I'd like to have the opinions on the web designers as well as the technically challenged among you on the following issue: I've long been planning to create a web site and put up a lot of photos to enable several relatives and friends from abroad to take a look at my city, but also family and so on. I want to introduce my circle of friends to my new home area when we move next year, too. So, to fresh up my memory on basic, amateurish webdesign (if it deserves that name at all, in my case) I took a course. Our teacher and we had a small discussion that I would like to pass on to you: Of course you should only put up pictures you made yourself. (Avatars are probably a grey area, especially if they are made of popular material - I suppose.) She, now, principally doesn't put any pictures up when they show people who couldn't or didn't agree to having their pic in public view on the net. Sounds logical, but how many of those of you who had a web site asked every single person on their pictures if they agreed? It made me think, because in the end, it might mean not putting pictures with anything but landscapes and buildings up... Well, the majority of the pics I was planning to load up would have been anyway, but still. To push it even further: At that time, well, there was a discussion on pedophiles on the message boards frequented by most of us, and the conviction of a member of the old board having been convicted for just such causes caused a lot of discomfort. Back then, I asked Mal to delete the pic of me and my offspring I had uploaded in the "Member Iconographs" section (apparently you can't edit them afterwards, not like your own user gallery, so I had to bother him). It was, on the one side, for irrational reasons, and I felt kind of silly even back then because of it. But I also felt slightly guilty, because after all, my daughter couldn't agree or disagree on being "published". Paradoxically, I quite enjoy to look at the snapshots of other members [i:882e3308ab]and [/i:882e3308ab]their kids in the gallery and don't mind that at all. But if you apply my teachers strict principles to the case, you wouldn't been allowed to publish pics of small children at all, would you? I don't want a solution to my personal dilemma between exhibitionism and not wanting to hurt other people's privacy, but I'd be interested in your general views on, well, publication ethics (for lack of better expression). (By the way, I myself still have to make up my mind.)
This raises two issues - privacy and paedophiles - in both cases, law and public opinion seems to have gone over the top. As far a privacy is concerned, if someone is in a place where they can be photographed, how can they complain if someone photographs them? I know this gives free rein to the paparazzi trying to "treat people like royalty" (or in the Marthter's definition "trying to photograph them with their vest off") but laws to prevent this tend to be overkill, and give rise to the sort of worries that Hsing raises. Taken to its extreme, no television news broadcast would be able to have a reporter standing in front of a crowd at some event or demonstration (can you imagine trying to get the consent of all participants in one of the many marathons, for example? If even [i:ccb38e0d81]one[/i:ccb38e0d81] said no, would that block the possibility of airborne cameras, or even car or motorcycle-borne cameras that might inadvertantly include them in the shot) - privacy should be what you make for yourself, not a restriction on everybody else. For paedophilia, this has also had the pendulum swing too far - there was a case a few years ago when some television personality was taken to court because she had taken photographs of her young daughter (under 1 year, I believe) in the bath - not an unusual thing to do when recording one's offsprings early years (the old classic used to be naked on a rug in front of the fire) - when she had the photos developed, a lab technician reported her to the police - luckily common sense prevailed and she was cleared. As an example of how attitudes have changed, about 40 years ago, while on a family holiday at a holiday camp (no, it wasn't Butlins or Pontins - we didn't sink that low - it was run by NALGO (National And Local Government Organisation - I think that's the right expansion of the acronym - one of the civil service unions)) in the childrens' fancy dress competition, one mother put her children in as Lady Godiva and Peeping Tom - the daughter was just about old enough to walk, and was totally naked - and nobody saw any problem - would that be even considered nowadays?
When I've put pictures of board meetings up on my/this website, I haven't technically asked for permission (although I have mentioned that I'll be aiming to put the pictures up as soon as possible and no-one has said "for the love of god, NO!") but then that's a slightly different situation as when you go to a DMC nowadays, you expect pictures to be put up anyway. In terms of my holiday snaps on my site, I didn't include any pictures of my mum or sister on there as I know that my mum definitely wouldn't want any of them up and my sister probably wouldn't. To be fair, I didn't actually ask them, I just presumed they wouldn't want them up. When putting them up, I didn't actually think of it from a copyright perspective. Technically, I think it's the picture taker who has the copyright, not the person/people depicted. Otherwise the guys eating lunch on that steel girder in New York would all be as rich as pigs in muck. In terms of copyright, I don't actually own half of the holiday pictures on my site because my mum took most of them, but: a) I'm not making money out of them b) She wouldn't mind anyway, she knows I'm liable to post my pic on the net anyway. c) She doesn't know Also Hsing, you mention not being able to ask a small child if they would like their picture published or not, it's really the responsibility of their legal guardian to make that decision for them until they reach the age of responsibility (whatever that may be).
Two thoughts to add: German law says you, as a private person -not prominent, not making history, whatever- have a right on "your own picture", meaning pictures showing you. It's meant to take care that someone can, for example, not advertise with a snapshot of you without your agreement. Or plaster the neighbourhood with posters showing your face and saying "eats babies/ puppies/ kittens/ a stew of all three". It also divides into "private situations" and "public situations" - participating in the NY marathon would be public, going shopping in your ugliest dress wouldn't be.
If you're making a website for your home town it's generally okay to have people in so long as you can't recognise them, usually because they are too far away and too small to see. Last week I had to take photos for a physiotherapy website I'm working on, the photo shoot was in a leisure centre and I had to sign a form stating that no children would be in the shots -as it happens there weren't any children there anyway. Then, before we took the photos, we asked everyone involved if it was okay to take their picture and told them it was going on a website - nobody told us 'no' and they were all pretty much excited about being on a website anyway. So I think you should take shots of your town with people at a distance so you can't recognise them, and perhaps have a few close-ups of people you've expressly asked permission to do so.
Hmm, well if you are looking to use someone's image as a means to sell items - then yes, you would need permission as you are making money from it. In terms of the marathon, I wouldn't be surprised if they had a condition in the small print of the application form saying that by applying they allow the TV stations to show them. If you are in a crowd on the news, then they aren't actually using your image in particular, they are using the image of the entity known as a crowd which, of course, has no known address to send money to. *thinks* *registers a bank account in the name of "The Crowd"* If you made pictures of someone and put a message underneath saying that they were a baby-eater, well they could sue you for slander. Much the same as if you just shouted that Mr XYZ was a baby-eater.
And another thing, you're not actually planning to make money out of your website are you, Hsing? I thought it was just a personal thing that you could share with friends and family. If you're not making money from it, then copyright is moot. It's just polite to ask permission.
Actually it's libel if it's written down, slander if you say it. I'm pretty sure copyright still counts even if your site is personal, though you'd own the copyright yourself if you were taking the pictures.
Interestingly this started on alt.fan.pratchett a few days ago, and someone there came up with the same point as I did here about marathons!
