CléaAnyone who has been reading my blog for a while knows that I don’t like to reveal much detail about my life and the people in it. But what most don’t realise is that I am no different in real life. I do not volunteer information easily nor do I divulge much unless I choose to, and usually after I establish a certain connection with a person.
In essence, I am a private person. I do not like to have my information shared around unless I deem it necessary to have that information disseminated. So imagine my dilemma at a social function when photographs were taken and I heard the screeching sound of, “Add me on Facebook and you’ll see all the photos.”
Um, no.
For a start, I was coerced into joining Facebook for the purpose of keeping in touch with friends and relatives abroad. I neither add local friends nor ‘play’ with status updates, comments and the silly apps designed to suck information out of accounts for dodgy purposes. As much as I enjoy discovering new technologies, I am very aware of the way our online privacy is becoming eroded on a daily basis.
For a start, I oppose the social networking craze that has swept some people into a frenzy. I keep different friends for different interactions, therefore I do not see the point of lumping everyone in the same e-basket. In real life, we do not share every aspect of ourselves with every friend. I may confide in Steve about my work situation while I talk in-depth to Julie about my holiday. The same applies for online communication, whether it is public via a blog or through email. Why should I allow Google Reader to share my RSS feeds, some of which are private and personal, with people in my contacts list?
In the past, I have asked friends to remove all photos of me from their online albums. But in this case, since I will not ‘friend’ these people on Facebook, I will never know if they have complied. Therefore I question, who owns the rights to photographs and what happens to them? Is it the person who takes the shots, the owner of the camera, the person whose social function was celebrated, or is it the subject in the photograph?
Disclaimer: There are no photographs of Cléa getting up to mischief, or in embarrassing situations.
Tags: cbmused, Facebook, Google Reader, online privacy, ownership, photographs, privacy, rights, social networking
All of the online “etiquette” crap that I’ve read over the years states that while the person who takes/owns the pictures has the rights to post it if they wish, the subjects of said picture also have rights. And if they ask to not be put on Facebooks, blogs, etc., the owner of pictures should comply. Unfortunately, like you said, there is no way to know if they have honored your wishes since you aren’t FB friends with them.
I am in a similar dilemma with the whole FB craze as well. My in-laws have fallen into it – they all have accounts and talk about it all. The. Time. My SIL has an album just for pictures of my son that she takes when she sees him. And while I love that she loves him so much, I don’t know how I feel about this. In fact, I’ve asked my husband how he feels about it considering FB was one of the “issues” he and I had a couple years ago regarding my computer usage – pictures of me and him and our cat and our family out there for people he doesn’t know to see. Yet here his sister is doing the same thing…people we don’t know are friends with her and are able to see pictures of our son on her FB album. I never really got a straight answer out of him and it bothers me a bit.
Although, the reason it bothers me is more than just people we don’t know seeing pictures of him…it’s more of a “why can she do it but I can’t” situation. But that’s something for my therapist and I to talk about.
Ooooooh, great topic… and thought provoking as always =). I can relate to the “being sucked in” aspect of FB… for some reason FB people don’t seem to *get* blogs. You can tell them time and time again that “I uploaded the latest pics from xxxx’s wedding to the blog”, but if you’re lucky maybe 5% of them will actually go and look
. But put the same pics up on FB and there’s comments, and tags, and “Likes” and whatnot ( all of it bollocks and perfectly do-able with a slightly customised WordPress install ) and suddenly everyone’s interested. I just don’t get it? *Groans*.
I recently had experience of a friend asking for a pic to be taken down. It was a beach shot and everyone was frolicking and playing in the sun, but she was a bit sensitive about not looking as toned as she could be in the bikini shot. IMO she looked great, but that’s not the point – she preferred that other people not see that photo, and I immediately took it down, and apologised profusely.
SM: On the issue of baby photos, I asked permission from my nephew’s parents, yes both of them, to post a couple of shots of him after he was born, and made sure none of us holding him could be identified. They agreed. There is no way I’d post photos of anyone without asking first. So in relation to your SIL, you have every right to do the same.
Hmm… that’s an issue on a deeper level
I guess it has to do with his expectations so I can’t really comment on it. But the fact that you take his wishes into consideration is admirable.
Gboy: Thanks, I was beginning to think it was a dud topic.
Back in the early days of the internet, before privacy issues and being evil, I had a couple of pages complete with photos, names and events. Nobody was concerned about security then and it was a non issue. I took everything down yet some people still ask me about them.
You mention blogs. I ask, what is wrong with emailing photos? Is that too passé now? I don’t believe so. It’s more personal than all and sundry to see.
You’re a gentleman for taking that picture down.
Existence has a problematic way of invading our privacy. Using a computer increases the threat by a factor of hundreds and if you’re foolish enough to use the Internet- well, only God can help you, provided you give him your email address and enter the random confirmation code he generates successfully.
Or just don’t join them at all.
The thing about social networking and the net is the transparency that everyone has the more they expose themselves online. The best we can do is to separate what who we are as we express ourselves online and who we are as we show ourselves online.
Essentially, we have to start wearing a mask online as well to protect our identities should we need to.
I don’t buy into the whole social network scene as well and for the most part, my name is there because if I do want to contact people, I can, and I have. It’s there for a practical purpose rather than the fad craze that it is right now.
As for pictures, I’ve already mixed both my online life and my personal life together by having a blog with all the details of my life as well as social networks that connect to them. Having pictures of myself is a given. The only thing you won’t see on my blog are pictures of my family which I don’t put. Even putting pictures of Mel can be a problem sometimes because she doesn’t like having a public face and there have been occasions where I’ve taken her photo down.
Since I believe that the person who took the picture or owns the camera that has rights to the picture, I guess where it goes from there is all about common sense. You put pictures up of people whom you know also have pictures of themselves plastered all over the net. Or don’t put up pictures of people that will lead others to wondering how you’re related to them if you don’t want to be found.
I still do email photos to people who don’t have an online presence and I find that much better than the gratuitous need for furiously stroking your own vanity and ego by going “I know these people, I had fun with them and here are pics to prove it”. I don’t get that part of people. Does everyone today want to be known for the wrong reasons? Don’t people ever think of the consequences?
Wow this was a long comment alright.
Tough area of intellectual property–when you are in a zone where you do not expect privacy, like a bar, I guess as long as your photo is not used to sell something, you are fair game in the eyes of the law.
If you are used to sell something, it’s “Invasion of Privacy/Appropriation of Likeness.” Contrary to popular belief you don’t have to be famous to have an action under that tort. When a Hollywood film crew is filming “atmosphere” or whatever, for instance, generally everyone has to be “extras” because they are on a commercial endeavor.
“Hot Chicks With Douchebags” just won a lawsuit over some of the, well, Hot chicks and the douchebags, suing over using them on the page:
Here’s what the judge said:
http://www.tmz.com/2008/10/23/hot-chicks-sue-over-being-shot-with-douchebags/
“False Light” is a disfavored legal theory still in place in minority jurisdictions: Not Texas. That can be that although the photo is “true,” it casts you in a false light–another “Privacy” theory.
Pretty much in free societies I guess it’s the price we pay for living in the virtual environment which is like the Wild, Wild West–not around long enough for their to be “rules.”
Now that I have put everyone to sleep I think I will leave now…
Mahd: Hmm… the man upstairs don’t communicate often, or rather he doesn’t listen to me. But trusting him with my password is a safer option than trusting that Devil called Google.
Kami: Well, I’m not joining them, am I. I want to make sure my photos don’t end up there.
What you’re saying here sounds contradictory. Even more so if I reference it to another comment made on a prior post (can’t remember its title now). You say you don’t buy into it and advocate wearing a mask online. But if memory serves me correct, you’re into a few social networks including Facebook, Twitter and others, and you have your name and photographs and personal information on your blog. If you don’t buy into it, why put it all out there?
I can understand and relate to Mel’s requests that her photos be removed. Again because she is linked to you, at least through your blog, which is open in its information.
Don’t people ever think of the consequences?
While I do not want to make the discussion generation-specific, many who fall under the Gen Y label think it natural and don’t think of the consequences as much as those of us who have grown up with a little more appreciation for privacy, online and offline.
Zen: You didn’t put me to sleep and I was hoping you’d respond to this post and give your valued opinion.
Interesting that it is deemed fair game if no $$ are involved. Basically, you agree to have your photo taken at say, your cousin’s wedding or niece’s birthday party, and the law says they can do whatever they want with the photo except make money out of it. There go the (un)happy snaps.
Online rules and etiquette seem to be as fleeting as the latest networking craze. Policing it is another matter. If one can’t even protect one’s work from copyright, what chance have we got with Uncle Arthur’s happy snaps?
Like you, I’m rather private both online and off. My want for privacy is pretty much the single biggest reason I haven’t signed on to FB. However, being technology-curious, I have an alias account (with zero friends) to see, to some extent, what the fuss is all about. I have also perused the privacy settings to convince myself that my wife’s photos of us and our children are not public domain.
FB is a strange and intriguing phenomena, and I’m not sure there is an obvious precedent. I’ve had a lot of discussions about it, not so much about its content, but more about its merits, its immaturity, the odd synergies it enables, its future, etc. I like to stand back and think about how socially fascinating it is. Still, as a networking tool, it’s not for me.
As for photos, I think we’re well-past the point of no return. Public photos are ubiquitous, and the best we can expect is that the photographer respects our privacy and posts his/her pictures with permission and care. Unfortunately, this is analogous to expecting all dog owners to pick up their dog’s shit.
The good news (?) in this is that with billions of ½¢ photos flooding FB, flickr, & Co., the impact of any single photo is minute and soon forgotton. Photos don’t have the same clout as when negatives had to be sent to the lab for processing. How many celebrity scandals and/or nipple slips can you remember from 2004?
BTW, if you have an alias FB account, may my alias friend-request your alias?
Ugh.
Hi and bye.
I just remembered: a FB user can send a photo album link to a non-FB user. The non-FB user will have access only to the album linked. There is no need to open an account and be “friends”. If your friends really want you to enjoy their photos, they will spend the 15 seconds it takes to do this.
Put me in the camp of people who are freaked out/scared to death of Fbook. I do have a profile, but it isn’t real and never gets used. I’m a little sad to say that the only reason I have a presence there is because a year ago friends from afar invited me to play Scrabble. Once that faded, so did my use for the site. In fact, your post is making me think that after leaving this message I will take down the profile entirely.
What scares me about “social networking” is connected to your post. I don’t like the societal trend that is looking to destroy privacy. It has a double edged sword in my estimation where one “side” slices into people like you and me who do not want our pictures posted and are angered by the prospect of someone else “posting us” and identifying us for all the world to see. The other side to this is that I think younger people/generations are in a for a rude awakening when potential employers/lovers find things out about them via these sites that provide a less than desirable past (and yes – employers are now looking on these sites for potential employees who might be given lots of responsibility). Ultimately, while the level of privacy is decreasing, the professional/personal standards that future bosses and lovers have aren’t dropping in a directly proportional way.
And now I will step off of my soapbox…..
Peefer: I started with the same with a fake account and no friends just to test the water. It passed but I’m still not convinced about privacy. The concept to me is premised on a collection of friends, some you gladly left behind, others you want to have just to keep up with the cool kids. If FB provided the mean to segregate groups of friends unde one account, then I may be more interested. As I stated in the post, I tell Person A about X and Person B about Y, and I don’t want them both to know about X and Y.
Sigh… you think we’re at the point of no return with regards to photos? I hope not. Like you I wonder about the overflow of all that information, like finding a needle in the haystack but ultimately, it can be found.
Are you serious about the alias friending the alias?
Peefer: Good point, thanks for that. I’ll let them know to make it public so I can view them.
Justin: On no… please stay on it… you make a great point.
It sounds like you got dragged into it as well, but for different reasons. The thing is, whether we’re on FB or not, people on FB will still post photos and info about us, so it’s a lose-lose situation.
I agree about conducting searches on people with regards to employment and the likes. First we had Google, now we hop on FB and get character references. Does that knowledge change what some people of the younger generation do? I doubt it.
And while we’re on the subject of decreasing privacy, if you have a Google account and use their Reader, they automatically released functionality whereby some of your RSS feed information is shared with people with whom you chat. Furthermore, it keeps a record of every post you’ve read, not read and so on, for ever and ever. Privacy on the net? It’s the new holy grail.
I don’t buy into wearing masks online, but I don’t hide behind the net either. Everything that is online about myself is very transparent. All people have to do is to Google my name and they can find me because I put myself out there. When I say wear masks, I mean lead a double life online as we do in real life. Not something I’m comfortable with, so I don’t bother. Online or real life, if a person wants to know about me, they can. Social networks doesn’t have to be all fun and games, they are just another tool which most people don’t use with responsibility yet.
That’s why for the more veteran users of the net, we understand the need for privacy and responsibility. While we can be transparent, at the same time we have to know what to say and how to say things online as we do in real life. I don’t know whether you call that a mask. I just call it common sense. Something that the more immature net users fail to grasp sitting behind a screen.
Justin: I forgot to add that even if you delete your FB account, they will keep everything on record and if you decide to reactivate it, you’ll find everything will still be there. Another reason not to join in the first place.
Kami: I don’t agree that you can be transparent and maintain a sound level of privacy. The two are contradictory. If you’re going to put information, photographs and demographic data about yourself, then your privacy is severely compromised. This has nothing to do with common sense and watching what you say online and in real life which is your point in the second paragraph. As for social networks being a tool that is not all fun and games, where it can be of use is in LinkedIn, I don’t see the point when it comes to Facebook.
I’m far from serious, but I’m suddenly imagining an underground FB network … me, you, Justin, and millions of others, testing the waters anonymously until we’re ready to get accounts under our real names. It would be like the pre-school of social networking, and probably the finest use of bandwidth ever
Peefer: Can’t you see us creating our own FB Group, “Underground Playground” where we can play in the sandpit to our hearts’ content?
Well, I’m not even a member of FaceBook or Twitter or any of those sites, nor do I even have a myspace page, if that gives you any inclination about how I feel about online “friend” communities…
But you asked, “who owns the rights to photographs and what happens to them? Is it the person who takes the shots, the owner of the camera, the person whose social function was celebrated, or is it the subject in the photograph?”
I suppose it would totally depend on the type of photo, but generic social-event photos usually belong to the person who took the shot. If you don’t want your photo taken, kindly step out of the frame or cover your face or ask the photographer not to photograph you or post it on the net.
I hate to think what party pix may exist of me on places like FaceBook, etc…. so maybe it’s best that I’m not on there to see. *shrug*
LB: I feel it’s a bit drastic to step out of a group photo or cover my face, after all I am with friends. In this case, I ended up making my thoughts on FB and privacy known, and I was told that my photo wouldn’t be put up. But that’s not to say someone else who took group photos may not post them.
It depends how you feel. If you don’t mind your photos up there, and you’re not identified by full name or tagged within FB, it’s ok. I’m not a fan of my photos even when I look good in them, but my concern here is privacy not vanity.
I struggle with this too. I find that I am shy now (more than before) when a camera comes out because I am uncertain of whether or not it will end up on Facebook for anyone who wants to see it.
EM: That’s sad when the opportunity of a happy snap turns into doubt. And for someone like me who’s not photogenic, it scares me even more.