bipolar disorder"

Re:what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35472336)

Who's to say she was actually taking the medication while drinking. She could have stopped taking it months ago and no one would know.

Just because she had a prescription doesn't mean she was taking it. They would need to prove she was actually taking it while drinking for that argument to work.

I think it's more about her being a "bad" parent because she drank any alcohol at all, responsibly or not. The US is so weird. Almost everyone has sex, does drugs, and/or drinks alcohol but at the same time there is this puritanical background that can crucify anyone that actually does any of these things that everybody does. Such bizarre hypocrisy.

Re:what? (1)

dagamer34 (1012833) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472380)

a) It would be VERY irresponsible of her to stop taking that medication cold turkey. It doesn't get out of your system for days/weeks and in the short term would have had rebound effects. b) She would have been told very clearly not to drink while on any anti-depressant/anti-psychotic medication. She obviously broke that rule. Adds these two points together and you get someone with poor judgement and not able to take very good care of herself.

Re:what? (1)

Rob the Bold (788862) | more than 3 years ago | (#35473338)

a) It would be VERY irresponsible of her to stop taking that medication cold turkey. It doesn't get out of your system for days/weeks and in the short term would have had rebound effects. b) She would have been told very clearly not to drink while on any anti-depressant/anti-psychotic medication. She obviously broke that rule. Adds these two points together and you get someone with poor judgement and not able to take very good care of herself.

a) Who says if she stopped it was "cold turkey"? "Months ago" would only suggest "when", not "how".

b.1)Are you sure that one would be "told very clearly not to drink . . ." on the meds? Ya, the bottle might say that, but you see the "don't drink" on practically every Rx med these days, it can kinda look more like a CYA thing. Like the warning to wear eye-protection when using your new pliers.

b.2)Who says she's on an anti-depressant/anti-psychotic medication for Bipolar Disorder?

Re:what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35472494)

So a mentally-ill person taking no medication is in a better frame of mind to take care of a child than one that is abusing their medication?

Re:what? (2)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472844)

The government doesn't get involved with parents and children for taking medication or drinking. There had to have been some underlying cause for the entire drinking or medication to even be relevant in the first place.

In this case, it was a custody case in which one parent was saying I'm a better environment/person/provider/whatever then she is. This is the only reason why drinking or mental medication was even relevant.

All other things being equal, would someone not taking their prescription medication or boozing it up be a better or worse or equal environment for a child. You see, this is literally about the best and worst case arrangement for the kid(s) when compared between two distinct scenarios. The only reason why it's about drinking or medication is because someone is specifically saying it's not as good as over here.

Re:what? (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472078)

Exactly. And since when is it truly -wrong- (not illegal, but harming someone else) to drink even under 21 (a really, really silly rule)? Do people -really- believe that before Facebook that people -didn't- do these things?

Re:what? (1)

andrea.sartori (1603543) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472152)

No, it's just way easier to prove now that everybody publishes every detail of their sorry lives --or their friends' sorry lives-- on the web.

Re:what? (1)

Eevee (535658) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472280)

And since when is it truly -wrong- (not illegal, but harming someone else) to drink even under 21 (a really, really silly rule)?

When you are in a custody battle and are taking medication that is incompatible with alcohol. Which you would know is the issue if you read the fine article:

This was not good because her psychologist had testified that alcohol would have an adverse effect on the medication she was taking for bipolar disorder.

Re:what? (1)

evilgraham (1020325) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472608)

Ok, by and large psychologist != medically qualified (at least here in the UK) and certainly not a pharmacologist. So testimony is basically pulled out of their arse. Secondly, being bipolar myself (and YMMV), I would be inclined to the view that most of the available medication (apart from Lithium) actually makes things worse, not better. But that's a side issue. Yer basic problem here is a legal system where throwing mud is a legitimate tatic. How on earth anyone could extrapolate a photograph on FB (unless, as suggested above, of cutting off someones head with a chainsaw) into making a meaningful judgement as to the fitness of ability to be a good parent is a mystery to me. Horseshit of the highest order.

Re:what? (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472798)

When you are in a custody battle and are taking medication that is incompatible with alcohol.

Where do you get these cameras that can take aa photo and simultaneously analyze the contents of a glass?

Re:what? (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472350)

When you have bipolar disorder and are on medication which tends to react badly* with alcohol and are trying to have custody of the kids then yes drinking alcohol is going to look bad in court

* Where react badly is anything from reducing the effectiveness of the meds, to increasing the effectiveness of the alcohol, to resulting in hullicinations, self harm, and harm to others.

Re:what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35472786)

And if there were dietary restrictions with the medication, and she was shown in a photo eating something outside of what the Dr recommended, would that also be cause to remove custody?

Stupid question (2)

flyingkillerrobots (1865630) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472092)

I'm pretty sure Facebook's privacy settings even allow you to deny people the ability to tag you in posts. Problem solved. Idiot.

Re:Stupid question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35472140)

I'm pretty sure Facebook's privacy settings even allow you to deny people the ability to tag you in posts. Problem solved. Idiot.

No it doesn't!

Re:Stupid question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35472192)

FB does allow you to remove your tag from others' photos of you. This woman obviously didn't think it was a problem or she would have done it.

Re:Stupid question (1)

mr_lizard13 (882373) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472292)

Putting aside the woman's motivations and this specific case in general, the ability to remove the tag after the fact is of limited use. As soon as you're 'tagged' it shows up in mutual friend's 'news feeds' - you'd have to be pretty quick in removing the tag for no-one to notice.

Question from a Facebook newbie (3, Insightful)

PPH (736903) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472172)

Actually, a Facebook non-user. If someone on Facebook takes a photo with me in it and 'links' it to my account, what you say may be true. But if I don't have a Facebook account and I am simply identified as PPH, how do I stop someone from searching through others Facebook accounts (which may be unsecured) for instances of PPH?

Do I have to have a Facebook account to control this sort of third party tagging? Isn't that a form of blackmail?

Re:Question from a Facebook newbie (2)

stinerman (812158) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472210)

I don't believe there's a search mechanism for people who are tagged in pictures that don't link back to an account.

So If I had a picture of you and I posted it and tagged it as being "PPH", I don't believe there is a way to just search for pictures of "PPH" using the interface. There might be, but it would be non-obvious.

Re:Stupid question (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472178)

there are better options than that, you can block others from seeing when you are tagged, that way you can still see when people tag you

Re:Stupid question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35473366)

BIG PENIS GIGANTOS. How are you feeling? Your comment is insightful.

  PENIS FOREVER!!! !!! !!!

setting precedent? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35472096)

So it's legal to link to a person's identity, but not link to other material. I think the copyright case two below should try to use this as precedent.

Evidence is evidence (1)

redelm (54142) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472108)

Just why would any court want less evidence? The judge & jury need information to base their decision upon. The more, the better. There are rules about what evidence can be excluded, but those are for only very good reasons. Not just because one party doesn't like it.

In this case, tagging is like making a comment on a post. Free speech, subject to the limitations of libel. If she can show the tag is clearly wrong, then perhaps she can get it excluded as irrelevant. If not, tough. The jury will decide.

The fundamental thing is that people are responsible for all their actions -- on record all the time -- except in clear situations where there is an expectation of privacy. Not in any bar.

Re:Evidence is evidence (1)

jopsen (885607) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472628)

The fundamental thing is that people are responsible for all their actions -- on record all the time -- except in clear situations where there is an expectation of privacy. Not in any bar.

What ever you say, big brother...

Re:Evidence is evidence (1)

redelm (54142) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472840)

Alright, I'll bite Little Brother:

For which actions are people _NOT_ responsible? What acts in public deserve privacy? Crimes? Misdemenors? The real problem is prejudice, and I'd rather work on that.

This could have happened (and probably did) in the days of 35mm cameras, it is just more likely with cellphone cameras and networks.

Quantity != quality (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472850)

The judge & jury need information to base their decision upon. The more, the better.

Really? So ten lying witnesses are better than one truthful one?

Re:Quantity != quality (1)

Velodra (1443121) | more than 3 years ago | (#35473032)

The judge & jury need information to base their decision upon. The more, the better.

Really? So ten lying witnesses are better than one truthful one?

No, lying witnesses don't give you information.

Re:Evidence is evidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35473030)

Because allowing illegal evidence that has already been obtained in one instance encourages people to obtain evidence illegally in the future.

Re:Evidence is evidence (1)

517714 (762276) | more than 3 years ago | (#35473258)

Just why would any court want less evidence? The judge & jury need information to base their decision upon. The more, the better.

In general your statement is true, but the exceptions are important. Had the prosecution in the Nicole Simpson murder case restricted their case to the strongest evidence (motive, opportunity, the best of the blood evidence), O.J. Simpson would probably been convicted. When one "expert witness" claims the state's evidence is wrong, juries tend to take it with a grain of salt, but ten "expert witnesses" represent reasonable doubt.

Hard to reconcile (1)

Jessified (1150003) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472144)

Why would this ever be an issue? Why would you ever need to get permission to IDENTIFY a person in a picture?

As far as the supposed need to ask permission to take and publish the photos in the first place: the judge said there is nothing within the law to suggest permission is necessary. It will be hard to reconcile that with these "rights to be forgotten" or Google Street View etc. In those cases, the argument is that you can't simply take pictures of things/people in public places and publish them...

Re:Hard to reconcile (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472632)

I'm a photographer, and whenever I want to use a picture which prominently features somebody I have to have permission to show it. The sites I use require a model release form. And even if their in the background, I have to worry about whether or not the individuals are identifiable.

It's one thing to be taking pictures of somebody in public, but if you're disseminating those photos, particularly online, there does need to be some permission. Privacy expectations when a recording is done, definitely ought to have additional protections over ones that are just observational.

Re:Hard to reconcile (1)

Jessified (1150003) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472670)

What about CCTV? Privacy rights seem to have a lot more to do with who is doing the recording.

CCTV shots are shown online or on TV all the time. Pretty sure they don't check for permission.

Re:Hard to reconcile (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35472926)

Yes but courts have ruled that if you do something in public and are caught by a digital eye, ie. camera, video recording, etc., they are considered to have been done in a public setting where you were aware that other people may be watching and photos taken, that is why people can make money off videos taken at mardi gras and sell them, people were in public, and whenever you are in public, your image is property of the public

Re:Hard to reconcile (1)

swrider (854292) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472828)

If someone took my picture without my permission, or over my objection, is there something in the law that would prevent me from getting my picture back?

A few months ago I had to reiterate my objection to having my picture taken several times. I knew the photographer was planning on posting the pictures on Facebook and tagging the subjects and I did not want to be included. He finally understood.

Re:Hard to reconcile (2)

thegarbz (1787294) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472916)

If someone took my picture without my permission, or over my objection, is there something in the law that would prevent me from getting my picture back?

Absolutely nothing. If you're in a position that allows someone to take a picture of you then you automatically give up that right to privacy. You could be in your own yard but if the photographer is on the street a photo of you as well as posting it anywhere the photographer wants is entirely fair game.

What you do have the right to is not to be involved in a commercial way. I take a photo of you and put it up on my website and there's nothing you can do, I could sell it in an art gallery and there's nothing you can do, but if I write Pepsi on the bottom or sell it to a company to be used for advertising or other commercial purposes then the onus lies on the company using the photo to ensure they have your original signed model release form.

Re:Hard to reconcile (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35473008)

If someone took my picture without my permission, or over my objection, is there something in the law that would prevent me from getting my picture back?

You mean aside from the fact that "getting your picture back" is semantic nonsense? Once the data is captured, you will never know if copies exist.

Whether your picture can be "published" is a matter the law does address, though not without considerable ambiguity.

Re:Hard to reconcile (1)

wmbetts (1306001) | more than 3 years ago | (#35473056)

Because I purposely don't want my information entered into their database. If I did I would have an account and upload my own pictures. Someone else shouldn't be allowed to populate their database with my personal information.

Funny story... (2)

zerocool^ (112121) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472174)

Funny story...

Facebook is using their photo tagging system to build the world's best facial recognition software.

Oh wait, that's not funny.

Re:Funny story... (1)

hajus (990255) | more than 3 years ago | (#35473286)

This could have practical ramifications for long term computer facial recognition. If those tagged pictures became public or were sold to AI researchers working in the field, it could provide a nice large set of data to teach and test against. This is assuming passport and license pictures from gov't are off limits.

So no need for model release forms then? (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472202)

Since there's "nothing within the law" requiring their permission?

Re:So no need for model release forms then? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35472238)

That's completely different; when taking photographs of a model they are generally taken with the aim of using the images commercially - you essentially need permission to use somebodies image for commercial purposes.

Taking a photograph of anyone, even a model, in a public place is perfectly legal.

Re:So no need for model release forms then? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35472264)

Nope. See:

Thus, privacy issues typically arise when an image is used for purposes of trade or advertising. That is, it’s not the picture, but how it is used that determines the need for a release. For instance, an image that is printed in a newspaper, shown in an exhibition or reproduced in a book might well be immune from a privacy suit. But the commercial sale of coffee mugs or t-shirts with the same image would probably not enjoy such protection. An advertisement almost certainly would not be immune.

Cited from here. [asmp.org]

Re:So no need for model release forms then? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35473278)

In a public place it has been ruled quite often in the US that you have no expectation of privacy. Same reason google streetview didn't run into legal issues in the US, but did in, say, Germany. If you are doing a paid photo shoot at a studio, there is an expectation that those photos will be used in specific ways. Often that would be for advertising, which adds yet another layer to the whole thing, as even if you had a photo of someone in public that you could publish legally, you still can't claim that person endorses your product without their permission.

Photos don't prove much (1)

ribit (952003) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472212)

Couldn't she just say she was pretending to drink? (People read way too much into photos and Facebook posts as being factual. It can all be made up.)

The real sadness here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35472230)

... is that the mother, despite being mentally ill and abusing the terms of her medication is using every court technicality possible to try get the original (and on the face of ir totally correct) descision voided.

Compare this story to the one three down the list (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35472248)

Case 1: Court rules you can make any semantic link you want...

Case 2: ... unless it's to something that a corporation doesn't want you to see.

Fool is a fool. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35472274)

The fact that the photo was on Facebook should be irrelevant.

The women simply shouldn't have been in that picture if she didn't want that scene that she was involved in being used against her.

The picture could have been taken and then sent to the husband/ex/whatever you may.

He could have come across it through a mutual friend at a house, and asked to borrow it.

It doesn't matter.

Either don't be in the picture, or be smart enough to make sure the person you're letting take the picture doesn't do anything you don't want with it.

tl;dr: bitch got what she deserved

universe has no conscience, our fake 'math' fails (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35472296)

so, seems (pure & simple math of extrapolation of living organisms?) as though we were very likely designed to be a star eventually, but something far different is happening right now. fortunately, our plight was anticipated, & our rescue was planned, using accurate (perfect) math, perhaps millions of eons (big #) prior to evile's minions creating their first non-human (no conscience, aggressive etc...) mutants. so, it then turns again to numbers, & ,, oh hell, we're still being subjected to heathen alchemy (eugenics equals LESS life,, the worst bad fake 'math' ever, in all of creation) today, so that too. THIS HAPPENED BEFORE, DISARM THEM, so we can get back to becoming a star again, when it's time, a way long time. we'll have plenty of time then (remember?, it's 'speeding' up a little right now, because of real math/physics & a twist of life inspired creativity) to locate 'other' suitable digs. see you there. thanks. nobody's laughing/angry/ascared?

they have that certain glow about them (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35472556)

used to be (still is) said a lot about new/almost mommys, &/or their sacred (to ALL, take heed) trust(s). our only mandate, other than to stop trying to throw creation (#s) out of sync (isn't going to happen).

could try (only if needed); they have that certain well armed look about them? something like that? to keep the riffraff away?

Why would the tagging be relevant? (2)

srussia (884021) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472316)

Her face could have been tagged "Lady Gaga", but if the photo itself was admitted as evidence, the person would still be identified.

There are already Facebook settings for this (3, Informative)

Geam (30459) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472444)

Other than maybe not drinking if a psychologist says that alcohol has an adverse effect on the medication she takes and maybe asking the photographer not to take her picture while drinking, she could untag herself from unflattering pictures like these. There is already a setting to limit who can see tagged photos and also automation to have the system send an email and/or SMS when a photo is tagged. I frequently check the Privacy settings to make sure that I know how much information is being shared. I essentially have three groups: people I actually know (full access to what I share and access to see each other's posts on my wall), people I am 'Friends' with but do not have the heart to de-friend (basic information like photos I have shared and tagged myself, email address, status updates), and everyone else (name, default profile pic... and nothing else).

To limit who can see tagged photos:
Account > Privacy > Customize > Photos and videos I'm tagged in > Edit Settings > Who can see photos and videos I'm tagged in > Custom > Create a group of people you actually know or set it to 'Only Me'.

To receive alerts about being tagged:
Account > Account Settings > Notifications > Photos > 'Tags you in a photo'

true in public, not in private (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472448)

as soon as you step out your front door, you are in public, and anyone can take a picture of you, without any need for permission

in your private abode, or someone else's privater abode, the opposite is true

Re:true in public, not in private (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35472620)

as soon as you step out your front door, you are in public, and anyone can take a picture of you, without any need for permission

in your private abode, or someone else's privater abode, the opposite is true

This is not true for every place in the world. In Quebec, for example, Quebec Human Rights Code grants all humans the right to their private life. This allows each each person in Quebec control over the use of their image. And in the rest of Canada a signed model release is required for all identifiable subjects. Every place is different.

then quebec is retarded (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472838)

i've been to montreal, i've taken pictures there where people wandered into the shot. have i violated their rights? no

you can make a law about anything you want. that automatically doesn't make the law common sense or something you must respect. clearly this quebec law is irrational and deserves to be overturned

you really support the notion that just taking a picture in public means you can't publish it without contacting every person who wanders in the shot? clearly, no. so the only common sense idea is that IF you go in public, images of you in that public area are open and free for all. to say you get to go out IN PUBLIC and still control your image there, is delusionally wrong

She Should sic the dhs on the tagger. (1)

jsh1972 (1095519) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472452)

I love how the government is so eager to protect corporate "persons" but REAL people, who experience real consequences from someone basically doing the same thing, linking to them online, well, suddenly it's ok.

This is a good reminder (1)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472510)

It's a great thing I have no friends: they can't tag me in any photos if anyone even happened to take a photo of me in the first place!

No friends == better privacy obviously!

No Friends == Better Privacy (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 3 years ago | (#35473252)

Also: Less chance of being involved in a child custody case in the first place.

Do not post photos (1)

p51d007 (656414) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472540)

Once again...it proves that you should say this little phrase before posting any photo online. Would your mother approve? If the answer is no, then don't do it.

Re:Do not post photos (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35472668)

What if someone else posted the photo and tagged it - should people go and cry to their mothers?

Basically do people need to leave their basements in such a case? I'm asking for a friend.

Re:Do not post photos (1)

frozentier (1542099) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472686)

This isn't about someone getting drunk and posting a picture of herself. This is about going to a party, a friend takes a picture of you, and they put that picture on THEIR page. You don't even have to own a camera or have a facebook page at all for that to happen (although the woman in the article does have a fb page). I think this is more about your friends violating your privacy than fb violating it. There could be no tags even involved, all the friend would have to do is comment under the picture "Here's Sally getting all f'ed up, but I don't know where her kid is".

Re:Do not post photos (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | more than 3 years ago | (#35473022)

Once again...it proves that you should say this little phrase before posting any photo online.
Would your mother approve? If the answer is no, then don't do it.

Actually, the correct statement before doing something in public, would be to ask yourself if your mother would approve? If the answer is no, then don't do it. The heck with just posting it online, if it is something that you would be embarrassed to have posted or there would be negative consequences if posted, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place. In the case of this story, is the problem that her picture was taken, posted and then tagged or is the problem that she was out drinking instead of caring for the child?

When filming you blur out faces (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35472562)

When filming something to be shown to the public, don't you have to blur out faces of people that didn't give their explicit consent? Why is this case different?

woo hoo!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35472572)

If I am to understand the legal door that was just opened, this new ruling sets a precedent that means I could shoot a film now and no longer have to ask anyones permission to use their likeness, right?

unless it's libel, of course (1)

markhahn (122033) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472660)

tagging a picture is two separate acts: publishing the picture and publishing a statement (the tag). if I have published a legal picture of someone, I can tag it with anything non-libelous. not really anything new here, is there?

This is great juxtaposed w/ a previous article (1)

dmomo (256005) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472674)

A few posts back "man arrested for linking to online videos."

Victory for photographers (1)

metageek (466836) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472742)

This is one more confirmation that it is legal to photograph anyone without their permission in public places. No need for model releases. A victory for photographers that are regularly harassed by policemen around the world...

Re:Victory for photographers (1)

SquirrelDeth (1972694) | more than 3 years ago | (#35473168)

Actually would this not set a precedent that it is legal to photograph anyone without their permission in private places? Meaning I should be able to walk into the police station and photograph whatever/whoever I want and then post the pictures on the internet identifying officers?

Wrong defense. (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | more than 3 years ago | (#35472972)

They used the wrong defense. They should have argued that the original poster of the picture had no permission to use their picture for personal gain in the first place. Is it okay for me to scan in this month's Playboy and post the pictures as long as I tag them with the playmate's name?

Re:Wrong defense. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35473220)

Didn't the original poster of the picture hold the copyright to it?

tag this (1)

milkmage (795746) | more than 3 years ago | (#35473160)

how hard would it be for FB to seek the "tag-ee's" permission to use the tag? click here to approve your tag on this photo. click here to deny.. even better a setting that says - NO CAN TAG

instead they just send a note that says "you've been tagged"

fuck. that. shit.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...