informed consent ? (24)

I'm not sure how the law would stand on the first picture bohnanza pointed out as it was in a private club but the second one appears to be much more public and therefore the innocents in the photograph probably couldn't stop it being published.

Personally, I believe that you should get permission from everyone in a photograph before publishing it or make those who don't consent unidentifiable. I think only the most extreme cases of public interest should be exempt from this approach (and no I don't mean pictures of celebrities sneaking out of peoples bedrooms).

Unfortunately, sites like facebook encourage the posting of pictures where you don't have people consent and even have a mechanism for you to identify them.

I don't know what's right and what's real any more

Seconded........

"In order to finish first, you must first finish".....Roger Penske

And I was talking about a photographer obtaining photos at a fetish event that you used as an example.

As most photographers at fetish events will want to use their end product on their site and will often advertise the photo as taken at such an event, it isn't unusual to find them on IC. To suppose the consenting, identifiable faces are happy to appear on one site as fine with the possible consequences, yet find their faces on IC as objectionable, is a somewhat naïve stance.

As for the example you have managed to uncover, I have no comment. If some folk want to breach the AUP, then we can only hope that those who discover such indiscretions are happy to report them. I was pointing out the fact that the example you had used had already been doctored to eliminate the identity of those who would rather keep it out the public domain.

All hail Zoidberg, saviour of the Universe!

S.x.