RE: Has Political Correctness Really Come Down to This???

RE: Has Political Correctness Really Come Down to This??? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

njlauren -> RE: Has Political Correctness Really Come Down to This??? (3/24/2013 9:22:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren When you go to a ballgame, as part of the ticket agreement, they can take your picture and use it in publicity in such, because you agree to that as part of the terms of the ticket. What was on the ticket agreements at this bullshit expo thing the fuss started at, I wonder? If there was one, since this was a professional conference, there are no tickets. Most conferences like that,least the ones I have been to, may have as part of their policy that you consent to them taking pictures for publicity purposes,but that is between the event organizer and the attendees, it doesn't allow the woman in question to do what she did, since she didn't work for the conference and she was not taking an official photo.

njlauren -> RE: Has Political Correctness Really Come Down to This??? (3/24/2013 9:24:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 Selling someone's image may or may not require a model release, but nobody is going to jail just for taking pictures of people at a gathering (even on private property), and putting them up on the internet. There are specific elements needed beyond the action, in order to make it a crime. quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 quote: It is illegal under california law (sadly not federal) to take someone's picture and post it without their consent, it specifically was meant for cases like this, this was not on the street, it was a private facility. She now is subject to both criminal and civil penalties for what she did. No. Utterly ridiculous. Not utterly ridiculous, that is the law. She used their image without their permission and there are laws on the books about this. Paparazzi can take pictures of celebrities and publish them, because they are generally taken in public settings, but doing what she did was illegal, it was in several of the articles I read on the case. People don't have the right to use pictures of you without your permission, it is why, for example, when you go to events and they take pictures that they wish to put on their website and such (like at a charity event), they have to get a release from the people, that it is okay to use them. When you go to a ballgame, as part of the ticket agreement, they can take your picture and use it in publicity in such, because you agree to that as part of the terms of the ticket. From what the article I read said, California law (where the conference was held), specifically made taking pictures of someone and posting them on the net, without their permission, a criminal offense. I cannot say how easy it is to prosecute it, but that is what the article said on Yahoo. I don't think she would get away with being a journalist, tweeting is not considered legally to be journalism, since she does not make her living doing that, this was a private twitter channel from what I know.

njlauren -> RE: Has Political Correctness Really Come Down to This??? (3/24/2013 9:27:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC As a photographer I certainly understand what you are saying here nj, but this woman is probably going to claim the photo was used for journalistic purposes and unless I'm mistaken there is a whole set of allowances for that. Am I incorrect? She would have a hard time I think, because she posted it to her own twitter channel, and she doesn't make any money off that. I know there is a line bere, but the point is, she posted the picture with a negative/derogatory comment about the two guys, and I suspect that would not pass muster as journalism..but then again, these days, who knows? If she worked for a news organization, or was reporting the conference for someone officially, maybe, but I don't think she was.

njlauren -> RE: Has Political Correctness Really Come Down to This??? (3/24/2013 9:29:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 Selling someone's image may or may not require a model release, but nobody is going to jail just for taking pictures of people at a gathering (even on private property), and putting them up on the internet. Second, model releases are only needed if an image is used for advertising purposes. That is why pictures used for editorial purposes—textbooks, magazine articles, newspapers—don’t generally require model releases. Hence the old rule of thumb: commercial work requires a release while editorial work does not. I should think a blog would be seen by the court as an "editorial purpose". It depends, I have worked charity events where when we took pictures of people (done by a pro photographer), we had to get their permission to post i on the website of the charity event.... She didn't post it to a blog, she posted the picture to twitter, and that is a bit different.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Has Political Correctness Really Come Down to This??? (3/24/2013 9:29:48 PM)
Again, no. The imaginary waivers that you think everyone consents to everytime they walk into a ball park, conference, store or bank don't exist. That sort of consent can't be manufactured by someone else. There is no criminal law of the sort you describe. There is no right to invisibility in public. You walk around, or sit around where a bunch of people are, they can look at you. And absent a specific prohibition or agreement, they can take your picture. quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren When you go to a ballgame, as part of the ticket agreement, they can take your picture and use it in publicity in such, because you agree to that as part of the terms of the ticket. What was on the ticket agreements at this bullshit expo thing the fuss started at, I wonder? If there was one, since this was a professional conference, there are no tickets. Most conferences like that,least the ones I have been to, may have as part of their policy that you consent to them taking pictures for publicity purposes,but that is between the event organizer and the attendees, it doesn't allow the woman in question to do what she did, since she didn't work for the conference and she was not taking an official photo.

njlauren -> RE: Has Political Correctness Really Come Down to This??? (3/24/2013 9:35:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 Again, no. The imaginary waivers that you think everyone consents to everytime they walk into a ball park, conference, store or bank don't exist. That sort of consent can't be manufactured by someone else. There is no criminal law of the sort you describe. There is no right to invisibility in public. You walk around, or sit around where a bunch of people are, they can look at you. And absent a specific prohibition or agreement, they can take your picture. quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren When you go to a ballgame, as part of the ticket agreement, they can take your picture and use it in publicity in such, because you agree to that as part of the terms of the ticket. What was on the ticket agreements at this bullshit expo thing the fuss started at, I wonder? If there was one, since this was a professional conference, there are no tickets. Most conferences like that,least the ones I have been to, may have as part of their policy that you consent to them taking pictures for publicity purposes,but that is between the event organizer and the attendees, it doesn't allow the woman in question to do what she did, since she didn't work for the conference and she was not taking an official photo. They aren't imaginary, and you didn't read what I wrote. If you look at the ticket to a major league ballpark, least it is at Yankee and Citfields and the Meadowlands stadium, you tacitly give permission to use your image in advertising and such, and others are correct, they cannot take your picture and put it in their advertising if that didn't exist. Yes, if I take a picture at Yankee stadium or whatnot, it is perfectly legal, same on the street (it is why Paparazzi can do what they do, pictures on the street are generally legal). But the article I read specifically said that what she did was illegal under california law....maybe because of the intent of it? I don't know.

njlauren -> RE: Has Political Correctness Really Come Down to This??? (3/24/2013 9:57:23 PM)
I went back and looked at the original article, I made a mistake about the law (or lack thereof), I thought it was part of the article, it wasn't, it was in the comments, which means it probably is worthless......I think the law should take into account when someone posts something as a form of harassment or revenge or something, but I am not sure how that would play out, either. I think people are way overreacting, and I suspect that the CEO who fired that developer might find himself in legal hotwater. He said he fired the developer because they wouldn't tolerate sexual harassment in the workplace, but it will be a large stretch for him to claim that a python conference is an extension of the workplace..even if the company paid for the guys going there, that one would be dicey in court, even in California. They might try to argue that he was there as a representative of the company, but that is a big stretch. I am not even certain her firing will stand up, the company can argue that in doing what she did, she hurt the companies reputation or more likely, the ability to do business, if they can prove that they were losing business because of what she did. DOS attacks are not proof, but if they have messages from companies telling them they are dropping them or something, then maybe. I think the woman in question has a very high opinion of herself, or sees herself as some avanging angel or something. I have worked in tech for a long, long time, and believe me, the issues of nerds being sexist and so forth is not exactly unknown, but I also have worked alongside women for pretty much my whole career, and it isn't quite as bad as she wants to make it out to be be, either. I would not sugarcoat it, there is a long way to go to get women more involved in tech careers, but I also happen to work in an area of tech where women aren't that uncommon, and the kind of sexism and such you are talking about isn't common in my experience. Also depends where you work, I work in the financial world. Game developers and such are a different beast, so it could be very different there.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Has Political Correctness Really Come Down to This??? (3/25/2013 5:26:49 AM)
My opinion of PC in general. Not a reply to any one person. [image]local://upfiles/664494/020E62948C2E4D96BB6F90DCE5B7A09B.jpg[/image]

tweakabelle -> RE: Has Political Correctness Really Come Down to This??? (3/25/2013 6:37:41 AM)
HW, The guy in the image is far too good looking to be straight - is it Oscar Wilde? [:D]

FatDomDaddy -> RE: Has Political Correctness Really Come Down to This??? (3/25/2013 9:44:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren I am not even certain her firing will stand up, . Unless she's an independent contractor... But here's the rub... I don't think she cares... she's making herself a victim AND a celebrity!

Hillwilliam -> RE: Has Political Correctness Really Come Down to This??? (3/25/2013 10:12:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren I am not even certain her firing will stand up, . I don't think she cares... she's making herself a victim AND a celebrity! That's what PC is all about.

LafayetteLady -> RE: Has Political Correctness Really Come Down to This??? (3/25/2013 10:29:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy You really think her company and her customers deserved the cyber attack they went through and were blackmailed into firing her? I have no love lost for Mz Richards but people are OK with that? BTW... I wonder how many people here who are so outraged by the tweeting of "the picture" roar happily why they get a new "people of Wal Mart" slideshow on their home page or inbox? And finally, there is the Playhaven company who curiously came out of this unscathed... I don't think this woman deserved death threats, no. I don't think her employer deserved the cyber attack, but I really don't know much about that industry, so perhaps that is how they voice opinions, who knows? I know her employer received enough emails to make the decision to fire her. They weren't "blackmailed" into it. Their customers showed their feelings about the employee and the employer took action. As for Ms. Richards, her career in the tech world is likely dead, and it should be. Perhaps she can become the social media person for WBC. Other than that, she is a bit too inflammatory for most other places to touch her, unless they tell her she can not use social media regarding her job at all. And yes, I do believe she deserves that.

thompsonx -> RE: Has Political Correctness Really Come Down to This??? (3/25/2013 3:33:34 PM)
Fr: The first people I ever heard complain about things being too pc were those assholes who felt deprived because they could no longer say ni***r in polite society without someone pointing out their borish behaviour. Type the word amerika and watch all the pc biggots come out of the wood work. I believe that this has less to do with being pc than it has to do with this individuals "crusade" to end sexism in the nerd community. She was evesdroping on a private conversation when she found she was offended by what she heard. She proceeded to shove her head up her ass so far she could no longer see where she was going. It got her fired. Where it goes from here is anyone's guess. If in fact she has pissed off anonymous then she can kiss her carrear good by and take up the high paying profession of a wallmart sales associate.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Has Political Correctness Really Come Down to This??? (3/25/2013 11:03:38 PM)
You agree to let the league broadcast the game with you sitting somewhere in it for commercial purposes. There is no criminal statute of the sort you claim exists, that would put the guy in row 29 in jail for snapping a crowd shot without getting signed waivers. The woman that you claimed is going to jail will not be doing so for the offense you've imagined. It is just a garden variety urban myth comprised of gossip and ignorance of the law, don't fall for it. quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 Again, no. The imaginary waivers that you think everyone consents to everytime they walk into a ball park, conference, store or bank don't exist. That sort of consent can't be manufactured by someone else. There is no criminal law of the sort you describe. There is no right to invisibility in public. You walk around, or sit around where a bunch of people are, they can look at you. And absent a specific prohibition or agreement, they can take your picture. quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren When you go to a ballgame, as part of the ticket agreement, they can take your picture and use it in publicity in such, because you agree to that as part of the terms of the ticket. What was on the ticket agreements at this bullshit expo thing the fuss started at, I wonder? If there was one, since this was a professional conference, there are no tickets. Most conferences like that,least the ones I have been to, may have as part of their policy that you consent to them taking pictures for publicity purposes,but that is between the event organizer and the attendees, it doesn't allow the woman in question to do what she did, since she didn't work for the conference and she was not taking an official photo. They aren't imaginary, and you didn't read what I wrote. If you look at the ticket to a major league ballpark, least it is at Yankee and Citfields and the Meadowlands stadium, you tacitly give permission to use your image in advertising and such, and others are correct, they cannot take your picture and put it in their advertising if that didn't exist. Yes, if I take a picture at Yankee stadium or whatnot, it is perfectly legal, same on the street (it is why Paparazzi can do what they do, pictures on the street are generally legal). But the article I read specifically said that what she did was illegal under california law....maybe because of the intent of it? I don't know.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Has Political Correctness Really Come Down to This??? (3/25/2013 11:07:27 PM)
So, how many arrests have the police made in these death threats? Or these DOS attacks? It didn't take them this long in Steubenville. quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy You really think her company and her customers deserved the cyber attack they went through and were blackmailed into firing her? I have no love lost for Mz Richards but people are OK with that? BTW... I wonder how many people here who are so outraged by the tweeting of "the picture" roar happily why they get a new "people of Wal Mart" slideshow on their home page or inbox? And finally, there is the Playhaven company who curiously came out of this unscathed... I don't think this woman deserved death threats, no. I don't think her employer deserved the cyber attack, but I really don't know much about that industry, so perhaps that is how they voice opinions, who knows? I know her employer received enough emails to make the decision to fire her. They weren't "blackmailed" into it. Their customers showed their feelings about the employee and the employer took action. As for Ms. Richards, her career in the tech world is likely dead, and it should be. Perhaps she can become the social media person for WBC. Other than that, she is a bit too inflammatory for most other places to touch her, unless they tell her she can not use social media regarding her job at all. And yes, I do believe she deserves that.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125