Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think that taking pictures of members of the public and uploading them to fb and the like is a gross intrusion and should possibly even be illegal?

26 replies

wannaBe · 04/06/2014 15:58

\link{https ://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=659682937450990&set=a.583655381720413.1073741828.583635458389072&type=1&theater\this picture}

is currently doing the rounds on facebook.

It was taken one day last week, and seems to have gone somewhat viral...

Now in this instance it's a nice picture with cute dog/s (there's another one in the background) so to all intents and purposes is completely harmless and just cute/lovely/.

But the issue I have with it is that it was taken without his knowledge, and he didn't become aware of its existence until he was tagged by a friend in a comment.

In this instance most of the comments have been positive, but what if he had been correcting the dog and someone had photographed that, and people had taken exception....

Or like another thread on here, a woman took a picture of a man in a shop and has put it on fb for her friends to laugh at....

The taking of pictures without consent to then seek likes and comments for them is about nothing more than shallow self gratification, without any consideration for the fact that the person they are photographing is oblivious, and could potentially remain oblivious to the fact they may be being mocked online....

OP posts:
YoureBeingASillyBilly · 04/06/2014 16:01

Why have you posted it here when you are against it? Confused

Original poster
wannaBe · 04/06/2014 16:03

\link{https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=659682937450990&set=a.583655381720413.1073741828.583635458389072&type=1&theater\photo link sorry}

OP posts:
Original poster
wannaBe · 04/06/2014 16:05

because it's likely that people on here have seen it, possibly even liked it, and given it's out there already (with over 211000 likes it's not as if it's only out there among a small number of people.... iyswim.

OP posts:
YoureBeingASillyBilly · 04/06/2014 16:08

Well i hadnt seen it.

However i still dont get your logic of disliking people posting photos of people online without their permission and then you do that exact thing. YOU have now shared that photo on the internet!

Chattymummyhere · 04/06/2014 16:10

Because it is not illegal to photo someone on public property and all copyrights belong to the person taking the photo.

The joys of having the internet also come with downsides. Unless you want Internet like China? I believe it is where everything is checked and censored. Might be another county I'm thinking of though.

We have much bigger fish than a few non sexual photos to deal with on the internet such as the pedophile rings online, money scams, hacking of banks and other confidential info, terrorist contacts ect

Plus if the person in the photo really does not like it I'm pretty sure they can report it to Facebook and ask for it to be removed.

TheIronGnome · 04/06/2014 16:12

I do agree... but, you have somewhat ruined your point by making an 'example' of such a lovely photo and such wonderful messages in support of the man and guide dogs in general. I reckon a few people would have donated money after seeing that.

If you could have found one of the many fat shaming photos doing the rounds on Facebook then you'd have a MUCH stronger argument!!

Original poster
wannaBe · 04/06/2014 16:12

well, actually I have the permission of the individual to share it...

the logic is the same as the one which makes people share a vile fb group online wanting people to object to it iyswim. If it was a horrible mocking picture people would object, except that when it's a nice picture people go awwww with no consideration that someone has still had their picture taken without their knowledge... which they might not have wanted....

OP posts:
TrevaronGirl · 04/06/2014 16:13

Unworkable, impossible to enforce and existing laws already cater for gross intrusions of privacy, potential breach of the peace and so forth.

PipkinsPal · 04/06/2014 16:14

Remember before computers when people took photos of public events and locations? For local interest, these photos have appeared in books. Did the photographer get permission from everyone in those photos? I think not. People taking photos of others for cheap laughs are immature and says more about them than the person in the picture.

YoureBeingASillyBilly · 04/06/2014 16:15

Ah fair enough if you have permission. Should have said in the OP though.

Fwiw i would object to anyone posting a link to some vile FB page to get people to report aswell. Its very easy to direct people without resharing the thing itself.

Original poster
wannaBe · 04/06/2014 16:16

or should we only say that it's wrong if it's a horrible picture. only ok to disagree if there isn't an awww factor in the equation...

Given he has been identified now, if he corrects his dog in public will someone be on hand to picture that as well????

I'm not saying the picture should be taken down, and the hope might be that guide dogs may have received some donations as a result, although given he did comment to that effect it's interesting to note he had no acknowledgement of that and there has been no communication from guide dogs to imply they have received any donations as a result....

OP posts:
MaidOfStars · 04/06/2014 16:19

What ChattyMummy said. Person in public place, fair game.

Original poster
wannaBe · 04/06/2014 16:20

What if it was one of your children being photographed, and you only realised when it already had 50000 likes or so... would people still feel comfortable with that?

People on here get upset even when a family member posts pictures of their children on fb, and yet it's seemingly ok when it's a complete stranger because he has a cute dog....?

OP posts:
creamteas · 04/06/2014 16:21

YABU.

The only want to do this would be to ban all photography in public places.

So no snapshots of family and friends out and about in case you got someone in the background.

And no photo-journalism, obviously. Especially of people doing bad things, as they wouldn't give permission.

And if photos were banned, film would need to go as well. So no TV coverage of, being topical, things like the State Opening of Parliament, unless you got permission slips from everybody in the crowds.....

eurochick · 04/06/2014 16:24

YABU. It was in a public place. It's fair game. I wouldn't like to live in a society where you couldn't take pictures in public for fear of censure.

Helpys · 04/06/2014 16:26

Er...

MaidOfStars · 04/06/2014 16:32

What if it was one of your children being photographed, and you only realised when it already had 50000 likes or so... would people still feel comfortable with that?

No. But it still doesn't make it illegal (assuming it's a regular image).

VanitasVanitatum · 04/06/2014 16:34

He's in public. Anyone who sees him on Facebook could also have freely seen him in public.

Obviously sharing pictures making a negative judgment of people is nasty behaviour, but to make it illegal is simply illogical.

There are laws covering slander/libel if something incorrect/harmful etc is commented

fluffyfanjo · 04/06/2014 17:59

Agree with vanitas Its totally illogical to ban a still photo of someone that was seen in public in the first place.

fluffyfanjo · 04/06/2014 18:01

With the same logic,shall we ban filming of any kind in all public places,so no televised sporting events,no news footage etc.................

AgaPanthers · 04/06/2014 18:26

It's in America I think?

Where they have a stronger set of rights anyway.

ComposHat · 04/06/2014 18:36

YABVU you should have no expectation of privacy when you ate out in a public place.

There are probably hours after hours of footage of you on Cctv tapes held by private companies.

PrincessBabyCat · 04/06/2014 18:55

No, even if it was the most ridiculous incriminating photo of someone that ruined their career. It should still be legal.

You have no right to privacy in public.

Requiring permission to post a photo infringes on free speech and free press. You can't censor the press god knows those CCTV cameras are creepy enough without censoring free speech. Part of free press is taking any photo in public domain and reporting on it.

And.. so what if people are judging you on the internet. People judge you in real life too. It says more about the person than it says about you.

Downamongtherednecks · 04/06/2014 19:21

It's a public place. The right to take photos is implicit. The police's misuse of section 44 of the Terrorism Act against photographers and journalists was ruled illegal by the European Court of Human Rights, and has had to be repealed. And no, I don't care if people take pictures of my children, particularly. Why should i?

somewherewest · 04/06/2014 19:53

The only want to do this would be to ban all photography in public places

Yes! I'm fairly into photography and a lot of amateur photographers already feel intimidated enough about taking perfectly innocent photos in public places. There's a whole wonderful genre of street photography (i.e. work by people like Henri Cartier-Bresson) which would become almost impossible.

Swipe left for the next trending thread