Outrageously Offended

Question is ownership of the AV.

http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/lester/writings/chapter5.html

But they cannot use that picture in any public forum without the prior consent of those photographed. Most legit photographers follow a code of ethics. You are obviously unaware of the ethical standards which most of us adhere to.

Vigilante associations were formed to protect the honor of unsuspecting women. A brick thrown through a camera's lens was advocated as a possible remedy. The Chicago Tribune wrote in an editorial that "something must be done, and will be done, soon. . . . A jury would not convict a man who violently destroyed the camera of an impudent photographer guilty of a constructive assault upon modest women" (Jay, 1984).

A photographer intent on capturing people in embarrassing or compromising situations was despised by a great many people. Although anti-photography bills were never introduced in America, Victorian London photographers required free official permits to take pictures in parks. Restrictions often included "Persons and groups of persons . . . on Sundays . . . [with] hand cameras" and without tripods (Flukinger et al., 1977). Germany passed a statute prohibiting photography without permission in 1907.

Of newspaper and magazine photographers who put small cameras to use, Bill Jay (1984) in his article, "The Photographer as Aggressor," wrote, "As any impartial observer will admit, no aspect of a life was too private, no tragedy too harrowing, no sorrow too personal, no event too intimate to be witnessed and recorded by the ubiquitous photographer" (p. 12). <clip>

FOUR AREAS OF PRIVACY LAW

A quarterly publication of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press titled, "Photographers' Guide to Privacy," is helpful in sorting out the areas of privacy law that affect news photographers. Privacy law is divided into four areas:

* unreasonable intrusion into the seclusion of another,
* public disclosure of private facts,
* placing a person in a false light in the public eye, and
* misappropriation of a name or likeness for commercial gain (Strongman, 1987). <clip>

False Light

Dr. Michael Sherer (1987) of the University of Nebraska explained the concept of false light. "Generally speaking," Sherer wrote, "a photojournalist can be found guilty of false light invasion of privacy if a person's image is placed before the public . . . in an untrue setting or situation" (p. 1. For there to be a false light decision against a photographer, the image must be highly offensive to a reasonable person, the photographer must have known that the image was false, or the photographer acted "with 'reckless disregard' (in other words, did not care) about whether the information was true or not" (p. 1.


The publication of a "stoutish" woman was ruled acceptable as the court noted, "There is no occasion for law to intervene in every case where someone's feelings are hurt." Filming by a camera crew of a man holding hands with a woman who was not his wife was ruled "not an act of extremely outrageous conduct." A person accidentally identified falsely in a caption does not constitute outrageous conduct. However, the publisher of Cinema-X magazine was cited for a "misidentified . . . photograph of a nude woman in a section of the magazine featuring I aspiring erotic actors and actresses' " (Sherer, 1986b, p. 26).

Misappropriation

The fourth area of trouble for a photojournalist in a privacy case is using a person's image for monetary gain without that person's permission. Clarence Arrington sued the New York Times for a picture it printed on the cover of its Sunday magazine illustrating an article, "Making It in the Black Middle Class." Arrington's "suit for invasion of constitutional and common law right to privacy was dismissed, but his complaint based on the sale of the photograph (by Contact Press Images-CPI-to the New York Times) was upheld in the New York Court of Appeals." The newspaper could not be sued because of the First Amendment protection, but CPI and the freelance photographer, Gianfranco Gorgoni, could have a claim against them. Unfortunately, the case was settled out of court without a ruling that might have protected picture agencies and freelance photographers (Henderson, 1989). A photographer may have the right to photograph anyone in public, but problems will occur when that image is published and is used to represent a class of individuals without that person's consent (Coleman, 198. Freelance photographers need to be especially careful. One of the main reasons magazine editors and picture agency managers require releases from freelance photographers is to protect them from lawsuits by subjects.

No, they are not externally labeled over the slideshow machine, and the pictures with in them are named "snapshot <x>" with x being the order I dropped them in*.


* It was pointed out to me last night that two in the exhibit did have names on them. I corrected this as soon as I found out, and will endevour not to make the same mistake again. I was drag/dropping them from my inventory and used two sent to me, didn't think to rename them snapshot <x>.

my body is me. it is not changeable. i can not say one day, i am bored of my body, let me get a new one. perhaps because modern technology allows us to challenge this age old understanding of self, with the plastic srugery and organ transplants, we have started to think of the body as interchangeable parts. but fundementally there is limits to that and the risk of failure is death.

the avatar is not my body. it is a digital extension i use to navigate cyberspace. it allows my to project my identity into the information world. but it is limitless unlike, my real body. my digital body can one day be man, the next, woman. child, monster, robot, alien, zebra, chair, it's posibilities are infinite. it is a new skin i take on with every transformation. unlike my real body, it does not carry the essence of my mortality. you can push it, kick it, drop a piano on it.

but at some point boundaries must be drawn. if your abuse of my avatar prevents me from enjoying my navigation of the virtual world by push scripts, that is in some way a violation that extends to my real body. but what about photoghraphing my avatar? the image in infinite me's? evidently this cannot be a transgression. for if you photographed me in the street in a public space wearing clothes that i had sewn myself or nothing at all, i would have no right to propreity over that image. similarly if i exert myself through an avartar into a shared space of SL, i cannot hope to have propriety of the image that is created on the screen of the of another individual client.

what of the content? if someone was to crawl under my skirt, i would be very aware of this person doing so. i could take immediate action to stop them. this would be a photograph of my real body. but an image of avatar upskirt? can it be a transgression against me? the avatar does not really exist as i percieve it. it is reconstructed on each individual screen out of information. in fact i put forth this information, i gave it to that individual. do i still have a right to limit how he uses it? as far as moral sensibilities, is this avatar even to be considered a human analog?

interesting and thought provoking, this gallery, which i have yet to visit, should be protected by the lindens ans real artistic expression, and not the hawking of crafts that is usually passed off as art in this virutal world.

You keep forgetting. The issue is consent. My only beef is with the images where the girls do not know they are part of this exhibit.

-aimee

No, I'm not emotionally charged. The 'creep' comment was meant generally, you just happen to be the one doing something I consider creepy this time.

I know pictures are taken all the time across SL. I'm sure quite a few of them are also actively trying to capture something 'private' as well. Some of them may even be put up on display and then pointed out in the forums for attention. Those are also creepy.

As this would be an in-game (IE, Linden referee'd) issue, then OF COURSE the avatar would be representing the user. Are you kidding me?

Your point is invalid unless proven by Virtual Law, if one exists. Reality and Virtual Reality are two different dimensions.

I know your issue Aimee. I just don't agree with your beef, as I feel it's an arbitrary one.

Also I changed my mind and decided i do still love you.

Exactly, and thank you.

I just want to drag the conversation back where it belongs. For example, FlipperPA giving you CONSENT to take photos of him kinda misses the point.

-aimee

So if you are not a creep why not tell the women that they are being exposed? I have never taken a photo of someone in sl without asking first and then offering them a copy of the photo. Why because I am not a creep. I also do not zoom my camera into peoples private property to take explicit photogs of them cybering with other avs. This too is possible but is not ethical. You are a deranged little bugger if you think what you are doing is fine. Yes they are just pixels, but it amazes me that some of the same folks who are crying out that the teen grid may contain porn or that teens may make a fake penis/g- bits and somehow violate some other teen are saying that so long as it is an adult at the keyboard any sort of violation of a persons sexual rights are A-Okay. pfft

ohh and ps Taco, I will not visit your venue. By visiting it I award you dwell and the funds recieved by that dwell will fall under misappropriation clause. So unless you are planning to pay those you have pics of a dividend of the monies you recieve from the visits then I would hope that other women would do the same and boycott you and your land.

Agreed.
I have no problem with upskirt photos as long as the subject knows you're doing it.

This is the post i was referring to above.

Also..."she was pretty much asking for it" LOL! NEVER expected to hear that from you Flipper. I guess this is why I await a Linden to tell me if I am overreacting.

-aimee

another interesting question - if an avatar cannot even be identified from the photograph, then is the avatar's identity really meaningful at all? does it not simply become an upskirt of nobody's av?

You are making HUGE assumptions here. First off, I don't believe you've never taken a crowd shot (if you haven't then I'm mistaken). Next, you're assuming that your AV's genital area is 'private property' while it's in a public area of SL (which has not been settled or even adressed to my knowledge). Thirdly, you're applying YOUR ethics to MY project (you are not being forced to view my project). Next, you're resorting to name calling again. THen you accuse me of a violation (which violation is that?), and finally, you end with a Jimmy Carter quote that completely undermines your entire position.


Also, when I read your fullerton.edu report, I thought it was in support of me! I'm not, from what i read in violation of anything listed there. While it remains to be seen if the Lindens will have their way with me, I was planning on using that document for my defense! So I'm not getting you at all, I'm afraid.

Ok, but you're forgetting that LL still answers to real life laws. If somebody gets pissed off enough and it's not covered in the ToS, then of course LL could get sued (or could you sue the person who took the pictures? I mean, would the person who actually took the pictures be protected by their right to privacy -- so it would be illegal for you to find out who ACTUALLY took the pictures? Would LL have to answer for us all?).

Blake, you rarely make sense. It would help if you explained yourself more fully rather than painting things black and white, when they are really red or purple or turquoise.

Oh really?!? I err, have a friend that has that movie and I'm sure they would love to know which one it is.

This is the same mentality that claims a woman dressed scantily is asking to be raped, and somehow deserved it.

This concerns me too David. I'm a *major* snapshot taker. Of *anything* that catches my fancy. Granted, I don't normally share them with anyone other than possibly the person I took them of, but a few that I really like I put into one of two slideshow viewers that I display for anyone to look at. One slideshow is G to PG rated, the other R to XXX rated. With the XXX one, I only put up pictures of those who I know would be ok with it. But, what if someone else saw it, and didn't know, and tried to abuse report me. For *any* of them. It makes me scared to share my snapshots now.

Again, it's not that mentality at all. It's the same mentality that if a woman is dressed scantily she is asking to be looked at.

"looked at" and "photographed" are different things.
no one is stopping you from your little upskirt camera fantasies, no one can, but when you post pictures, and don't tell the women, thats when you cross a line.

and pen, I know you well enough to say that if someone ever came to you and told you they would rather NOT have their picture in your R-XXX slideshow, you would take it down.
so, I really can't compare you.

We're simply asking Taco to tell these women they're in the gallery. If after they know, they don't have a problem with it, then by all means, keep it up.

Well sure, but is she asking to be photographed up her skirt and then having all that displayed for everyone to see?

I bet Taco doesn't even know all the women he photographed.

I think Jonquille Noir said it best with "Reasonable Expectation of Privacy". Where does this reasonable expectation come from? Mostly it comes from popular opinion. Who decides what is Reasonable, especially when the issue falls in a gray areay? In SL it's the Lindens.

Does taking a photo of a crowd of people at a public event without their consent violate reasonable expectation of privacy? Most people would say NO, and I think the Lindens would agree.

Does zooming in and taking a photo of two people having sex in a closed off skybox at 600ft with "DO NOT DISTURB" signs hung outside the door violate reasonable expectation of privacy? Most people would say YES, and I think the Lindens would agree.

Does zooming up a girls skirt, taking a photo and featuring it in an exhibit without their knowlege or consent violate reasonable expectation of privacy? Well that's the debate. I suspect more people would say yes than no, but in the end the Lindens decide.


The point?
I wont argue that ALLOWING Taco to display these photos will cause a slippery slope that will end all privacy as we know it in SL. So stop these silly arguements that making Taco get a green light from the girl before putting her coochie on display will cause a slippery slope of censorship and opression.

-aimee

I did not mean to be a creep! I feel sad now. I'm sorry to anyone I ever took a photo of that I did not tell. I'm going to play safe and just stop taking any unless asked specifically to do so. And I will not share any more that I do have already. Sorry again anyone!