From: ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid   
      
   >>>>> On 2025-02-19, D wrote:   
   >>>>> On Tue, 18 Feb 2025, Eli the Bearded wrote:   
   >>>>> In comp.misc, Computer Nerd Kev  wrote:   
      
    >>> Indeed, so long as you block all FB's scripts and images on   
    >>> otherwise unrelated websites.  Although I don't tend to make close   
    >>> friends so I don't need to worry about controlling their FB usage.   
      
    >> Doesn't stop people from posting about you on FB.  (Or worse,   
    >> posting photos of you on there.)   
      
    > That's an absurd argument.  In no world, in no universe can you   
    > reasonably expect people to not talk about you, think about you,   
    > write about you, if they so choose.   
      
   	Such worlds and universes are perhaps imaginable, but so far as   
   	I can tell, they aren't ones we're living in.   
      
    > Publishing photos and videos of you, without your consent, on the   
    > other hand, is illegal, and can be punished severely.   
      
   	I'm an amateur photographer myself, and this runs contrary to   
   	what I know about relevant legislation.   
      
   	My understanding is that, basically, there're two reasonable   
   	grounds to object against photography:   
      
   	* privacy; for example, photographying a person in a restroom   
   	  without their explicit consent is likely to be deemed illegal   
   	  (under "reasonable expectations of privacy");   
      
   	* property; if an owner can decide who can or cannot enter,   
   	  they can also decide who can or cannot photograph there.   
      
   	Photographying a person in a public place, as a rule, will be   
   	deemed legal, and so will be distributing the photographs.   
   	About the only exception I can think of would be exploiting the   
   	likeness of an /identifiable/ person for profit, such as using   
   	a close-up of someone for an ad.  This applies to distribution   
   	specifically, however, not to being allowed to take a photo.   
      
   	Same goes for photographying someone's property /from/ a public   
   	place, such as photographying someone's house from the street.   
      
   	With regards to workplace, unless being photographed is part   
   	of your contract, your employer may /request/ your photograph   
   	(including for their webpage), but can't require you to provide   
   	one.  (Though if they cannot issue you a company photo ID and   
   	hence allow you to be on your assigned workplace during working   
   	hours, well, tough luck.)  Said employer would have the right   
   	to allow photography on the premises, but is ought to inform   
   	the employees about this in advance, allowing those unwilling   
   	to opt out from being photographed.   
      
   	There's a relevant article on Wikipedia; and a web search   
   	provides for further reading.   
      
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law   
   http://duckduckgo.com/html/?kd=-1&q=photography+and+privacy+rights   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)