Identity Crisis & Third Party Picture!!!

[music]

There is a lot of hypocrisy and opaque logic in this thread.

(1) First of all forget all the copyright crap. I don?t give a toss what the copyright laws are in any particular country, it is cyberspace and you had better get used to it. You can put a watermark or you can sue. Great. Who says the country that the person who posted it, or the server who published it, actually recognizes any copyright law? (Incidentally it is actually a very moot point whether the server actually published it or whether it is the person who posted it.)

I concur that cyberspace offers more challenges insofar as enforcing laws that are sometimes wholly inadequate because they were originally enacted to address protection of rights for creators of print media. But disregarding them altogether is limiting in my opinion.

In this case the poster is unknown so the expedient approach is to target the host site and request the images be removed. If that doesn't resolve the issue, continue focusing on the host and subtly intimidate (the Japanese Way, hehe). The host site is responsible too, lawfully or not. Using existing laws, there are ways to apply pressure - gently.

(2) So there is no international law that is going to protect anyone here. So we should consider what is actually right or wrong in this argument. Well as I see it, as soon as you publish a pic of yourself on the internet it becomes public property ? it is no longer ?my pic? but the internets pic. I don?t know the specifics in Pam?s case but if someone has lifted a pic of her profile and published it elsewhere I have no sympathy. As ?somtamcharlie? suggests if you don?t like it, simply don?t publish it. You see, at least if it is taken from Pam?s profile she has control of ?WHAT? is published even if she has no control over ?WHERE? it is published.

Cross border laws are not required here. I assume this particular site is hosted in Thailand? Then what are the pertinent local laws? Can they be exercised? Do they have fangs?

Posting my photography on the 'Net does NOT release my rights to that body of work at any time and in no way implies that anyone can lift these images for profit, slander or otherwise. My writing is covered likewise.

(3) To me the REAL CRIME is genuine 3rd party photos ? like say, a picture of Pam buying condoms at a 7/11 with no make up on at 3.00am in the morning. Pretty ******* scary (Pam, I have no intention of publishing it). To be honest, I don?t even think that Pam is a good example. You see by publishing her pictures on the web at TF it can be argued that SHE has become PUBLIC PROPERTY. A bit like ?Babyoiy? (I chose you because Pam cites you in one of her posts) feels it is fine to publish pictures of Tony Blair and Angelina Jolie?s photos in her profile (I assume without their permission).

I'm confused. It's a crime to take candid photos due to invasion of privacy but it's acceptable to use someone else's images without permission or compensation?

Pam's images are for public consumption but they do not necessarily enter the public domain. There is a clear distinction between the two.

(4) By genuine 3rd party photos, I mean pics of people who don?t publish their pics on the internet and wish to protect their own privacy. Of course, TF seems to me the worst place to be whinging about this sort of thing because they will publish a picture of anyone at anytime if they so please. TF presumably does that because it knows that nobody has any recourse against them.

If we're going to make assumptions then maybe the admin is a reasonable person who, at someone's behest, will remove any offending or embarrassing images?

So this is how I see it. If someone has lifted Pam?s pic off TF she really has no right to complain. By publishing it, it became public property. BUT it cant be right if someone took a photo of her in a private moment and then published it on the internet ? that is an invasion of privacy. Ultimately there is nothing she can do about it but still that doesn?t make it right. If you feel strongly enough about this you should perhaps boycott TF. I don?t.

I disagree. Again, posting her photos does not imply public ownership. As the photographer or model, she retains full rights (or whatever was agreed upon at the time they were taken) unless she EXPLICITLY releases these rights to specific parties. And this applies equally to the paparazzi who may sell HIS candid images of Pam to the local tabloids. He has every right to do so. The invasion of privacy is lame, I agree. But if another photographer or web site uses these same images without permission or a byline (due credit), this is equally lame in my view.

If your contention is that Pam's at fault for posting these images in the first place, then wouldn't she be equally responsible, due to her killer looks or whatever fame she has garned, for drawing tabloid photographers to her balcony late at night? -30-

[SiamHotel]

neither do $hit... but then again, I do NOT own a pu$$y... lol

:?: :roll:

[OutOfOrder]

There is a lot of hypocrisy and opaque logic in this thread.

(4 By genuine 3rd party photos, I mean pics of people who don?t publish their pics on the internet and wish to protect their own privacy. Of course, TF seems to me the worst place to be whinging about this sort of thing because they will publish a picture of anyone at anytime if they so please. TF presumably does that because it knows that nobody has any recourse against them.

So this is how I see it. If someone has lifted Pam?s pic off TF she really has no right to complain. By publishing it, it became public property. BUT it cant be right if someone took a photo of her in a private moment and then published it on the internet ? that is an invasion of privacy. Ultimately there is nothing she can do about it but still that doesn?t make it right. If you feel strongly enough about this you should perhaps boycott TF. I don?t.

well Robbie - this is your dumb part - just incase u didnt read my thread properly.

MY PIC that was stolen wasn't a pic posted by *me* and not on my tf profile. It was a pic at mystique of a TF party that someone else took and posted in one of their PERSONAL online album... So i think my case could be applied to your say, " BUT it cant be right if someone took a photo of her in a private moment and then published it on the internet ? that is an invasion of privacy."

cus a drunk nite out is definitely considered my private moment.

though, as i already said - i don't blame the person who posted my pic at the first place - cus i didnt tell that person to not post my pic - cus i didnt know i actually HAD a pic taken.

so are u saying i can steal/borrow your picture and use it for any nasty/dirty usage? and you would be perfectly ok with that? ok! sounds like fun!!

oh...PS... nicely said MUSIC {Big KiSs} 8)