Is this YOU??? (MK on Aug. 12, 2004)

[txSleepingBeauty]

Originally posted by Hippychickali
But you can see the rest of the kids not to mention their mother. I'm not talking about safety...I'm talking about privacy. I'm just saying, if someone posted a photo of me and my family on the internet without my permission I would not be happy.

Ali

then it would be impossible to post pretty much any pic on here. Almost every picture ever taken at WDW has other people in it. It's not like the OP is saying anything mean about this family, jsut wants to know if they're here.

Are you going to give your permission to every person you come across in the parks? just print up a release form for them to sign? or are you going to say - no no you can't take that picture I might be in it- to a complete stranger?

 

[Tigger&Belle]

I could post one of my rides photos, which would show other people in it. Seems that there is an implied consent (is that what it would be called?) when a person is touring in a public place where lots of pictures are being taken.

T&B

 

[Hippychickali]

Originally posted by txSleepingBeauty
then it would be impossible to post pretty much any pic on here. Almost every picture ever taken at WDW has other people in it. It's not like the OP is saying anything mean about this family, jsut wants to know if they're here.

Are you going to give your permission to every person you come across in the parks? just print up a release form for them to sign? or are you going to say - no no you can't take that picture I might be in it- to a complete stranger?

First of all, by going into a public place I am not giving anyone implied consent or otherwise to post a picture of me or my family on the internet.

Secondly, I don't post photos with other people in them on the internet ever period. In fact, I would never post pictures of my children on the internet (if I had any). So, no I won't go around and get written permission because I don't need it.

Third, it's not a matter of publishing a picture on the internet that coincidently has people in the background. The OP specifically posted a picture of a stranger and brought everyone's attention to those people.

Fourth, it is a matter of privacy. Whether or not safety comes in to it (which I think it does), everyone has the right to privacy.

Ali

 

[StaceyA]

I can see where this thread is going...what started out as a fun thread is now a debate and will be shut down by a mod pretty soon.

 

[disneywithdrawal]

I kind of have to agree that I wouldn't like it if someone posted my picture like that. My first thought when I saw this thread was "Glad that's not me!" I guess I'm just a basically private person and the thought of my picture being out there with a bunch of people trying to figure out who I am would bother me. And you can't compare this to people who happen to end up in the background of someone else's picture. This picture was cropped to single out a specific person and turned into a "Wanted" poster. I'm certainly not trying to attack anyone who's having fun with this. I'm sure the OP didn't mean any harm and I can see how the curiosity would get to a person. I just also see the other side of it.

 

[DVCconvert]

Let's revisit the actual photo:

What do we actually know? Only that the young girl and woman whose hand she is holding know each other and are likely related.

The Man and woman on left may, or may not be with that woman.

Anyone in a public place is subject to being openly photographed without recourse. So long as there's not slander or liable, or incitement to criminal behavior.

This whole post was clearly intended in a good natured way. Nothing wrong with that. Arguments that this is some grand privacy invasion (when we know nothing) are moot.

I think we'd all be happier sticking to the intent of this thread, rather than converting it into something that just gets people upset. Privacy and 'stalking' threads are always welcomed on the Community board.

 

[Dan Murphy]

It's me, in disguise.

 

[disneywithdrawal]

It's not really about what we know about her. There are comments here from at least three people saying they wouldn't be comfortable with their own picture being posted in this way. How do we know this woman doesn't feel the same way? I can't speak for anyone else, but that was the only point I was trying to make.

 

[Hippychickali]

I am a minister in Canada and I am not legally allowed to mention the names of people in prayer during a public service any more. It has nothing to do with there safety but it's about their privacy. Not everyone wants this attention brought to themselves even if it is in the best-intentioned way.

Just because it wouldn't bother you to have your photo posted and analyzed on the internet, doesn't mean that everyone feels the same way.

I'm not trying to turn this into a debate. I'm just pleading with you to think before you use other people in anyway without their permission.

Ali

 

[CheshireVal]

I work in a school and we have a large website. We are allowed to post pictures of students on the website as long as there's no name accompanying the picture.

 

[Hippychickali]

Do these children and their families at least know that this may happen? I'm pretty sure this woman wasn't told.

Ali

 

[DVCconvert]

Well here's something interesting,

The DIS fanny pack as seen in the DIS Shop

I just zoomed in on that person's pack, and there doesn't appear to be any printing on the front of it. Unless there was a prior version of the pack that only had printing along the belt - line, I'm thinking that she is not wearing an DIS pack, just a green one.

Hippychickali - I know next to nothing about religion in Canada, but I'm really (honestly) shocked a minister can not ask for prayers for sick members of a church, you can't even use just their first name?

 

[DVCconvert]

Do these children and their families at least know that this may happen?

Ali - I'd say that most reasonable people would consider it is possible, especially at such a tourist destination that they're faces might be seen in photos anywhere. Most would find it hard to argue that privacy is infringed when you are in such a public location. Without more personal information on an individual, just seeing a face is not actionable in any way to cause them any harm.

 

[Cheap-n-Dale]

Everyday there are picture of crowds in every newspaper in the world. Everything from politcal rallys, to bomb threats, to parade routes. You need permission to print a name, but not to publish an image, so no there is nothing wrong with this. If the person chooses to remain anoyomous, that is her right.

This is flat out not invasion of privacy, under the law.

 

[Cheap-n-Dale]

on more thing, yes sometimes those pictures are close up. Twice, I was plastered all over a newspaper. Once for a Ross Peroit Rally (don't ask ) and another at a Groundhog day celebration.

 

[Hippychickali]

Originally posted by DVCconvert
Hippychickali - I know next to nothing about religion in Canada, but I'm really (honestly) shocked a minister can not ask for prayers for sick members of a church, you can't even use just their first name?

Not since September when the new privacy ilegislation was passed. You can only mention names if you have permission to do so. It makes good sense. Not everyone wants everyone else to know about their difficulties or illnesses. Some people are more private than others and I happen to be one.

I never said that posting the picture was an actionable offense. I just said that I wouldn't appreciate if someone did that to me and I would feel violated. I feel like I'm repeating myself...maybe because I am. It's more the way in which this poor woman has been analyzed on here that is really bothering me. I understand that people end up in lots of pictures but does that mean we ought to support puposely exposing someone else's family vacation in this way without permission.

Ali

 

[DVCconvert]

You can only mention names if you have permission to do so. It makes good sense.

Ah, now I see. Yes that does make sense. It's a pitty that it took legislative action on this. I would have thought any minister would have asked the person/family if it were ok prior in any case.

Thanks for the clarification!

 

[Sandyincanada]

Val, we also have a school website and along with a ton of stuff my child brings home at the beginning of the year, is a consent form that requires a parents signature to allow posting of the pictures. Again, its a choice issue. I'm pretty surprised that a school would post pictures of children without permission of some sort.

I also didn't want this to be a big debate, all I wanted is to point out that maybe this person wouldn't appreciate being singled out over and over and over again. I know I wouldn't and a few others have stated the same and since we are talking about this particular thread and picture, why would we talk about it on the community board?? Most people don't think of stalkers unless they've had one.

My first post stated that I know people were having fun with this thread which is why I bit my tongue for so long but I feel sorry for this woman already. I know I would hate it.

 

[DVCconvert]

why would we talk about it on the community board??

Primarily I guess because it seems difficult to pair this picture/thread with the "Theme Parks Attractions and Strategies" board.

 

[Hippychickali]

I agree. I don't see how the OP or any following posts have anything to do with Theme Parks Attractions and Strategies. It seems like it should be moved and/or closed.

Ali