Your rights end at the point where you're causing harm to others. All freedoms, including freedom of speech, need to have limits or the strong and privileged will run roughshod over the weak or incapable.
If you're arguing that we should protect the freedom of speech of people who went ridiculously far out of their way to continue to share illegally obtained, private pictures, and then blame the victims for everything that's happened to them, I can't agree.
I'm free to take pictures of people in public. I'm not free to monetize / share them freely without consent. There is an argument to be made that this should be the case for stuff people post on the internet as well.
There's established precedent in the United States that photos of you aren't "yours." Any other circumstance means that journalists and others can't expose bad behavior without getting litigated.
People have a right to voice their opinion, even if they are wrong. This is draconian and goes against principles of free speech. You have the right to say something you think, even if it turns out later that you were mistaken. These people just wanted their photos, and this lady wouldn't give them up without an extra $125 payment. Sure maybe she wrote it in the contract, but that doesn't mean they can't say they didn't realize what was in the contract and that the lady didn't tell them about this before.
I think people just felt sorry for the photographer so they violated the first amendment. Very sad
If a photo of someone's kid includes a recognizable photo of me, and the photo is for private use then it's a different matter than someone exhibiting that photo for public use.
As for general freedoms, a person's freedom ends when it infringes on the freedoms of another. We can debate the nuance of that sentiment (that's what courts are for) but the freedom of anyone to privacy should exceed the freedom of some to make money.
You are not considering the case when a private picture is shared by some other person. Should allowing anyone to take a picture a themselves be a permission to do whatever he wants with that picture?
That's ridiculous. Unless we are in a private place (like your own home, a private club, etc..)
For example, if we are in a public park, and I take your picture even against your explicit wishes, as long as I do not make any commercial profit off of it, I am pretty much free to publish it in any way I want (flicr, etc.).
If I want to sell it or profit from it in some way, you certainly have some rights. But, basically, if you are in a public place you have no privacy rights against someone taking a picture of you and publishing it.
I'm not sure what you are saying. JLaw's selfies are covered by the first amendment. They are also covered by the Constitution. That is she can release them, but some one with out rights can't. The first doesn't say you can use someone else's words.
reply