Court Rules It's Ok To Tag Pics On Facebook Without Permission

neoflexycurrent writes "A federal court has ruled that photos of a woman on Facebook showing her drinking were properly used as evidence in a child custody case. She had argued she was identified without permission. But the court rejected that argument. In reaching that decision, the court made the interesting observation that: '[t]here is nothing within the law that requires [one's] permission when someone takes a picture and posts it on a Facebook page. There is nothing that requires [one's] permission when she [is] "tagged" or identified as a person in those pictures.'"

Comments

tagging is fine

[devxo]

Why wouldn't tagging be within law? Tagging a photo is similar to someone asking "who is that person" and the photographer telling him. Sure, Facebook gets extra data, but then you should tell your friends not to tag you in photos.

Re:tagging is fine

[andrea.sartori]

Tagging a photo is similar to someone asking "who is that person" and the photographer telling him.

Exactly. Besides, she used the wrong defence: she should have said she's wasn't drinking that much.

Re:tagging is fine

[realityimpaired]

Well, see, in countries where there's decent privacy laws, it's illegal to take a picture of somebody where that person is the subject of the photo, and then to publish that photo without their permission. You can still be in the background of a picture, as "noise" as it were, but if you're the actual *subject* of the picture, then they need permission to publish. (so those tourist photos you took of the Eiffel tower are fine: those people wandering around in the square below it are not the subject of the picture)

Such laws usually have to do with newspapers and magazines, but they could be extended to apply to people posting pictures of their friends on the 'net, but I don't think that kind of use was really in the minds of the lawmakers when they drafted this kind of law.

Re:tagging is fine

[clang_jangle]

Of course one should consider that (1) photographic evidence of her drinking is online, and (2) the best she could do was "no fair I didn't say tags were allowed" for a defense, so most likely she's a mental midget who shouldn't be trusted to raise children. Lots of people can give birth, very few of those should.

Re:tagging is fine

[andrea.sartori]

Yes, this "identified without permission" thing sounded more like an admission of guilt than an actual defence.

Re:tagging is fine

[andrea.sartori]

Such laws usually have to do with newspapers and magazines, but they could be extended to apply to people posting pictures of their friends on the 'net

Not wrong in principle, but impossible to enforce.

Re:tagging is fine

[hashp]

Or Facebook should give you the option to stop being tagged. But that wouldn't be in their interest I guess. A lot of people tag irrelevant photos with all their friends name, just to get their attention. I have fought with my friends trying to tell them not to do that, some people just don't get it.

Re:tagging is fine

[Lehk228]

and that is why it is better to live in a country with actual freedom of speech instead of "freedom of speech except when we don't like it"

in the US those same rules apply when using a photo for commercial endorsement, but freedom of speech and of the press remains protected.

Re:tagging is fine

[clang_jangle]

People who do facebook don't get to do me.

Re:tagging is fine

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if you could make the case that facebook is, in fact, commercially exploiting the pictures/tagging. In that case, all that should be needed to have the the picture removed would be to tell Facebook to do so (if the person posting the picture doesn't remove it).

But I'm not sure who/what/where;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights

Re:tagging is fine

[andrea.sartori]

all that should be needed to have the the picture removed would be to tell Facebook to do so

Too late.

Re:tagging is fine

[Moryath]

The phrase you are looking for is "easy cases make bad law.

For those who are unclear: the WORST law, in terms of setting precedents to be relied on later, comes from cases in which a defendant is "obviously guilty of something" or just plain unsympathetic. The end result is a jury ruling on the emotional bounds of what they are presented, rather than on facts in the case, or in the appellate side, a bunch of judges making "fuck it we can see they are guilty why are you bothering us with this crap" rulings.

Ironically, the counterargument - hard cases make bad law - is also valid. Hard cases require very case-specific rulings and legal hair-splitting in order to arrive at the verdict or appellate review result, but then inevitably someone comes along and tries to apply them to completely different situations as precedent.

Re:tagging is fine

[icebraining]

Oh, please, in the US copyright is used all the time to prevent unwanted speech all the time. Even Slashdot itself suffered from such censorship.

Re:tagging is fine

[cheekyjohnson]

And such people likely don't agree with that, either.

Re:tagging is fine

[Hognoxious]

Well, see, in countries where there's decent privacy laws, it's illegal to take a picture of somebody where that person is the subject of the photo, and then to publish that photo without their permission.

Bullshit. Newspapers do it all the time, and so do the police. Do you think they get permission from suspects every time the put up wanted posters?

Re:tagging is fine

[icebraining]

I was replying to the "in the US (...) freedom of speech and of the press remains protected." statement, not to his opinion about it.

Re:tagging is fine

[Kjella]

I don't quite see the connection between a court case being having broad or narrow implications and how sympathetic or unsympathetic the defendant is.

Take for example the Betamax case, we had a very sympathetic producer of VCRs compared to some of the companies that have tried hiding under that shield, like for example Napster, Grokster, Limewire etc.

DVD-Jon was also a very sympathetic case, they couldn't find any evidence he was involved in any form of piracy, he just wanted to watch his own discs. That case settled all cases of owning and using DeCSS in Norway, at least until they passed the EUCD.

Getting an unsympathetic case doesn't have to be all bad either, if the court is forced to take action. Take for example the Thomas-Rasset case, one of the judges felt he had to step in and lower the verdict from 2 million dollars to 50,000 dollars. It went to a third trial with a 1.5 million dollar ruling so the matter is still ongoing, but if the US Supreme Court agrees with that judge they can't threaten you with 150,000$/song anymore. They'd have to say up to 2,250$/song, which is an awful lot less.

Narrow cases aren't good, but you can't avoid them. There'll always be cases where things brush up against each other, like between free speech and yelling fire in a crowded theater. Or exactly where the borders of "negligent" or "premediated" goes, or what degree of violence something qualifies for, ambiguous phrases in complex contacts and so on. Once you pick any subject there will always be a bunch of relevant case law or precedents, no matter what legal system you're in.

Re:tagging is fine

[Rob the Bold]

Of course one should consider that . . . the best she could do was "no fair I didn't say tags were allowed" for a defense, so most likely she's a mental midget who shouldn't be trusted to raise children.

Unless she's representing herself, wouldn't this be more her lawyer's fault?

Re:tagging is fine

[DavidD_CA]

It does. One of the privacy settings controls who is allowed to tag you. Options include only yourself, friends, or specific groups of people you've created.

Re:tagging is fine

[ScentCone]

Oh, please, in the US copyright is used all the time to prevent unwanted speech all the time.

When you speak/write/compose/etc, you own the copyrights to your words. Unless of course you're just regurgitating what someone else said, and not meeting the actual legal standards of fair use in order to be safe from infringment claims. Or, of course, unless you're writing/speaking as part of a job/contract in which you've agreed that the copyrights on what you're communicating are owned by the person who's paying you. But in general, "unwanted" speech can't be controlled by some third party copyright holder unless you're infringing as you publish whatever it is you're communicating. You may also be confusing - as so many do - libel law, patent law, and trademark issues with copyrights.

Re:tagging is fine

[RobertM1968]

Or Facebook should give you the option to stop being tagged.

But that wouldn't be in their interest I guess.

A lot of people tag irrelevant photos with all their friends name, just to get their attention. I have fought with my friends trying to tell them not to do that, some people just don't get it.

You can un-tag yourself and then no one will be able to tag you again. If you are tagged, you get an email notification (and a FB notification). It would be nice if they made it so that you could prevent people from tagging you as well.

Re:tagging is fine

[BatGnat]

Actually, most countries with decent privacy law state that when in public, you have no privacy! with certain exceptions (for example:You cant take a picture, use it in an advertisement without the persons permission, even if they are "background noise".

What fictional countries are you talking about? If those laws actually existed then the, paparazzi would not.

Re:tagging is fine

[t2t10]

Well, see, in countries where there's decent privacy laws,it's illegal to take a picture of somebody where that person is the subject of the photo, and then to publish that photo without their permission.

You mean like communist Russia? Saudi Arabia?

What people can't and shouldn't be able to do you is libel you with the photo (by creating the impression that you were doing something you weren't actually doing) or use you as a model for commercial gain. Both of those are civil matters, not criminal matters, meaning the individual affected by the conduct can recover damages, but the state cannot prosecute you for it.

If you're out on a public street, you can be photographed and the photo can get published; that's part of how democracies and free societies ought to work. Turning photography on public streets into a criminal justice issue, however, is unacceptable and incompatible with democracy.

The fact that nations like Germany and France have such laws isn't an indication of better privacy protection in those nations, it's an indication that these nations still have totalitarian tendencies.

Re:tagging is fine

[t2t10]

No, Facebook is not "commercially exploiting" them; they are merely a company that has been asked by the copyright owner to publish these pictures, not significantly different from a printer or a billboard operator.

Re:tagging is fine

[t2t10]

Oh, please, in the US copyright is used all the time to prevent unwanted speech all the time. Even Slashdot itself suffered from such censorship.

The threat of copyright infringement lawsuits is used frequently, but if you actually saw things through in court, you'd likely prevail on free speech grounds, provided your use of any copyrighted material is fair.

Re:tagging is fine

[grumbel]

Tagging a few photos seems harmless enough, the problem is when you scale it up and add some technology into the mix.

1) people tag photos
2) search engine registers your face from those photos
3) search engine goes tagging all photos on the Internet with you in it
4) search engine goes data mining all those photos, cross linking it with other information and creates a large and detailed profile of the last few years of your life

I am not saying that tagging should be illegal, but such harmless looking things can quickly spiral out of control and turn into a serious invasion of privacy. And its quite a different thing if whatever you do happens in "public" with a dozen people, who won't remember it a month later anyway, or in that "public" we call the Internet where it will be archived for the next few decades and easily search able for everybody.

Re:tagging is fine

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook made it routine for journalists and the police post your picture for free, no questions asked.

Just be suspected of a crime, or be one of the millions of Americans who shares the same name do so, and now everyone has your name and supposed face. We've discussed a case of a professor badly damaged because of google pictures that were first hit under his name. On the plus side, now the police post high-quality Wanted shots of real criminals instead of PAID artistic renderings, or screencaps of decades-old CC footage.

Re:tagging is fine

[clang_jangle]

It wasn't the lawyer's public drinking that was an issue.

Yes, posting pics of yourself "getting hammered" makes you a "public drunk" in pretty much everyone's mind, and employers and clients do put your name in a search engine of they have any sense at all...

Re:tagging is fine

[Rob the Bold]

It wasn't the lawyer's public drinking that was an issue.

I'm pretty sure you knew what I meant about her lawyer and her choice of defense . . .

Re:tagging is fine

[vux984]

You can un-tag yourself and then no one will be able to tag you again.

The only way it could capture that you weren't allowed to be re-tagged on that image is if the orginal tag remained, but had another attribute attached to it saying that the tagged individual had requested the tag be "hidden".

Thus a search for tagged images of you made by joe-public would not return those "un-tagged" images.

However, a search for tagged images of you made by someone with authority to ignore that "hidden" flag. (e.g. facebook's internal data mining alg's, a court order, a bored facebook admin...) could still return all these so-called "untagged" images.

Re:tagging is fine

[angel'o'sphere]

Freedom of speech and the press is as well protected in europe. I don't understand your point.

Re:tagging is fine

[angel'o'sphere]

What fictional countries are you talking about? If those laws actually existed then the, paparazzi would not.

Those laws do exist. The Paparazzi are not the ones who are publishing the fotos, it is the newspapers and magazines. So the magazine gets fined ... but they don't care if they have to pay $150k for a foto as fine and another $200k to the depicted person as compensation.

Sitting with friends in a bar is not in public. In public means you are participating in an event of public interest, like a football match, giving a speech for a party or being a guest on an Oscar Nomination etc.

angel'o'sphere

Re:tagging is fine

[BillX]

Worse, if you login from an unfamiliar place, Facebook often subjects you to a rather lengthy quiz to prove that you are the accountholder, asking you to identify friends in photos (based on other users' tags.) Get more than 2 or so 'wrong', and your account gets locked out.

Re:tagging is fine

[icebraining]

Unless of course you're just regurgitating what someone else said, and not meeting the actual legal standards of fair use in order to be safe from infringement claims.

Yes, that was what happened in the Slashdot case: the poster included a full copy of a text owned by the Scientology cult.

But my point wasn't that it was an abuse, it's that there's no real difference in principle between the two; why is prohibiting the usage of someone's face an attack on freedom of speech, but not of one of their works?

Re:tagging is fine

[codegen]

First of all, its not illegal to *take* the picture, except in a very few jurisdictions. Publishing the picture is a different story. But even then, only a few jurisdictions have taken the interpretation you suggest. They only rule it illegal if the photo is sold to a stock agency, or published directly in a for profit article. Facebook/youtube don't count.

Re:tagging is fine

[Golddess]

Unless you've reserved the bar, restricting access to just those on a specific guest list, why shouldn't it count as "in public"? I'm not saying it should, I just don't see the difference between a bar and a sports stadium. Hell, if anything shouldn't the sports stadium should be less public than the bar since there's an admission price?

Re:tagging is fine

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the thing I'm wondering, though - is that really all they are doing?

Or are they also selling the photo / tag / combination of the two to advertisers or other interested parties (say, companies working with facial recognition, demographics companies, etc.)?

A printer/billboard operator doesn't typically care what you're publishing (other than prohibited material, of course) and wouldn't even have that information.

Re:tagging is fine

[budgenator]

In the US, the legal definition of "in public" is different than what your used to, sometimes it even depends on the context more than the place. Being in a bar open to the public is probably considered being in public.

Re:tagging is fine

[TriezGamer]

At least you have the ability to remove tags of yourself from any photo.

Re:tagging is fine

[Anonymous Coward]

then refuse to be their friend on facebook, change your privacy settings or remove the tag. It does notify you a tag occurs. Quit complaining.

Re:tagging is fine

[Mordaximus]

Well, see, in countries where there's decent privacy laws, it's illegal to take a picture of somebody where that person is the subject of the photo, and then to publish that photo without their permission.

Wish I could vote you up, sir. People don't understand that posting photos to facebook is publishing, and that they should be subjected to the same restrictions placed on professionals.

Re:tagging is fine

[Anonymous Coward]

so that's why everyone's on facebook these days

Re:tagging is fine

[BatGnat]

Those laws do exist. The Paparazzi are not the ones who are publishing the fotos, it is the newspapers and magazines. So the magazine gets fined ... but they don't care if they have to pay $150k for a foto as fine and another $200k to the depicted person as compensation.

Where, in what country?

Sitting with friends in a bar is not in public.

Yes it is.

Sitting at the Bar, Do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy? No.

Sitting on the toilet, in a bars bathroom, Do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy? Yes

Whether or not the Bar, privately owned, allows photos to be taken there is a different issue.

Re:tagging is fine

[multimediavt]

Ahh, but there goes the rule of precedent with regard to the law. I wasn't able to find the exact case link, but in the 1990s a Federal Circuit Court found that publishing on the Internet was the same as publishing in any other medium and was bound by the same rules. (This is one of the weapons the RIAA and MPAA use against file sharers.)

Along that vein, you have to attribute and get written permission (release form) from everyone that is recognizable in a photograph that is published. So, I hope this goes to appeal. If she was on private property (and yes, a bar is still private property folks) and not in view of the public from a thoroughfare or adjacent property, then she has rights which were violated when that picture was published. If the person who posted it only made the picture available to their "friends" then that may be a loophole, but if anyone can view that picture she might have a case.

Re:tagging is fine

[Nursie]

It wasn't even *just* drinking in public that was the problem.

No, this genius is on medication for bipolar disorder and has been specifically disallowed alcohol because it would have "adverse effects" on the medication.

If it had been just the drinking photo that would be horrible. Everyone's entitled to go to the pub once in a while, parent or otherwise.

Re:tagging is fine

[Anonymous Coward]

Call me cold blooded, but I don't think that anyone who has bipolar disorder of a sufficient degree to be diagnosed and medicated, is in any position to be taking care of children. For a person in that situation, drinking alcohol *at all*, or even being in a situation where alcohol is present, is not acceptable. I think there's a lot of misconception as to how severe that kind of mental illness can be, or just how badly things can go wrong if someone drinks while under the influence of these meds. These are drugs that build up in your system over months, and have *seriously bad interactions* with alcohol. One very common drug that I know about has a side effect with alcohol where you can easily have a stroke. That's one example of a non-behavioral effect. If you want to get into behavioral effects, just talk to anyone who has worked with BPD in any clinical setting, and they will be able to give you eye-opening anecdotes all day long.

Re:tagging is fine

[Anonymous Coward]

I was replying to the "in the US (...) freedom of speech and of the press remains protected." statement, not to his opinion about it.

It doesn't matter, you're still not correct. You do not get a copyright on pictures OF you. And copyright isn't used to restrict jack shit.

Re:tagging is fine

[Anonymous Coward]

It is hard work to tell friends to not spread your data. It will easily end up as a ex-friend so it is just as easy to avoid the person in the first place.

The world have enough idiots to avoid..

Re:tagging is fine

[Anonymous Coward]

I call bullshit. Personal responsibility can only go so far.

"Facebook gets extra data, but then you should tell your friends not to tag you in photos."

You may not have many friends or planned a wedding, but remembering who in this world that knows you well enough to identify you and tag you is beyond personal responsibility.

Facebook is about trying to identify the tree that is word of mouth. Hence, every advertiser and company helping the facebook cause. I want nothing to do with it, but have little frickin choice in the matter.

Re:tagging is fine

[ShakaUVM]

>>You can still be in the background of a picture, as "noise" as it were, but if you're the actual *subject* of the picture, then they need permission to publish.

Err, no. I took a class on this subject. (For the US.)

If you're out in public, you have no expectation of privacy. I can photograph you smiling in front of the Eiffel Tower, and it's perfectly legal for me to put it up on my Flickr page. If you're indoors, I can't snap your photo without your permission.

Though journalists will often ask for consent or releases anyway, of anyone they can identify in a photo, just for safety's sake. But, strictly speaking, they don't need to do it if the subjects are in a public place.

There's a LOT of complicating factors, such as endorsement/misappropriation, false light, eavesdropping/wire tapping, etc., etc.

If the facebook photo was indoors in a private setting, the target should have had the right to request it taken down.

Re:tagging is fine

[icebraining]

You do not get a copyright on pictures OF you.

I'm not saying you do. I'm saying the image rights you get in the EU are not any more limiting to free speech than copyright.

And copyright isn't used to restrict jack shit.

It is; you can't include other people's works in your speech (see post on Slashdot about Scientology). Now, the point is: why doesn't isn't that restriction against free speech, but prohibiting the use of other people's faces is? Both are equivalent in that matter.

Re:tagging is fine

[Sky Cry]

In that case, all that should be needed to have the the picture removed would be to tell Facebook to do so

Facebook allows you to "untag" yourself from any photo, regardless of who tagged you. That's already halfway there.

Going any further than that is too complex, as it would require proof that indeed you are on the photo (and that you are who you say you are), which is far from being automated. Furthermore, other people on the photo might want it to stay.

Re:tagging is fine

[Builder]

Well, see, in countries where there's decent privacy laws, it's illegal to take a picture of somebody where that person is the subject of the photo, and then to publish that photo without their permission.

Really? Please name such a country and the law that makes this illegal.

The only thing I can think of is something like the EU data protection directives, and they make it clear that this is for interactions between a person and an organisation. There is no law anywhere that I can think of that stops me taking pictures of my friends at a party and publishing those. Good taste and restraint, sure, but law... not so much.

Re:tagging is fine

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? We seem to enforce these just fine in Germany.

Granted, most violations won't be caught. But so what? Most instances of, say, speeding won't get caught, either. Doesn't mean there's no use in laws against speeding: sometimes you still get caught, and if something happens as a result, say an accident (or a court case, like this one involving these Facebook pictures!), whether you broke the law will suddenly very much matter.

Re:tagging is fine

[Moryath]

I don't quite see the connection between a court case being having broad or narrow implications and how sympathetic or unsympathetic the defendant is.

"Easy" and "Hard" cases both have the same problem: they make for badly written, poorly thought out decisions.

In the case of "easy" cases, the "well he's obviously guilty so there" mentality leads to poorly considered, lazy jurisprudence with no thought for future consequences.

In the case of "hard" cases, the idea that the ruling applies to a very narrow set of circumstances leads only to legal finagling and nonsensical claims as to why "this new case" is "really the same" despite the fact that the circumstances are completely different.

Re:tagging is fine

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? That's never happened to me - I log in from all over the place, and so far I've only had to name the computer I am on. Maybe if you forget your password it does what you say, but in my experience it's not the case for simply logging in.

Re:tagging is fine

[Mr. Slippery]

Sitting at the Bar, Do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy?

Yes. My expectation is that my words and actions will be visible and audible only to the people present.

Re:tagging is fine

[Mr. Slippery]

Facebook often subjects you to a rather lengthy quiz to prove that you are the accountholder, asking you to identify friends in photos (based on other users' tags.)

I encountered this once. Very stupid idea. Many of my Facebook "friends" are people who have seen me perform poetry or music, or been to a class I taught, or otherwise know me when I really don't know them. My Facebook page is part of my campaign of relentless self-promotion, and less than 10% of my Facebook "friends" are people I know well.

Plus, there's the habit of tagging people who aren't in photos in order to bring the photo to someone's attention. A lot of times people are tagged in a photo that is actually the image of a flier for an upcoming show that the tagger is promoting.

FB's attempt to use the ability to recognize tagged photos as proof of identity demonstrates that FB has little idea how people are actually using the site.

Re:tagging is fine

[YodasEvilTwin]

What the hell are you on? #1, he didn't say you automatically get copyright on photos of which you are the subject. #2, copyright is sued to restrict things ALL THE TIME. Ask a lawyer who specializes in it if you don't believe me.

Re:tagging is fine

[BatGnat]

My expectation is that my words and actions will be visible and audible only to the people present.

which is everyone: your friends, the people sitting next to you, the bar tender, people walking by....

or do you have a portable cone of silence and a invisibility shield?

Re:tagging is fine

[Transaction7]

There's a third. Great cases, like hard cases [not to mention easy cases] make bad law. If you do something where you know or should realize that somebody can watch you and testify that they saw you do it, you have no kick if they do, unless you have some reasonable assurance, that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable, that they won't. The next easy step is that if it is legally OK for me to watch you doing something, it is at least probably OK to photograph this and make that available if the picture fairly depicts what you did. This isn't window-peeping, violating your legal right to medical privacy, or seducing you and secretly photographing you making out, which would be an invasion of your privacy highly offensive to a person of ordinary sensibilities. I don't have the citation or free access to the case but, since just taking a drink would typically not have any significant probative value or effect in a child custody case, suspect that the subject may have walked herself into a trap and made this relevant by lying and saying she wasn't there and doesn't drink, she's an alcoholic and should not drink, got plastered and abandoned, drove drunk or with, or otherwise endangered, a child. My favorite such case, for sheer stupidity, was the client of mine who overlooked and didn't tell me that he had invited his estranged wife to come clean his apartment, where he had left child porn, while they were engaged in a contested child custody case. I hate losing because my client is stupid and doens't tell me the whole truth. Telling four different stories, all incriminating, punctuated with obscenities tat escalate along with the incrimination, while in a cop car with the red light on the video camera on, is also ill-advised, but that wasn't my client. . Actually, now that many ATM and other financial transactions, and robberies, are routinely photographed, and everybody carries, and anyone with any brains should realize that everybody carries, a camera on their cell phone, there are some things it is more risky to do than it used to be. Then there are the people, like one politician I know of, who insist that it is an invasion of his privacy to photograph him driving through a red light without stopping, as though driving on a public street were a private act.

Re:tagging is fine

[Zoxed]

Germany: "Das Recht am eigenen Bild oder Bildnisrecht ist eine besondere Ausprägung des allgemeinen Persönlichkeitsrechts. Es besagt, dass jeder Mensch grundsätzlich selbst darüber bestimmen darf, ob überhaupt und in welchem Zusammenhang Bilder von ihm veröffentlicht werden ( 22 Satz 1 Kunsturheberrechtsgesetz (KUG/KunstUrhG))."

Google: "The right to their own image or likeness right is a specific expression of personal rights. It states that every person must, in principle even to decide whether to be published at all and the context in which images of him ( 22 sentence 1 Art Copyright Act (KUG / KunstUrhG))."

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recht_am_eigenen_Bild

second post

[Anonymous Coward]

And watch the courts do a 180 when the specter of stalking comes to town.

Can't have it both ways.

Re:second post

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes you can, it's called intent.

Re:second post

[Moryath]

Bullshit.

Someone with the "intent" to cause trouble in a custody case might have their ex followed, or try to get access to facebook info, or any other social media info.

Some stalking that person would do the precise same thing.

Re:second post

[similar_name]

In both of those cases the intent could be deemed criminal. Someone finding an old friend or family member would have a more benign intent and thus lawful action. The difference between manslaughter and homicide is intent. Intent plays a large role in our laws.

what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when is it wrong for people over 21 to drink alcohol? Drink alcohol - no kids. Drink alcohol - we won't hire you for a job. Do people realize that just because facebook only came about recently doesn't mean that responsible people haven't been drinking for much longer without problems?

Maybe give someone a hard time if there is a picture of them cutting someone's head off with a hacksaw on facebook, but drinking?

Re:what?

[Anonymous Coward]

From TFA:

"This was not good because her psychologist had testified that alcohol would have an adverse effect on the medication she was taking for bipolar disorder"

Re:what?

[Darkness404]

Exactly. And since when is it truly -wrong- (not illegal, but harming someone else) to drink even under 21 (a really, really silly rule)? Do people -really- believe that before Facebook that people -didn't- do these things?

Re:what?

[andrea.sartori]

No, it's just way easier to prove now that everybody publishes every detail of their sorry lives --or their friends' sorry lives-- on the web.

Re:what?

[Eevee]

And since when is it truly -wrong- (not illegal, but harming someone else) to drink even under 21 (a really, really silly rule)?

When you are in a custody battle and are taking medication that is incompatible with alcohol. Which you would know is the issue if you read the fine article:

This was not good because her psychologist had testified that alcohol would have an adverse effect on the medication she was taking for bipolar disorder.

Re:what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who's to say she was actually taking the medication while drinking. She could have stopped taking it months ago and no one would know.

Just because she had a prescription doesn't mean she was taking it. They would need to prove she was actually taking it while drinking for that argument to work.

I think it's more about her being a "bad" parent because she drank any alcohol at all, responsibly or not. The US is so weird. Almost everyone has sex, does drugs, and/or drinks alcohol but at the same time there is this puritanical background that can crucify anyone that actually does any of these things that everybody does. Such bizarre hypocrisy.

Re:what?

[nedlohs]

When you have bipolar disorder and are on medication which tends to react badly* with alcohol and are trying to have custody of the kids then yes drinking alcohol is going to look bad in court

* Where react badly is anything from reducing the effectiveness of the meds, to increasing the effectiveness of the alcohol, to resulting in hullicinations, self harm, and harm to others.

Re:what?

[dagamer34]

a) It would be VERY irresponsible of her to stop taking that medication cold turkey. It doesn't get out of your system for days/weeks and in the short term would have had rebound effects. b) She would have been told very clearly not to drink while on any anti-depressant/anti-psychotic medication. She obviously broke that rule. Adds these two points together and you get someone with poor judgement and not able to take very good care of herself.

Re:what?

[Anonymous Coward]

So a mentally-ill person taking no medication is in a better frame of mind to take care of a child than one that is abusing their medication?

Re:what?

[evilgraham]

Ok, by and large psychologist != medically qualified (at least here in the UK) and certainly not a pharmacologist. So testimony is basically pulled out of their arse. Secondly, being bipolar myself (and YMMV), I would be inclined to the view that most of the available medication (apart from Lithium) actually makes things worse, not better. But that's a side issue. Yer basic problem here is a legal system where throwing mud is a legitimate tatic. How on earth anyone could extrapolate a photograph on FB (unless, as suggested above, of cutting off someones head with a chainsaw) into making a meaningful judgement as to the fitness of ability to be a good parent is a mystery to me. Horseshit of the highest order.

Re:what?

[Anonymous Coward]

And if there were dietary restrictions with the medication, and she was shown in a photo eating something outside of what the Dr recommended, would that also be cause to remove custody?

Re:what?

[Hognoxious]

When you are in a custody battle and are taking medication that is incompatible with alcohol.

Where do you get these cameras that can take aa photo and simultaneously analyze the contents of a glass?

Re:what?

[sumdumass]

The government doesn't get involved with parents and children for taking medication or drinking. There had to have been some underlying cause for the entire drinking or medication to even be relevant in the first place.

In this case, it was a custody case in which one parent was saying I'm a better environment/person/provider/whatever then she is. This is the only reason why drinking or mental medication was even relevant.

All other things being equal, would someone not taking their prescription medication or boozing it up be a better or worse or equal environment for a child. You see, this is literally about the best and worst case arrangement for the kid(s) when compared between two distinct scenarios. The only reason why it's about drinking or medication is because someone is specifically saying it's not as good as over here.

Re:what?

[Rob the Bold]

a) It would be VERY irresponsible of her to stop taking that medication cold turkey. It doesn't get out of your system for days/weeks and in the short term would have had rebound effects. b) She would have been told very clearly not to drink while on any anti-depressant/anti-psychotic medication. She obviously broke that rule. Adds these two points together and you get someone with poor judgement and not able to take very good care of herself.

a) Who says if she stopped it was "cold turkey"? "Months ago" would only suggest "when", not "how".

b.1)Are you sure that one would be "told very clearly not to drink . . ." on the meds? Ya, the bottle might say that, but you see the "don't drink" on practically every Rx med these days, it can kinda look more like a CYA thing. Like the warning to wear eye-protection when using your new pliers.

b.2)Who says she's on an anti-depressant/anti-psychotic medication for Bipolar Disorder?

Re:what?

[nedlohs]

If breaking those dietary restrictions have a history of triggering the person to harm others then possibly.

Though as with the drinking it isn't "cause to remove custody" it's evidence off unsuitability meaning the other parent is more likely to be a better choice.

Re:what?

[thisnamestoolong]

Well... if failing to follow the dietary restrictions could result in the person having a psychotic episode and become violent and dangerous, I would hope the answer would be yes...

Re:what?

[reub2000]

TFA states that she told her mental health care providers that she was cutting back on her drinking. The judge never states how lying to your doctor makes you a bad parent, but that seems to be his conclusion.

Re:what?

[reub2000]

a) Noncompliance in the first place would have seriously hurt her argument. The judge's opinion appears to be primarily based on how truthful she was with her doctor.

b.1) She told her doctor that she was quiting drinking. Again the decision was based on her truthfulness.

b.2) TFA says the medication was for bipolar disorder. Judge's opinion says that she had Bipolar II. (This opinion is linked to from the TFA.)

Stupid question

[flyingkillerrobots]

I'm pretty sure Facebook's privacy settings even allow you to deny people the ability to tag you in posts. Problem solved. Idiot.

Re:Stupid question

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure Facebook's privacy settings even allow you to deny people the ability to tag you in posts. Problem solved. Idiot.

No it doesn't!

Re:Stupid question

[andrea.sartori]

"Facebook" and "privacy" in the same sentence is technically an oxymoron.

Re:Stupid question

[Lehk228]

there are better options than that, you can block others from seeing when you are tagged, that way you can still see when people tag you

Re:Stupid question

[Anonymous Coward]

FB does allow you to remove your tag from others' photos of you. This woman obviously didn't think it was a problem or she would have done it.

Re:Stupid question

[mr_lizard13]

Putting aside the woman's motivations and this specific case in general, the ability to remove the tag after the fact is of limited use. As soon as you're 'tagged' it shows up in mutual friend's 'news feeds' - you'd have to be pretty quick in removing the tag for no-one to notice.

Re:Stupid question

[flyingkillerrobots]

If not, I stand corrected.

Re:Stupid question

[hedwards]

Funny, Facebook was started by an Oxy using moron.

Re:Stupid question

[Anonymous Coward]

BIG PENIS GIGANTOS. How are you feeling? Your comment is insightful.

  PENIS FOREVER!!! !!! !!!

Re:Stupid question

[Rob the Bold]

I've never found such a setting. I've seen that you can remove tags others have applied to pictures of you. You can even tag someone who doesn't even have an account . . . To test this, I just tagged my dog. And no, she doesn't have her own account.

Re:Stupid question

[thisnamestoolong]

I'm actually pretty sure they don't. Idiot.

Re:Stupid question

[UBfusion]

Well said, sir.

Can I add that "Facebook" and "stupidity", although almost never in the same sentence, are synonymous and therefore offer an opportunity for a legal case?

Re:Stupid question

[andrea.sartori]

Alas, stupidity is not a criminal offense.

Re:Stupid question

[phorm]

I haven't done any picture-tagging on FB for awhile, but I do remember that you could take people/things that weren't linked to other FB accounts, so you'd see things tags like "Shannon's new puppies" etc

I've never found an option to prevent tagging, but to use it you'd have to have a facebook account in the first place.

Re:Stupid question

[ArcCoyote]

Not only that, but you can limit who can see those tags, even when you are tagged in their friends' photos.

setting precedent?

[Anonymous Coward]

So it's legal to link to a person's identity, but not link to other material. I think the copyright case two below should try to use this as precedent.

Evidence is evidence

[redelm]

Just why would any court want less evidence? The judge & jury need information to base their decision upon. The more, the better. There are rules about what evidence can be excluded, but those are for only very good reasons. Not just because one party doesn't like it.

In this case, tagging is like making a comment on a post. Free speech, subject to the limitations of libel. If she can show the tag is clearly wrong, then perhaps she can get it excluded as irrelevant. If not, tough. The jury will decide.

The fundamental thing is that people are responsible for all their actions -- on record all the time -- except in clear situations where there is an expectation of privacy. Not in any bar.

Re:Evidence is evidence

[jopsen]

The fundamental thing is that people are responsible for all their actions -- on record all the time -- except in clear situations where there is an expectation of privacy. Not in any bar.

What ever you say, big brother...

Re:Evidence is evidence

[redelm]

Alright, I'll bite Little Brother:

For which actions are people _NOT_ responsible? What acts in public deserve privacy? Crimes? Misdemenors? The real problem is prejudice, and I'd rather work on that.

This could have happened (and probably did) in the days of 35mm cameras, it is just more likely with cellphone cameras and networks.

Re:Evidence is evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

Because allowing illegal evidence that has already been obtained in one instance encourages people to obtain evidence illegally in the future.

Re:Evidence is evidence

[517714]

Just why would any court want less evidence? The judge & jury need information to base their decision upon. The more, the better.

In general your statement is true, but the exceptions are important. Had the prosecution in the Nicole Simpson murder case restricted their case to the strongest evidence (motive, opportunity, the best of the blood evidence), O.J. Simpson would probably been convicted. When one "expert witness" claims the state's evidence is wrong, juries tend to take it with a grain of salt, but ten "expert witnesses" represent reasonable doubt.

Re:Evidence is evidence

[Velex]

I was originally going to argue against redelm's point, but I think he's just arguing a point I might agree with but a bit clumsily and using too much macho rugged-individualist puritan hyperbole.

The point is that it's great and all to have your own personal, public "wall" or news feed where you can chronicle your life and times for all to see. There needs to come a point where people realize that this is not the best idea.

The problem isn't Facebook or which actions a person is responsible for or not, the problem is the decision to publish it for all the world to see.

If I do a thing, which may or may not be legal or moral, etc, then I can only be responsible for it to the people who know I did that thing. If those people are the entire world and society at large, then I'm responsible to society for what I did. If those people are a few close friends, then what happens behind closed doors happens. As long as the door stays closed.

More people need to understand that. It works both ways, too. Why would I publicly embarrass a friend? People need to think before publishing.

Re:Evidence is evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

What acts in public deserve privacy?

While I'm not commenting on this specific case, it's worth noting that a very large part of the pictures in FB aren't about acts in public. Or well, at least the definition of "public" is very ambiguous (How many friends need to be present before you lose a right to reasonable privacy?).

Let's say that I am spending an evening with a friend and it gets pretty wild. Eventually, I pass out half-naked on his couch. Does he have the right to take pictures of me and put them online for all my friends, family members, boss, etc. to see? While I do agree that things like this should be (and usually are) resolved without any need for lawyers, I think that it's not unreasonable to say that you can expect a certain level of privacy even when you aren't alone in your own home with curtains closed.

Hard to reconcile

[Jessified]

Why would this ever be an issue? Why would you ever need to get permission to IDENTIFY a person in a picture?

As far as the supposed need to ask permission to take and publish the photos in the first place: the judge said there is nothing within the law to suggest permission is necessary. It will be hard to reconcile that with these "rights to be forgotten" or Google Street View etc. In those cases, the argument is that you can't simply take pictures of things/people in public places and publish them...

Re:Hard to reconcile

[hedwards]

I'm a photographer, and whenever I want to use a picture which prominently features somebody I have to have permission to show it. The sites I use require a model release form. And even if their in the background, I have to worry about whether or not the individuals are identifiable.

It's one thing to be taking pictures of somebody in public, but if you're disseminating those photos, particularly online, there does need to be some permission. Privacy expectations when a recording is done, definitely ought to have additional protections over ones that are just observational.

Re:Hard to reconcile

[Jessified]

What about CCTV? Privacy rights seem to have a lot more to do with who is doing the recording.

CCTV shots are shown online or on TV all the time. Pretty sure they don't check for permission.

Re:Hard to reconcile

[swrider]

If someone took my picture without my permission, or over my objection, is there something in the law that would prevent me from getting my picture back?

A few months ago I had to reiterate my objection to having my picture taken several times. I knew the photographer was planning on posting the pictures on Facebook and tagging the subjects and I did not want to be included. He finally understood.

Re:Hard to reconcile

[thegarbz]

If someone took my picture without my permission, or over my objection, is there something in the law that would prevent me from getting my picture back?

Absolutely nothing. If you're in a position that allows someone to take a picture of you then you automatically give up that right to privacy. You could be in your own yard but if the photographer is on the street a photo of you as well as posting it anywhere the photographer wants is entirely fair game.

What you do have the right to is not to be involved in a commercial way. I take a photo of you and put it up on my website and there's nothing you can do, I could sell it in an art gallery and there's nothing you can do, but if I write Pepsi on the bottom or sell it to a company to be used for advertising or other commercial purposes then the onus lies on the company using the photo to ensure they have your original signed model release form.

Re:Hard to reconcile

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes but courts have ruled that if you do something in public and are caught by a digital eye, ie. camera, video recording, etc., they are considered to have been done in a public setting where you were aware that other people may be watching and photos taken, that is why people can make money off videos taken at mardi gras and sell them, people were in public, and whenever you are in public, your image is property of the public

Re:Hard to reconcile

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone took my picture without my permission, or over my objection, is there something in the law that would prevent me from getting my picture back?

You mean aside from the fact that "getting your picture back" is semantic nonsense? Once the data is captured, you will never know if copies exist.

Whether your picture can be "published" is a matter the law does address, though not without considerable ambiguity.

Re:Hard to reconcile

[wmbetts]

Because I purposely don't want my information entered into their database. If I did I would have an account and upload my own pictures. Someone else shouldn't be allowed to populate their database with my personal information.

Re:Hard to reconcile

[gfreeman]

You could be in your own yard but if the photographer is on the street a photo of you as well as posting it anywhere the photographer wants is entirely fair game.

That depends on where your yard is. Jurisdiction is very important - if your yard is in France, then the law is on your side. In France, you cannot publish photos of somewhere private without the owner's permission, regardless of whether you yourself are in a public place.

Question from a Facebook newbie

[PPH]

Actually, a Facebook non-user. If someone on Facebook takes a photo with me in it and 'links' it to my account, what you say may be true. But if I don't have a Facebook account and I am simply identified as PPH, how do I stop someone from searching through others Facebook accounts (which may be unsecured) for instances of PPH?

Do I have to have a Facebook account to control this sort of third party tagging? Isn't that a form of blackmail?

Funny story...

[zerocool^]

Funny story...

Facebook is using their photo tagging system to build the world's best facial recognition software.

Oh wait, that's not funny.

Re:Funny story...

[hajus]

This could have practical ramifications for long term computer facial recognition. If those tagged pictures became public or were sold to AI researchers working in the field, it could provide a nice large set of data to teach and test against. This is assuming passport and license pictures from gov't are off limits.

Re:Funny story...

[517714]

Unfortunately it cannot identify people with BAC below .08%

Re:Funny story...

[Damek]

also, not practically useful, esp. given enough time. People have each others' names, esp. given enough time.

Re:Funny story...

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny story...

Facebook is using their photo tagging system to build the world's best facial recognition software.

Oh wait, that's not funny.

Yes it is.

Do you have any idea how many people tag all kinds of crazy ass shit which is NOT a person, as a person? Hell, if any of my friends' data is used to train their software, any time it sees a soda can, pizza box, or pile of dog shit my name will pop up. My best friend will become a positive match for any image of a NFL cheerleader (he's about 6 foot 5 inches and just under 300lbs and uuuuuuugly). And my older brother will be returned as a match for any image of a humping dog.

Re:Funny story...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmmm, let's see. Who would that be of use to? Plastic surgeons? Perhaps. Orphans? Maybe."'The government"? Probably.

So no need for model release forms then?

[nedlohs]

Since there's "nothing within the law" requiring their permission?

Re:So no need for model release forms then?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's completely different; when taking photographs of a model they are generally taken with the aim of using the images commercially - you essentially need permission to use somebodies image for commercial purposes.

Taking a photograph of anyone, even a model, in a public place is perfectly legal.

Re:So no need for model release forms then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. See:

Thus, privacy issues typically arise when an image is used for purposes of trade or advertising. That is, it’s not the picture, but how it is used that determines the need for a release. For instance, an image that is printed in a newspaper, shown in an exhibition or reproduced in a book might well be immune from a privacy suit. But the commercial sale of coffee mugs or t-shirts with the same image would probably not enjoy such protection. An advertisement almost certainly would not be immune.

Cited from here.

Re:So no need for model release forms then?

[Anonymous Coward]

In a public place it has been ruled quite often in the US that you have no expectation of privacy. Same reason google streetview didn't run into legal issues in the US, but did in, say, Germany. If you are doing a paid photo shoot at a studio, there is an expectation that those photos will be used in specific ways. Often that would be for advertising, which adds yet another layer to the whole thing, as even if you had a photo of someone in public that you could publish legally, you still can't claim that person endorses your product without their permission.

Re:So no need for model release forms then?

[Lawrence_Bird]

but you left out the prior paragraph

However, the right of privacy is not absolute. In particular, the courts have long held that news reporting and social, political and economic commentary — the things the First Amendment was designed to protect — are more valuable to society than an individual’s right to be let alone. Therefore, images that are part of the public colloquy about events have usually been exempt from privacy lawsuits. In contrast, the courts have generally held that making money is distinctly less valuable to society than the right to be let alone.

So in fact, a case could be made that a release was necessary as this was not an editorial (news) type photograph. As you note, commercial use is more firmly a no-no without release.

Re:So no need for model release forms then?

[ScentCone]

So no need for model release forms then? Since there's "nothing within the law" requiring their permission?

Model releases (which are individual documents waving privacy, and are individually negotiated and often have very different terms from one to the next) do not apply to editorial and personal use, or when an image is used as art for art's sake. They apply when the image is used commercially (say, I take a photo of you, and then use it in a Viagra ad, or to illustrate a fund-raising press release for my non-profit, implying your endorsement of my cause, etc).

The case in question has nothing to do with model or property releases as used in stock photography or commercial licensing.

Re:Question from a Facebook newbie

[stinerman]

I don't believe there's a search mechanism for people who are tagged in pictures that don't link back to an account.

So If I had a picture of you and I posted it and tagged it as being "PPH", I don't believe there is a way to just search for pictures of "PPH" using the interface. There might be, but it would be non-obvious.

Photos don't prove much

[ribit]

Couldn't she just say she was pretending to drink? (People read way too much into photos and Facebook posts as being factual. It can all be made up.)

Re:Photos don't prove much

[Rob the Bold]

Couldn't she just say she was pretending to drink? (People read way too much into photos and Facebook posts as being factual. It can all be made up.)

A point I have often tried to make. There seems to be an erroneous expectation that all facebook -- or any "social media" -- posts are accurate. As if I've never made up or punched a story about myself for the amusement of friends -- online or otherwise. As if no one's ever posed in an intentionally goofy photo; the bikini girl with the BB gun who got Sarah Palin's head 'shopped on her neck comes to mind.

The real sadness here...

[Anonymous Coward]

... is that the mother, despite being mentally ill and abusing the terms of her medication is using every court technicality possible to try get the original (and on the face of ir totally correct) descision voided.

Compare this story to the one three down the list

[Anonymous Coward]

Case 1: Court rules you can make any semantic link you want...

Case 2: ... unless it's to something that a corporation doesn't want you to see.

Fool is a fool.

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that the photo was on Facebook should be irrelevant.

The women simply shouldn't have been in that picture if she didn't want that scene that she was involved in being used against her.

The picture could have been taken and then sent to the husband/ex/whatever you may.

He could have come across it through a mutual friend at a house, and asked to borrow it.

It doesn't matter.

Either don't be in the picture, or be smart enough to make sure the person you're letting take the picture doesn't do anything you don't want with it.

tl;dr: bitch got what she deserved

universe has no conscience, our fake 'math' fails

[Anonymous Coward]

so, seems (pure & simple math of extrapolation of living organisms?) as though we were very likely designed to be a star eventually, but something far different is happening right now. fortunately, our plight was anticipated, & our rescue was planned, using accurate (perfect) math, perhaps millions of eons (big #) prior to evile's minions creating their first non-human (no conscience, aggressive etc...) mutants. so, it then turns again to numbers, & ,, oh hell, we're still being subjected to heathen alchemy (eugenics equals LESS life,, the worst bad fake 'math' ever, in all of creation) today, so that too. THIS HAPPENED BEFORE, DISARM THEM, so we can get back to becoming a star again, when it's time, a way long time. we'll have plenty of time then (remember?, it's 'speeding' up a little right now, because of real math/physics & a twist of life inspired creativity) to locate 'other' suitable digs. see you there. thanks. nobody's laughing/angry/ascared?

Why would the tagging be relevant?

[srussia]

Her face could have been tagged "Lady Gaga", but if the photo itself was admitted as evidence, the person would still be identified.

There are already Facebook settings for this

[Geam]

Other than maybe not drinking if a psychologist says that alcohol has an adverse effect on the medication she takes and maybe asking the photographer not to take her picture while drinking, she could untag herself from unflattering pictures like these. There is already a setting to limit who can see tagged photos and also automation to have the system send an email and/or SMS when a photo is tagged. I frequently check the Privacy settings to make sure that I know how much information is being shared. I essentially have three groups: people I actually know (full access to what I share and access to see each other's posts on my wall), people I am 'Friends' with but do not have the heart to de-friend (basic information like photos I have shared and tagged myself, email address, status updates), and everyone else (name, default profile pic... and nothing else).

To limit who can see tagged photos:
Account > Privacy > Customize > Photos and videos I'm tagged in > Edit Settings > Who can see photos and videos I'm tagged in > Custom > Create a group of people you actually know or set it to 'Only Me'.

To receive alerts about being tagged:
Account > Account Settings > Notifications > Photos > 'Tags you in a photo'

Re:There are already Facebook settings for this

[Anonymous Coward]

Great post. Thanks for the advice!

true in public, not in private

[circletimessquare]

as soon as you step out your front door, you are in public, and anyone can take a picture of you, without any need for permission

in your private abode, or someone else's privater abode, the opposite is true

Re:true in public, not in private

[Anonymous Coward]

as soon as you step out your front door, you are in public, and anyone can take a picture of you, without any need for permission

in your private abode, or someone else's privater abode, the opposite is true

This is not true for every place in the world. In Quebec, for example, Quebec Human Rights Code grants all humans the right to their private life. This allows each each person in Quebec control over the use of their image. And in the rest of Canada a signed model release is required for all identifiable subjects. Every place is different.

Re:true in public, not in private

[DutchUncle]

Yes, but can they publish it? particularly with identification? Being shown in a crowd shot at a public event is reasonable; when it becomes a very personally-identifiable shot, and has your name on it . . . except on Facebook it could have been put up as an anonymous group shot and some "helpful" friend tagged it. Neither poster nor tagger did anything "bad", yet the result might be bad. Does this mean that privacy is like STDs, in that the weakest link in the chain will break everybody?

She Should sic the dhs on the tagger.

[jsh1972]

I love how the government is so eager to protect corporate "persons" but REAL people, who experience real consequences from someone basically doing the same thing, linking to them online, well, suddenly it's ok.

State Appeals, NOT federal court.

[barfy]

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.
February 25, 2011.

This is a good reminder

[Gaygirlie]

It's a great thing I have no friends: they can't tag me in any photos if anyone even happened to take a photo of me in the first place!

No friends == better privacy obviously!

Re:This is a good reminder

[517714]

No friends == nothing worth hiding

Do not post photos

[p51d007]

Once again...it proves that you should say this little phrase before posting any photo online. Would your mother approve? If the answer is no, then don't do it.

Re:Do not post photos

[Anonymous Coward]

What if someone else posted the photo and tagged it - should people go and cry to their mothers?

Basically do people need to leave their basements in such a case? I'm asking for a friend.

Re:Do not post photos

[frozentier]

This isn't about someone getting drunk and posting a picture of herself. This is about going to a party, a friend takes a picture of you, and they put that picture on THEIR page. You don't even have to own a camera or have a facebook page at all for that to happen (although the woman in the article does have a fb page). I think this is more about your friends violating your privacy than fb violating it. There could be no tags even involved, all the friend would have to do is comment under the picture "Here's Sally getting all f'ed up, but I don't know where her kid is".

Re:Do not post photos

[Dcnjoe60]

Once again...it proves that you should say this little phrase before posting any photo online.
Would your mother approve? If the answer is no, then don't do it.

Actually, the correct statement before doing something in public, would be to ask yourself if your mother would approve? If the answer is no, then don't do it. The heck with just posting it online, if it is something that you would be embarrassed to have posted or there would be negative consequences if posted, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place. In the case of this story, is the problem that her picture was taken, posted and then tagged or is the problem that she was out drinking instead of caring for the child?

they have that certain glow about them

[Anonymous Coward]

used to be (still is) said a lot about new/almost mommys, &/or their sacred (to ALL, take heed) trust(s). our only mandate, other than to stop trying to throw creation (#s) out of sync (isn't going to happen).

could try (only if needed); they have that certain well armed look about them? something like that? to keep the riffraff away?

When filming you blur out faces

[Anonymous Coward]

When filming something to be shown to the public, don't you have to blur out faces of people that didn't give their explicit consent? Why is this case different?

woo hoo!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

If I am to understand the legal door that was just opened, this new ruling sets a precedent that means I could shoot a film now and no longer have to ask anyones permission to use their likeness, right?

Re:woo hoo!!!

[reub2000]

The right to take someone's picture and use their likeness has always been protected the first amendment, even before the internet existed. See Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia.

unless it's libel, of course

[markhahn]

tagging a picture is two separate acts: publishing the picture and publishing a statement (the tag). if I have published a legal picture of someone, I can tag it with anything non-libelous. not really anything new here, is there?

This is great juxtaposed w/ a previous article

[dmomo]

A few posts back "man arrested for linking to online videos."

Victory for photographers

[metageek]

This is one more confirmation that it is legal to photograph anyone without their permission in public places. No need for model releases. A victory for photographers that are regularly harassed by policemen around the world...

Re:Victory for photographers

[SquirrelDeth]

Actually would this not set a precedent that it is legal to photograph anyone without their permission in private places? Meaning I should be able to walk into the police station and photograph whatever/whoever I want and then post the pictures on the internet identifying officers?

Re:Victory for photographers

[Christoph]

Yeah.

I was sued in federal court for posting the photo of a man who had sued me for defamation. He sued me because I was causing negative publicity, but my statements were true/opinion and protected speech. I defended myself and prevailed.

I have also licensed photos I've taken of people for commercial use in advertisements. The law is not clear in all jurisdictions on the duty to obtain permission (CA and NY have statutes, some other states don't have a single case dealing with the issue). Also, permission is the duty of the publisher of an advertisement, not the photographer.

I photographed a parade many years ago, then a customer wanted to license a marching band photo for billboard use. The client correctly wanted a model release for a recognizable band member. I tracked down the school, then the student, got a release and paid the student. There would have been no way to get hundreds of releases when the parade occurred (and paid each person).

I just licensed a photo of an elementary school student for advertising use. I offered to get a model release, but the client was not interested. I am trying to locate the student anyway to pay her a modeling fee. The student is overseas in a developing country. I took the photo six years ago, but I know her first name, volunteered at her school, and donated a construction project. I can say from experience she will probably be happy the photo was used in this ad, and be thrilled to get paid. If I cancelled the deal out of concern she might object, she would probably be very disappointed and confused.

The above does not apply to "sensitive subjects" that the average person might be expected to object to being associated with (subjects like illness, teen pregnancy, abortion, smoking, criminal activity, etc).

As a footnote, my photo (when I was a child) was often used in advertisements. One had me appearing as a criminal. I was paid and liked seeing the ads.

That's my experience with this issue.

then quebec is retarded

[circletimessquare]

i've been to montreal, i've taken pictures there where people wandered into the shot. have i violated their rights? no

you can make a law about anything you want. that automatically doesn't make the law common sense or something you must respect. clearly this quebec law is irrational and deserves to be overturned

you really support the notion that just taking a picture in public means you can't publish it without contacting every person who wanders in the shot? clearly, no. so the only common sense idea is that IF you go in public, images of you in that public area are open and free for all. to say you get to go out IN PUBLIC and still control your image there, is delusionally wrong

Re:then quebec is retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

i've been to montreal, i've taken pictures there where people wandered into the shot. have i violated their rights? no

According to them you were and you were in there land. Even if you disagree it's at least their truest right to define what rights they have.

you can make a law about anything you want. that automatically doesn't make the law common sense or something you must respect. clearly this quebec law is irrational and deserves to be overturned

Common sense is absurd. It only means knowledge that's common to you and those you know. Any argument built upon it is fundamentally flawed. You should fight the laws that you disagree with in the land that you live. You may even decide to protest a law by peacefully breaking/ignoring it. But when in Rome, you should do as the Romans do. It's common sense ;)

Re:then quebec is retarded

[ChrisMaple]

Common sense is the opposite of absurd; it is the rejection of absurd. Common sense is informal logic, logic as understood by someone not trained in logic.

Re:then quebec is retarded

[circletimessquare]

"common sense is absurd"

and that's all we need to know about how you think

Re:then quebec is retarded

[angel'o'sphere]

Common sense is defined by your cultural background.

In europe it is common sense that you may not take photos from random people and publish them on your facebook page.

So, also if I take a photo from the Eiffel tower, for europeans it is common sense to wait until no unwanted random people are on the photo.

Heck, everyone making a photo and wants it to be a good one would take care to have as few random people on it as possible.

angel'o'sphere

Re:then quebec is retarded

[eddeye]

intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it

Your sig is retarded. Laws have nothing to do with philosophical coherence. Laws are legislative compromises between competing interests. They are often^H damn near always messy horse trades. If you only follow the "philosphically coherent"[1] ones you're left with nothing but the ten commandments (even some of those are suspect).

Besides which, IP law is well grounded in economic theory - much more so than other areas of the law. You may disagree with the precepts, but "philosophical coherence" is there in spades. There are always a few warts around the edges as the law catches up with changing technology, but the underpinnings are well considered.

[1] whatever your limited parochial viewpoint defines that to mean

Quantity != quality

[Hognoxious]

The judge & jury need information to base their decision upon. The more, the better.

Really? So ten lying witnesses are better than one truthful one?

Re:Quantity != quality

[Velodra]

The judge & jury need information to base their decision upon. The more, the better.

Really? So ten lying witnesses are better than one truthful one?

No, lying witnesses don't give you information.

Re:Quantity != quality

[Anonymous Coward]

The judge & jury need information to base their decision upon. The more, the better.

Really? So ten lying witnesses are better than one truthful one?

No, lying witnesses don't give you information.

Yes they do. False information.

Wrong defense.

[Dcnjoe60]

They used the wrong defense. They should have argued that the original poster of the picture had no permission to use their picture for personal gain in the first place. Is it okay for me to scan in this month's Playboy and post the pictures as long as I tag them with the playmate's name?

Re:Wrong defense.

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't the original poster of the picture hold the copyright to it?

Re:Wrong defense.

[517714]

The picture of her was taken in a public place where she had no expectation of privacy. The personal gain argument fails since a private investigator could take a picture of her and be paid by the husband; the picture would be admissible in court. Even if she could establish that the poster had no right to publish the picture, that would not mean that the picture could not be used by the court since it was not taken illegally. Otherwise every defense team would publish the evidentiary pictures against their client thus violating copyright and excluding them from the trial. The Playboy pictures are copyrighted so you may not use the pictures except within the confines of "fair use".

Re:Wrong defense.

[Anonymous Coward]

My question is how can one tell if the person in the photo drinking was in fact drinking? A can of beer may or may not have beer in it. Seems unfair to judge simply based on a picture. Maybe if someone testified to the fact she was drinking that night it would be sufficient for the purpose of supporting evidence. Without testimony though there is no evidence that was she was in fact drinking was an alcoholic beverage. One must assume anything could have been in the drink. Baby's have been drinking alcoholic beverages based the assertion of a photo if we assume otherwise when in fact the pictures are almost always posed. In fact many drinking pictures are posed. I recall in college while I had been drinking we took lots of posed pictures which made it look REALLY bad. That is someone on the floor with a shit load of empty alcoholic beers on a table. In fact we had a party with dozens of people of whom the person who was drunk in the photo may or may not have been drinking heavily even.

tag this

[milkmage]

how hard would it be for FB to seek the "tag-ee's" permission to use the tag? click here to approve your tag on this photo. click here to deny.. even better a setting that says - NO CAN TAG

instead they just send a note that says "you've been tagged"

fuck. that. shit.

Re:tag this

[vlueboy]

If you changed the default back in the friendster days you must approve the comments your friends wanted to post to your profiles.

Online reviews for brick&mortar stores (ie jr.com) have settings to "prevent abuse" (though the real answer is to prevent the sales-hurting effect of overwhelming numbers of bad reviews.) The technology has been with us for almost a decade. The corporate machinery has always known where to turn it in their favor. Meet facebook.

The increasing variety of exploitable posts/pictures/news/tags/advertisement means fewer people want to use and pay for the rather poor competition found at Windows Live, Google Buzz and Yahoo Pulse.

Re:tag this

[Todd Knarr]

They already do. There's a privacy setting (under "Things Others Share") where you can control who can see photos and videos you're tagged in. Of course, this being Facebook, it defaults to "Everyone", but you can change it. I set mine to friends-only in anticipation of just this kind of thing. Or worse. Even if you never do anything embarrassing, there's nothing in Facebook that restricts people to only tagging photos that're really you. Someone who's taken a dislike to you can attach your name to any photo of anyone doing anything at all. If someone does that, I want visibility limited to people who'll look and go "That's not him in that picture.".

No Friends == Better Privacy

[Greyfox]

Also: Less chance of being involved in a child custody case in the first place.

2 SCOTUS justices wrote about this in 1890!

[Anonymous Coward]

"The days of 35mm cameras" might seem as ancient as the dinosaurs to you, but concerns that new technologies and new businesses exploiting of those technologies are infringing on the right "to be let alone" have been raised for more than a century.

Two future Supreme Court of the US Justices, named Warren and Brandeis, published a classic paper entitled "The Right to Privacy" in the Harvard Law Journal in 1890: http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/privacy/Privacy_brand_warr2.html. It is on of the most frequently cited law journal articles of all time and was the first to identify a Constitutional basis for a "right to privacy".

Of course in their day, the new technology was photographs (which were slow back then, but enough faster than paintings that they could be taken surreptitiously) and newspapers were the new business exploiting those technologies but the principles and issues have not changed in a long, LONG time. If you want to read some discussion by a couple of really smart guys about what acts in public deserve privacy, read the paper.

Re:2 SCOTUS justices wrote about this in 1890!

[redelm]

Sure, but notice the privacy exceptions near the bottom, 2 of 6 includes "quasi public bodies" voluntary associations which would include Facebook (and /. for that matter). Sign-up, and you are volunteering their scope of your life for public discussion. Not all will be pleasant.

2 of 6 also includes the courts very explicity, which is the whole question here.

Re:Question from a Facebook newbie

[PPH]

There might be, but it would be non-obvious.

The reason I asked is that: I have a friend who has no Facebook account. On top of that, he has the same name as a famous actor. So he thinks he is completely anonymous on the Interweb. But I went into a people search engine (it aggregates searches from numerous sources) and typed his name in. Sure enough, in the midst of a bunch of Hollywood paparazzi photos of his namesake, there's his ugly mug staring out at the world from some other person's Facebook account. So "non obvious" isn't going to buy you much anonymity.

Re:Question from a Facebook newbie

[Rob the Bold]

I don't believe there's a search mechanism for people who are tagged in pictures that don't link back to an account.

So If I had a picture of you and I posted it and tagged it as being "PPH", I don't believe there is a way to just search for pictures of "PPH" using the interface. There might be, but it would be non-obvious.

And even if there were such a mechanism -- and I believe you're right that there isn't -- one would have to be checking all the damn time to see if any new tags showed recently. At least if one has an account, one gets notified of new tags. For now. But that would sort of be coercion to get an account, as PPH wondered.

Fucked over in KY

[mabhatter654]

this is seriously fucked up.

The Facebook angle is about the LEAST thing wrong with the case. Dad Ran off to play softball for months (the links left off where dad's stuff was), mom took kid to Michigan (probably for family support). She did the MORALLY RIGHT thing of returning the child to the father on time, then going back to Michigan to file Divorce not in front of the kid. That was a mistake because HE then had custody in KY and she had to get the kid back. I can't believe the court tipped the scale because she was VOLUNTARILY under treatment for Bi-Polar and did something slightly bad. There was no indication that CPS was involved or that the drinking was in front of the child. Purely that she was "interfering" with her meds.... Wow! Does this mean I can lose custody for haz Cheezburg if I take Cholesterol or blood pressure meds??? The basics of the ruling are the fucking stone ages! That's like 60 years backward!!!!

What is it with Kentucky and protecting crappy dads? A cousin of mine did traveling equipment repair, left is wife for weeks and spent his days off with somebody else.... SHE had to explain why SHE didn't have a job, and explain why SHE needed support... and he took a job with a pay cut, but still an hour drive away just before filing.... What's wrong with those people down there???? I'm all for Dad's rights... but he should have been ass-raped by the court for every single dime just on principal, he misses visits for dates, and doesn't do any extra to spend time with the kid.... SHE had to leave the house? WTF.

I never understood in these cases why the "marriage" partnership wasn't held up to the same legality as a business partnership. If I had a business partner with joint responsibilities and they didn't do their end, and hit money, misappropriated resources, etc... they'd go to jail for fault... why don't those same rules apply to husbands and wives... crap like this makes "gay" marriage the LEAST of our moral problems with marriage.

Re:Fucked over in KY

[sixsixtysix]

I never understood in these cases why the "marriage" partnership wasn't held up to the same legality as a business partnership. If I had a business partner with joint responsibilities and they didn't do their end, and hit money, misappropriated resources, etc... they'd go to jail for fault... why don't those same rules apply to husbands and wives... crap like this makes "gay" marriage the LEAST of our moral problems with marriage.

easy fix. get all marriage-related business out of the legal system. the government should have nothing to do with it. any disputes can be handled like any other civil dispute: work it out or sue.

Re:Fucked over in KY

[Jessified]

crap like this makes "gay" marriage the LEAST of our moral problems with marriage.

As if there is a moral problem with gay marriages. The only moral problem surrounding gay marriages is that others grant themselves the authority to butt in and tell consenting adults what types of relationships they may engage in.

But point taken: hetero-marriages are far from perfect. The people who argue so fervently against homo-marriages don't give a crap about the f*cked up world of heteros.

Re:Question from a Facebook newbie

[phantomfive]

The tagging doesn't even matter. If someone tags you, you get a notice, and you can 'untag' yourself, and the person will not be able to re-tag you in the same photo. Apparently this person didn't think there was anything wrong with the tagged pictures until it came up in court.

In your case, you are lucky that facebook has a really lousy search function. If there is a way to find such tags, I don't know it.

Re:I'd mod this up if I had points

[symbolic]

Right on the money - I do not believe that the mere act of being in public (which is something, for all practical purposes, we must do), erases a right to privacy. When I walk out my front door, it is not an implicit invitation to every Tom, Dick, and Harry to turn my life into public spectacle if they so choose.

Re:Question from a Facebook newbie

[vlueboy]

We're safe. I've used someone else's account and found people tagging my name / aliases. When you're not a member of FB people skip your surname, misspell misspell your first, or misspell the whole thing and add anti-stalking noise.

Facebook isn't yet sharing tag contents with google spiders. Besides, for avoiding tag paranoia alone, the "FB skeptic/outsider" state is better than joining, since once joined, people WILL find your name on google's first hit. For FB members, it takes a single click after autocomplete yields profile-linking names of the people you want to tag... when you're a non-member the GUI puts the effort on the tagger to type the entire name. If they have 30 pictures of you to be tagged, need to type it 30 times.*

* Computer users have little idea about abundant copy-and-paste and rarely train their minds to abuse subtle scenarios. Thankfully, this deters them from making choices like systematically tagging their 200 friends in their personal (Picasa) or FB collections. This will become a problem as facial recognition AI's become cheaper to implement... I'm dreading the day FB just asks them to click 'Yes, THIS is John Smith's face' on each picture.

My 2 cents worth

[Nov8tr]

I have a Facebook account I use to keep in contact with friends from High School. As far as I'm concerned it's like this. If it is my Facebook page and I post the picture, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. If I post it, they can tag it. Now if someone else takes my pic and post it on some Facebook page, they cannot tag it. I never gave permission for it to be there and there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Now let the courts argue it so some slime lawyer can make money.

but a cop is different

[Locutus]

reminds me of recent news on public recordings and cops. they get different interpretations of the law.

LoB

common sense is common sense is common sense

[circletimessquare]

this is getting into an argument about moral relativism and moral absolutism

which i will say this about:

i'm very sick of this respect for cultural relativity that says something stupid is ok in another place out of "respect" for culture

to me, this is ignorance beyond words. there is only one standard of morality for the entire world. it is a human morality. please note i said HUMAN morality. i didn't say american morality, or european morality. i said HUMAN morality. so the typical tired attack that i am trying impose my culture on other people is a bullshit attack, because there are just as many abuses of human morality in europe and the usa that needs addressing

i am not going to rant for 50 paragraphs, i am simply going to say this: cultural differences do not trump human rights. they are called human rights. not western rights, or caucasian rights, or rich people's rights. human rights are human rights are human rights. where human rights are abridged, i don't fucking care what you say about culture, it's simple WRONG

and for you to say "that's wrong what they are doing, but it's ok, because it's far away, it's over there" to me is vile ignorance and cowardice. the planet earth is one tiny dust ball in space. in an age of the internet and jet air travel, distances mean nothing

so have a human conscience, and when something wrong goes on somewhere else, condemn it. sensitivity to "cultural differences" is completely morally, intellectually, and logically incoherent of you, and is a kind of chicken shit desire to be a coward. to turn a blind eye to something going wrong somewhere in the world because those people are "different". how fucking condescending and patronizing of you. a human being is a human being is a human being. doesn't matter where they live. they deserve the same consideration as you

Re:Question from a Facebook newbie

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the only reason I have still keep my facebook account, the only emails I get from facebook are birthday reminders (save your ass), and photo tags so that I may remove them.. as well as have a RL bitch fest at the loser that tagged me.

Re:Question from a Facebook newbie

[Anonymous Coward]

Looking at tagged photos on Facebook shows the names of the individual in two possible ways. If the person being tagged has a FB account their name is shown as a link and others can follow the link to the person's profile. In this case the person that was tagged can remove their name from the image. The second way, if the person doesn't have a FB account, is that just the name is shown. it is not a link, because there is nowhere for the link to go. I don't believe you can remove these tags because only the tagged person can remove them. if the tagged person doesn't have a FB account how would they get in there to remove the tag anyways?

As for your other question, this is not blackmail, at all. There's nothing stopping me from standing on a busy street corner and pointing at everyone I know and yelling out their name for everyone else to hear, that is not blackmail. There is nothing really stopping anyone from taking a picture of a person in a public place either, and even better, the person that took the picture would hold the copyright to the image, even though it is of someone else. perfect example, paparazzi. If they can take pictures of everybody doing all sorts of stuff and publish them, why would someone on FB not be allowed to post a picture of someone? Consider it "crowd sourced paparazzi or average citizens" if you will.

Get Real..

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't "facebook", or ANY other social network. I don't allow ANYONE to take my pic, I have even "taken" ( by force ) if necessary, stranger's & friends camera's from them & deleted my pic. If given crap about it, I have destroyed flash cards. Most people are so stupid, putting their "life" out on the internet, then act surprised when they can't get a job, get in trouble w/ the law, lose custody, etc.

Re:Get Real..

[Anonymous Coward]

Love it, calling me "Anonymous Coward", try calling me that in person...lol

Re:Get Real..

[Manos_Of_Fate]

Why do you feel like you have a right to do things that could cause you to get in trouble with the law or lose your kids without suffering any consequences for that? Privacy is all well and good, but why does it seem like a lot of people use that as a shield for wanting to break the law/etc. and get away with it?

Re:Get Real..

[Manos_Of_Fate]

That's right, you tell that automated comment system who's boss.

Facial recognition

[currently_awake]

The reason they don't want you to smile in passport and drivers license photo's is for facial recognition. And those photo's come tagged with accurate name/address details.

Data Protection Directive

[Anonymous Coward]

By collecting a vast amount of pictures and identifying the persons that appear in them, Facebook is essentially creating a huge database with private information (about users and non-users). If Facebook were operating in the EU it would have to comply with the Data Protection Directive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Directive) since Facebook's actions would otherwise fall within it's scope. Note that the rights are stated in respect to the "data subject", not the "data inserter". So, according to this directive, tagging *other* users should require their notification as well as their authorization (among other requirements).

"Personal data are defined as 'any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person ('data subject')'"

"The data subject has the right to be informed when his personal data is being processed."

"Data may be processed only [...] when the data subject has given his consent [...]"

"The data subject has the right to access all data processed about him. The data subject even has the right to demand the rectification, deletion or blocking of data that is incomplete, inaccurate or isn't being processed in compliance with the data protection rules. (art. 12)"

A better defense

[benmarvin]

She should have just hired an expert witness to say the picture was photoshopped. But here's a better question, is she hot?

Why didn't she just untag?

[Ra Zen]

Tagging in Facebook, in some sense, does require a person's permission, because a person may remove a tag from any picture on which they are tagged. Further, they can not be retagged on that same picture unless they reinstate the tag themselves. This means that while FB initially assumes permission, that permission can be revoked.

Re:emotional

[TaoPhoenix]

Let's stay right within the law -

Watch what will happen when a judge gets tagged after going to a party out of town!

"Oh no! That's facilitating the embarassment of a Respected Member of the Governmental Aparatus! Violation of Security!"

Re:Question from a Facebook newbie

[YodasEvilTwin]

Streisand effect.