Kragen Javier Sitaker
kragen at canonical.org
Thu May 24 19:53:04 UTC 2012
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 12:32:18PM -0700, jim wrote:
> NB space is a public space,
Is it, really? It's privately owned, with a lockable gate. You might be able
to argue that people have an expectation of privacy in things they do there.
This is especially true if some people there are doing things such as making
dildos, or admiring the dildos other people have made.
> a release is required if photos are published. Does release on some internet
> accessible web site constitute publishing?
Publishing on the web is still publishing, from a legal perspective, but a
model release is not required for all published photos. Photos taken in public
spaces (i.e. spaces where the subject had no reasonable expectation of privacy)
are safe from an invasion-of-privacy tort. Some uses of such photos could
still give rise to other torts, such as using the image to imply endorsement by
the subject (e.g. in an advertisement), or using the image to defame the
If a release were required to publish photos, journalistic photography would be
illegal without explicit approval from the subject of the journalism.
There is much more information here:
> Personally, I don't want anyone to take my photo for any reason. Please
> treat me excellently.
Quite aside from whether or not it's legal, I think that it is rarely moral to
photograph people who do not want to be photographed.
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss