Make it illegal to publish photos of nudity without consent...simples

[beorhthelm]

It is fair point. You asked would you be happy about pictures of my family being published with the implication that answer 'no' means that I'd agree that should be illegal. I profoundly disagree that this is the case, it's perfectly possible to be unhappy with something without agreeing that it should be made illegal.

so how do you feel on someone coming to your house without your permission and sitting with you to watch the TV? how about the neighbours decided to let their kids use your garden? or maybe some random people just move in to your house when you go on holiday?

we could venture off to more serious issues, like theft, assault etc. as a society we arent happy about allowing such occurances so outlaw them. privacy seems to have been overlooked through the years. prehaps i shouldnt have used the word "happy", but the examples of late buses and no pies are trivial and not at all the same as wether someone takes photos of you at home, on holiday whatever and publish them.

 

[SeagullSongs]

The Albion post pictures of fans on the website though and do not ask permission.

On the back of my Millwall ticket from last season, there is a bit under an npower Championship logo that has rather inconveniently been ripped in half, the words that are present are:

eas are available outside
low Land Stand and the

rohibited and could lead to
um.
operation.
e copyright of professional
hin the stadium. Images
m area may be reproduced
rther permission of people


My interpretation of all of that is that the first bit is about no smoking, ejection from the ground, etc.
The second bit - I think - would say something along the lines of (not word for word):

If you buy a ticket, you're agreeing that the official photographers can take pictures of you and publish them without any further permission.

 

[Acker79]

so how do you feel on someone coming to your house without your permission and sitting with you to watch the TV? how about the neighbours decided to let their kids use your garden?

we could venture off to more serious issues, like theft, assault etc. as a society we arent happy about allowing such occurances so outlaw them. privacy seems to have been overlooked through the years. prehaps i shouldnt have used the word "happy", but the examples of late buses and no pies are trivial and not at all the same as wether someone takes photos of you at home, on holiday whatever and publish them.

1) There is a difference between coming into your home, or your garden, and standing on the pavement (a public area) and looking into your garden/through your window.

2) But that is in your home, your own property. They were on a boat in public view. If someone comes into your home, that is trespassing. You have an expectation of privacy in your own home. You don't have that in public.

If some thing is visible from public or communal property (a street, a beach, etc.) how can there be a right to privacy? If I have a right to walk down the street, how can I be restricted in the direction I look?

Of course, that is a different thing to taking photos, but a similar philosophy applies has been applied to the law or lack thereof so far. If you don't want to be seen doing something, don't do it in view of the public. The problem with that is it is outdated and doesn't take into account zoom lenses and such.

 

[Discodoktor]

What about partial nudity? Is an unguarded nipple or an upskirt shot of a shaven clunker allowed under your rules?

Lol semantics yeah?

 

[Discodoktor]

1) There is a difference between coming into your home, or your garden, and standing on the pavement (a public area) and looking into your garden/through your window.

2) But that is in your home, your own property. They were on a boat in public view. If someone comes into your home, that is trespassing. You have an expectation of privacy in your own home. You don't have that in public.

If some thing is visible from public or communal property (a street, a beach, etc.) how can there be a right to privacy? If I have a right to walk down the street, how can I be restricted in the direction I look?

Of course, that is a different thing to taking photos, but a similar philosophy applies has been applied to the law or lack thereof so far. If you don't want to be seen doing something, don't do it in view of the public. The problem with that is it is outdated and doesn't take into account zoom lenses and such.

Publishing is wrong? Right?

 

[Discodoktor]

1) There is a difference between coming into your home, or your garden, and standing on the pavement (a public area) and looking into your garden/through your window.

2) But that is in your home, your own property. They were on a boat in public view. If someone comes into your home, that is trespassing. You have an expectation of privacy in your own home. You don't have that in public.

If some thing is visible from public or communal property (a street, a beach, etc.) how can there be a right to privacy? If I have a right to walk down the street, how can I be restricted in the direction I look?

Of course, that is a different thing to taking photos, but a similar philosophy applies has been applied to the law or lack thereof so far. If you don't want to be seen doing something, don't do it in view of the public. The problem with that is it is outdated and doesn't take into account zoom lenses and such.

Location is important agreed.

 

[Acker79]

Publishing is wrong? Right?

Yes (without permission, of course). I'd think taking them for a private collection is wrong, too.

But why are people up in arms now? It's been going on for decades, what is so special about this set that has upset people?

 

[beorhthelm]

1) There is a difference between coming into your home, or your garden, and standing on the pavement (a public area) and looking into your garden/through your window.

yes, but why is one accepted as illegal and one not? generally what is and isnt outlawed has some grey areas and contrdictions. if trespass is accepted as illegal why not invasion of privacy?

 

[El Sid]

would it be illegal to post a pic of the wife's clunge on here without her permission?

taken outdoors of course

 

[Acker79]

yes, but why is one accepted as illegal and one not? generally what is and isnt outlawed has some grey areas and contrdictions. if trespass is accepted as illegal why not invasion of privacy?

You seem to have cut out my explanation to that from the post you quoted. Because if you are doing something in view of the public, how can you claim privacy?

For me the taking of photos is not so much about privacy, but of ownership of your own likeness. There is a difference between me being willing to stand naked in front of you, and me be willing to stand naked in front of you and let you photograph me, either for your own personal use (you stinking pervert - though secretly I'm flattered ) or to publish for others to see.

 

[Wardy]

On the back of my Millwall ticket from last season, there is a bit under an npower Championship logo that has rather inconveniently been ripped in half, the words that are present are:

eas are available outside
low Land Stand and the

rohibited and could lead to
um.
operation.
e copyright of professional
hin the stadium. Images
m area may be reproduced
rther permission of people


My interpretation of all of that is that the first bit is about no smoking, ejection from the ground, etc.
The second bit - I think - would say something along the lines of (not word for word):

If you buy a ticket, you're agreeing that the official photographers can take pictures of you and publish them without any further permission.

Legally that is unenforceable though. The conditions of sale are only given to you after you have brought the ticket. This means that they cannot be used. It is the same as if you go in to a car park and after you have paid (or go through the barrier which means to get out again you need to pay to get out again) there is a sign saying "cars are left at owners risk".

 

[Discodoktor]

So am I to conclude the only argument against making it illegal to publish nude photos without consent is its unenforceable. Which just isnt true.

Therefore are people against making it illegal. I know the publishers who profit from it are but lets face it press power is often misused for profit.

 

[Gwylan]

So am I to conclude the only argument against making it illegal to publish nude photos without consent is its unenforceable. Which just isnt true.

Therefore are people against making it illegal. I know the publishers who profit from it are but lets face it press power is often misused for profit.

No. The arguments are a) there's little need for such a law. We've had centuries of English law with such an offence and do we really need one now purely because someone with Princess in her name has been photographed with her tits out

b) it adds to the amount of laws on a statute book. As I pointed out earlier (a comment that you completely ignored) it would be adding yet another thing for police to do and yet another offence to clog up the courts.

c) It would be a legal minefield. How do you define 'published'? How do you define 'nudity'? How do you define 'without consent'? I can immediately think of grey areas there.

d) It's another erosion of personal liberty. Over the past few years we've seen a steady drip of criminal offences for things that were civil torts: the criminal trespass act; the Olympics act (making it an offence to break copyright); the Digital Economy Act (making it an offence to break copyright). I don't see how society is served by making more and more people criminals.

The only people I can see benefiting from the act you propose are lawyers. And if a change needs to be made purely to benefit lawyers, then something's very wrong.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Where's the need for a law? The royals concerned will sue the magazine, probably win, and that'll be the end of it. Nobody has ACTUALLY been harmed by this, have they?

I honestly couldn't give a toss if the Duchess of Cambridge (not Cornwall, as the BBC 5Live newsman accidentally suggested yesterday ) has her cans out, and I'm sure most people are the same. The only ones creating a fuss are the British media, and we all know how hypocritical they are. They only raise the issue to flog more newspapers.

The other hypocritical element is that most of them quite regularly publish photos of other famous women topless on holiday somewhere. Be it Cheryl Cole, Tulisa, one of the tedious Kardashians, or Fern bloody Brittain, they don't seem to share the same moral scruples when it's not a member of the Royal Family. So why does Prince William's missus warrant any greater protection.

It's the most boring news story of the week after the Terry-Ferdinand handshake fiasco. Who cares, move on.

PS even if we had a privacy law here it wouldn't have made any difference, surely, as the photos were taken and published in France.

 

[brightonlass2009]

You can't jail people for taking pictures and in reality it is a completely unenforceable law. Even if the media were banned from printing those pictures they would always turn up on social media sites and even blogs. Taking all of these people to court would be a complete and utter waste of both police time and money. We're supposed to be finding ways to save money in the legal system, not increase spending in it.

Saying that I completely disagree with some people's view that 'she's our future queen we deserve to see her in the paper.' Everybody is entitled to a private life.

 

[beorhthelm]

d) It's another erosion of personal liberty. Over the past few years we've seen a steady drip of criminal offences for things that were civil torts: the criminal trespass act; the Olympics act (making it an offence to break copyright); the Digital Economy Act (making it an offence to break copyright). I don't see how society is served by making more and more people criminals.

ah, so we should be allowed to spy on people, take photos of them and publish the photos, as a matter of personal liberty. interesting angle.

 

[teaboy]

Legally that is unenforceable though. The conditions of sale are only given to you after you have brought the ticket. This means that they cannot be used. It is the same as if you go in to a car park and after you have paid (or go through the barrier which means to get out again you need to pay to get out again) there is a sign saying "cars are left at owners risk".

It isn't a condition of sale, it's a condition of entry. By using the ticket you agree to the conditions.

 

[Discodoktor]

This isn't just about royals it's about us and our children. How can we say to youths that taking nude photos of each other and putting them on social network sites without consent is not ok when big publishers do it.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

...condition of entry.

A royal shame that the photos did not show the condition of her entry.

 

[brightonlass2009]

This isn't just about royals it's about us and our children. How can we say to youths that taking nude photos of each other and putting them on social network sites without consent is not ok when big publishers do it.

Because if the youths are under the age of 16 it is technically child pornography and therefore a criminal offence?