Grrrrrr
A photo of me taken during Netexplorateur Forum last year ended up on Flickr. I can live with a photo of me, taken by someone who had the right to take it, ending up on a web site. But that photo under CC was reused by someone else (someone I don't know at all) and included in a public slideshow. And that, I disagree with, at least w/o my authorization. The whole process is rotten here. I never gave any kind of formal authorization for that.
The fact is photo is reusable - but only the photographer decided it, I never said it myself - does not mean the law applying to the photo does not apply any more. In particular, and according to the french law applying to the photo of a french citizen taken by another french citizen on french soil (hey it was even inside the French Senate's building!), the rights I own on my personal image are imprescriptible and no use of my image can be done w/o my authorization. The photo was taken by an acquaintance of mine and that was not a problem. I did not know the photo ended up as CC.
My image is mine, and I'll make sure to keep it mine in the future.
Comments
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place," Schmidt tells CNBC.
Daniel, welcome in the brave new world, where privacy doesn't count anymore.
Hopefully this trend will change back soon.
I wouldn't say lack of privacy as much as Daniel's friend screwed up -- he released the image with rights he didn't have himself. I'll grant it's not my image, but I'm having trouble seeing where the third party is at fault here. They picked an image with (what they thought) were the appropriate permissions and nothing Daniel's said implies they acted in bad faith.
Of course, even with the correct rights held back someone could (from the point of downloading and copying) still use an image. They'd just be in hot water for doing so if anybody pressed them on it.
There was a case with a shoot of an american girl (tennager Alison Chang), which was taken by a friend of her, and put on Flick (Creative Common with Attribution licence). Virgin Mobile Australia used the picture for an ad, with an URL on the Flickr-page as attribution. It was OK for the picture, but not for the image of the girl on the picture. She sued Virgin ! An american lawyer allegedly said about this case "The CC license applies to the copyrights--the rights of the photographer as owner of the photo; my understanding is that is does not refer to the rights of the person depicted in the photo". I don't know the result of this action.
@J-Paul Kroepfil: According to Flcikr's Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flickr) the case was thrown out due to lack of jurisdiction.