Pictures are a subcategory of information generally. It would be really awkward not to be able to talk about your friends (online or otherwise) without their explicit permission. And what about strangers? Criticism and news of all kinds would violate such a more, and I don't see how that could be a good thing. You can imagine a world in which people demand that the Wikipedia page about them being taken down, and simple politeness militates that it is.
I suppose you could make a special case for photos, but I don't really see anything that specifically commends it relative to other information about you.
It would be really awkward not to be able to talk about your friends (online or otherwise) without their explicit permission.
Would this concept of ownership of information be particularly stronger than our existing concept of ownership of creative works? If I tell a friend a story then I and he consider myself to be the "owner" of that story, but I certainly don't tend to mind if he retells the story as his own in a noncommercial context, so long as I am not present. However if he gets my story published, then I am going to be rather upset.
If a friend wants to talk about me with other people at a bar, that is fine I guess. If he writes a book about me, I would absolutely consider that a considerable breach of trust. I have no problem with being on the receiving end of this notion of privacy.
While the bar is a noncommercial setting to tell stories, it's hardly a private one. The analogy seems to suggest that the distinguishing feature that triggers the more is on one side commercialism and on the other side publicness, but then it doesn't quite keep it consistent. So I guess I don't quite get it: why, under this reasoning, is it OK for him to tell the story about you at the bar?
Not at the moment of the conversation, but there's nothing stopping one of the people there from blogging about it once they get home (think Silicon Valley "overheard" product leaks).
The fact that a piece of information passes through a volatile medium before ending up in a more permanent form doesn't change the value or ownership of the information.
On a tangent, Google Glass passive audio and video recordings will be much more damaging to one's privacy than photos shared intentionally by friends.
Unless you have a model relase, its not clear you should be publishing the likenesses of others. Facebook is using these images for commercial purposes, period. While this is a devil's argument case, its not without merit.
That's an interesting angle. But presumably if someone comes along and creates a non-commercial FB competitor and people post photos of you there instead, that doesn't really address the real issue here, right?
Non-profits are subject to the same restrictions, it would seem. The red cross cannot sell fake designer goods to raise money "for charity" (and the $1MM CEO salary), etc. Nor can they use the likeness of Rihanna or Beyonce to further their ad campaigns without writen permission.
File this under "fun facts", and I can certainly understand not knowing, but the singular of "mores" is "mos". I seem to remember that it might have different meanings (in Latin) in the singular and plural, but that could easily be a false memory or a transference from vis/vires.
Comments
Pictures are a subcategory of information generally. It would be really awkward not to be able to talk about your friends (online or otherwise) without their explicit permission. And what about strangers? Criticism and news of all kinds would violate such a more, and I don't see how that could be a good thing. You can imagine a world in which people demand that the Wikipedia page about them being taken down, and simple politeness militates that it is.
I suppose you could make a special case for photos, but I don't really see anything that specifically commends it relative to other information about you.
Would this concept of ownership of information be particularly stronger than our existing concept of ownership of creative works? If I tell a friend a story then I and he consider myself to be the "owner" of that story, but I certainly don't tend to mind if he retells the story as his own in a noncommercial context, so long as I am not present. However if he gets my story published, then I am going to be rather upset.
If a friend wants to talk about me with other people at a bar, that is fine I guess. If he writes a book about me, I would absolutely consider that a considerable breach of trust. I have no problem with being on the receiving end of this notion of privacy.
While the bar is a noncommercial setting to tell stories, it's hardly a private one. The analogy seems to suggest that the distinguishing feature that triggers the more is on one side commercialism and on the other side publicness, but then it doesn't quite keep it consistent. So I guess I don't quite get it: why, under this reasoning, is it OK for him to tell the story about you at the bar?
There is no physical record of the bar story.
Not at the moment of the conversation, but there's nothing stopping one of the people there from blogging about it once they get home (think Silicon Valley "overheard" product leaks).
The fact that a piece of information passes through a volatile medium before ending up in a more permanent form doesn't change the value or ownership of the information.
On a tangent, Google Glass passive audio and video recordings will be much more damaging to one's privacy than photos shared intentionally by friends.
Unless you have a model relase, its not clear you should be publishing the likenesses of others. Facebook is using these images for commercial purposes, period. While this is a devil's argument case, its not without merit.
That's an interesting angle. But presumably if someone comes along and creates a non-commercial FB competitor and people post photos of you there instead, that doesn't really address the real issue here, right?
Non-profits are subject to the same restrictions, it would seem. The red cross cannot sell fake designer goods to raise money "for charity" (and the $1MM CEO salary), etc. Nor can they use the likeness of Rihanna or Beyonce to further their ad campaigns without writen permission.
File this under "fun facts", and I can certainly understand not knowing, but the singular of "mores" is "mos". I seem to remember that it might have different meanings (in Latin) in the singular and plural, but that could easily be a false memory or a transference from vis/vires.
TIL, thanks. I have had that wrong for, like, ever.