

No expectation of privacy on public transit - mayank
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/problemsolver/ct-biz-0926-problem-fastwolf-20100926,0,1506111.column

======
mtigas
I used to be really into street photography[1] and this issue tends to creep
up from time to time.

If you're on public property of _any sort_ , you don't really have any
expectation of privacy outside of the bathrooms or such.[2] That shouldn't be
the surprise and that shouldn't be the title of this link. Hell, you can take
photographs of people and things _on private property_ as long as it's readily
visible from public property and you're not trespassing on the private
property.

But! Using said photographs commercially (generally, any use that brings in
_direct_ profit) can be a misappropriation of likeness and also a violation of
one's right to publicity[3] -- the right to control and make money from the
commercial use of his or her identity.

Being an asshole about it and changing every photograph on the site to _hers_
is an interesting move. I'd really love to see what would happen if she
pressed charges in response to that.

\---

[1]
[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Street_photog...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Street_photography)

[2]
[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Photography_a...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Photography_and_the_law#United_States)

[3] [http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/using-name-or-
likenes...](http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/using-name-or-likeness-
another)

~~~
mayank
People seemed to have misunderstood the title of the link -- I meant it as a
declarative statement, not a surprised exclamation. Perhaps I should have
added "consequences of" to the beginning, but my point was just to share a
particularly unpleasant experience.

On the plus side, the discussions below about using AdSense to monetize a
website dedicated to profiting off non-consensual pictures of people is quite
interesting.

~~~
mtigas
> the discussions below about using AdSense to monetize a website dedicated to
> profiting off non-consensual pictures of people is quite interesting.

Yeah, there are a few sites like this now ("People of Wal-Mart", some content
on "Look at this fucking hipster") and I've always wondered about the same
thing.

You're usually in the clear if you're just creating one-off works of art or
news/editorial commentary -- and not primarily seeking merch sales or ad
revenue... But these sites are pull _wholesale_ exploitation of public photos
for ad revenue. (Although, "People of Wal-Mart" claims to honor takedown
requests and I haven't heard any hub-bub about them pulling a stunt like this
one. And since most of the photos on that site are _indoor_ , within Wal-Mart
private property, there's that issue they could theoretically put up with.)

In my mind, sites like these could be a lot harder to police than copyright
infringement (on say, YouTube or elsewhere) since the onus of litigation is on
an individual being photographed, rather than a large multinational rights-
holding company. (Personally, I really don't have the time to go looking for
photos of myself that others may have taken of me.)

------
semanticist
I can understand why the owner of the website is concerned about competition:
being a dick on the internet is a very crowded market.

I wonder if we'll see more of this sort of asocial behaviour as the 4chan
generation grows up - or at least gets older - and find themselves in more
positions of authority/power?

~~~
jrockway
Asocial? People watching and making fun of everyone not in your ingroup is not
exactly one of humanity's more recent inventions.

Neither is being a dick.

Neither is being upset when a photo of you shows up somewhere.

The only insight here is how slow of a news day today must be.

------
sfk
You can report a policy violation to Google AdSense by clicking on the link in
the bottom right corner of the offending site:

<http://www.peopleofpublictransit.com/>

I hope Google cuts them off.

~~~
what
Which of the AdSense policies are they violating though?

~~~
poet
AdSense policies are part of a larger superset of things that you can get cut
off for. State and federal laws are also part of that set. As the article
notes, "state law that prohibits people from using someone else's identity for
commercial purposes without that person's permission". I'm not a lawyer, but
in my (unqualified) opinion this is pretty clear cut.

~~~
_delirium
I think it's a bit more complex and gray-area when you need a model release,
even for commercial publications. The canonical "need one" example is using
someone's likeness on a billboard to sell products, or on the label of your
product. The canonical "don't need one, even if use is commercial" example is
newspapers publishing photographs taken in a public place as part of an
article. For example, you don't need a protester's permission to publish a
photo of them at a rally, even if your newspaper/magazine sells ads and is for
profit.

There's a lot of in-between area, though. This site doesn't seem to be clearly
using the photos in the model/advertising sort of way; they're not using them
to launch a line of public-transit-rider products or putting them on tshirts
or something. It's definitely a step down from journalistic reporting, but I
could see it arguably falling closer to that than to the usual cases where
model releases are needed. You could imagine a genuine reporter running a
story on fashion trends in different demographics or something, illustrated by
a few photos taken out in public, and this is basically the half-assed, mean-
spirited tabloid version of that focusing on one particular demographic.

(Though as far as AdSense in particular goes, Google can of course make up any
rules they want.)

~~~
carbocation
You don't see newspapers vindictively replacing all of their content except
ads with a humiliating photo and a mocking, false story about their subject.

~~~
_delirium
I agree, but that's more a question of whether it's
valuable/interesting/trashy than a question of whether it's promotional
modeling use, isn't it? This just doesn't look like the kind of uses that
model releases are normally required for.

------
Pyrodogg
Just because you are within the bounds of legality doesn't mean that your not
being a dick about it. There is a line between providing the public with some
cheap laughs and being a total ass. Kubera, the anonymous employee, and the
company as a whole crossed it.

Taking the photos in public, no problem. Posting them to the site, no problem.
Laughing your ass off at them, again no problem. Not doing what you said you
would if someone requested it taken down, problem.

If you say you're going to take something down upon notice, just do it.

From People of Public Transit FAQ:

Q. What if I see myself in a post and want you to take it down? You need to
send in 9 forms of identification to prove to us that it’s really you.
Seriously, just tell us and we’ll happily remove it for you.

From People of Walmart FAQ:

I’M IN A PICTURE ON YOUR WEBSITE AND I WANT IT TAKEN DOWN. HOW DO I DO THAT?
Simply email us and we will take it down, no problem. If you like your photo
but hate the caption or comment send us an email and we can remove it.

Does anyone have cases from People of Walmart? Have they pulled any stunts
like this on a take down request before?

~~~
mtigas
That's the thing: I almost feel like POPT is pulling this (legally risky --
commercial use [via ad revenue] of likeness, possible harassment, etc.) stunt
to grab attention to their own site.

While POW is still in the same grey area (regarding commercial use of
likeness), at least they seem to honor takedown requests -- or at least, I
gather this since _I've never heard a single complaint_ about it and their
site is still alive and kickin.

------
notaleethaxor
This is not so much about privacy so much as being a douche bag. This type of
bullshit behavior makes it impossible for real photographers attempting to
capture 21st century life the way Garry Winogrand might have impossible. There
can never be trust between subjects and photographers. Just try getting model
releases if this shit keeps happening.

Let John Kubera know how you feel about his efforts to help photography:
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RRba28d...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RRba28drRBsJ:blueflameideas.com/411.html+john+kubera&cd=40&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari)

John is the one on the left with the mustache.

------
tptacek
This is fucked up.

------
chaosmachine
It's interesting that "People of Public Transit" seems to provoke a negative
reaction, while "People of Walmart"[1] has been hailed as funny and even "the
best website ever"[2].

I guess context is everything in this situation. Walmart bad, public transpo
good.

1\. <http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/>

2\. [http://www.nowpublic.com/culture/people-walmart-best-
website...](http://www.nowpublic.com/culture/people-walmart-best-website-ever)

~~~
nowarninglabel
I think the negative reaction has more to do with how the website owner was
not only discourteous, but has gone further in promoting a campaign of
harassment against someone.

------
notaleethaxor
This is not so much about privacy so much as being a douche bag. This type of
bullshit behavior makes it impossible for real photographers attempting to
capture 21st century life the way Garry Winogrand might have impossible. There
can never be trust between subjects and photographers. Just try getting model
releases if this shit keeps happening.

Let John Kubera know how you feel about his efforts to help photography:
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RRba28d...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RRba28drRBsJ:blueflameideas.com/411.html)

John is the one on the left with the mustache.

------
notaleethaxor
This is not so much about privacy so much as being a douche bag. This type of
bullshit behavior makes it impossible for real photographers attempting to
capture 21st century life the way Garry Winogrand might have impossible. There
can never be trust between subjects and photographers. Just try getting model
releases if this shit keeps happening. Let John Kubera know how you feel about
his efforts to help photography:
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RRba28d...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RRba28d..).
John is the one on the left with the mustache.

------
zwetan
it's when I see story like this that I remember I really hate assholes ...

what's killing me too is that they get away with that but something like
google streetview have to blur people face for privacy reason

their TOS (see 3.1.7) considering the context is ridiculous (and obviously not
followed)

on top of that, they use the chicago tribune article as advertizing for their
website (that I never heard of before)

and that is really the worst part, those guys with no idea (people of wallmart
-> people of the public transit, shit my dad says -> stuff my boss says, etc.)
may end up getting some bucks with more popularity, all that by exploiting the
stupidity of people who can not understand a bit of difference from the norm.

the only thing those guys deserve is to get DoS'ed and/or banned and/or
ignored.

Entrepreneurship should be rewarded when you do something cool, not when you
exploit someone else.

[edit] and here the photo of the asshole <http://twitpic.com/2sb48b>

------
rsingel
Sorry, the website owner might be being a dick, but it's long established that
there's no expectation of privacy in a public place. If you want to use
someone's image in news on, or on your Flickr account, or on a site showing
off "Do's and Don'ts" you don't need permission. For more commercial things,
like an ad or a book, you do need a model's consent.

~~~
spamizbad
Considering the website in question is essentially a commercial enterprise (It
utilizes Adsense) I'd say this falls outside the realm of fair use.

~~~
rsingel
Fair use is a defense against a claim of copyright infringement.

This is about whether you can publish someone's picture -- and perhaps even
profit off it.

Sorry to tell you but the First Amendment is clear here, like this kind of
speech or not.

It's like you guys have never seen Hot or Not, the NY Times Sunday style
section or a copy of Vice magazine. Get a grip.

------
happy4crazy
Jesus. I hardly ever get annoyed by things on the internet, but seriously,
wtf? This makes my skin crawl.

------
houseabsolute
Why would there be?

------
jscore
She should DoS his site to teach that punk a lesson.

------
flexd
Douchebags always exist. There really should be some kind of quality control
as to who gets to start their own website or company. This would of course be
impossible but in theory it would let us use our brains for more useful stuff
instead of constantly having to wade through all the bullshit done and created
by idiots like the site owner.

~~~
flexd
I should have mentioned i know its not a crime to take a picture in a public
spot. Just saying doing stuff like that is not cool.

------
awakeasleep
I'll be the voice of dissent here: I think it's ok. Her whole style of
clothing and even choices in hair color are norm violating, attention grabbing
devices. If she would have left well-enough alone, her picture would have
faded into obscurity with millions of other pictures.

Instead, she brought more publicity to the event. She actually allowed a news
outlet to cover the incident.

While the owner of the website is not being a super-friendly-pushover, and I
know his behavior falls into what society considers asshole behavior, I feel
things will be really fucked up if he is legally forced to remove the
pictures, or if Google cuts his page revenue. That'll be censorship in my
opinion.

~~~
sfk
_Instead, she brought more publicity to the event. She actually allowed a news
outlet to cover the incident._

You know, I'm positively tired of the "Streisand effect" argument. Are we
supposed to let anything pass out of fear that a mildly embarrassing situation
escalates?

Perhaps she does not even care about the picture. Perhaps she does not want to
live in a society where harassing unsuspecting individuals is acceptable.
Without going public and finding like-minded people, nothing will change.

