Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [BBC] Reddit will not ban 'distasteful' content, chief executive says
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[BBC] Reddit will not ban 'distasteful' content, chief executive says - Page 8

post #71 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nocturin View Post

Seen wine n dining, yes totally public, unless it's a private resturant.
As for the state paying to cover up, shouldn't happen, as ours doesn't. That's the responsibility of the govenment, not the state, unless of course your royalty tongue.gif.
As much as gawker like to paint reddit as a "haven" it is not that. I despise gawker with their sensationalist stories.

State == Government
The Riginator
(20 items)
 
 
Wife's Rig
(5 items)
 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Qualcomm Snapdragon S600 Adreno 330 2GB LPDDR3 NAND Storage 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Samsung 32GB MicroSD Android 4.4.2 KitKat 5 inch (441ppi) 1080x1920 Super AMOLED SwiftKey 
Power
2600mAh Battery 
  hide details  
Reply
The Riginator
(20 items)
 
 
Wife's Rig
(5 items)
 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Qualcomm Snapdragon S600 Adreno 330 2GB LPDDR3 NAND Storage 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Samsung 32GB MicroSD Android 4.4.2 KitKat 5 inch (441ppi) 1080x1920 Super AMOLED SwiftKey 
Power
2600mAh Battery 
  hide details  
Reply
post #72 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by nubbinator View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tsm106 View Post

Ugh, just because he's gotten away with it doesn't make it legal.

Did you even bother to read the laws I presented to you? It is distasteful and violates my own morals, but he has not broken any laws.


What laws did you link? Dude sells his photos, that's a commercial enterprise! Seriously? You can't make a profit off someones likeness for free. Well, lol I suppose you can but you are liable for it.

From WIPO
Quote:
Many countries recognize that individuals have a right of publicity. The right of publicity is the direct opposite of the right of privacy. It recognizes that a person’s image has economic value that is presumed to be the result of the person’s own effort and it gives to each person the right to exploit their own image.

Under this right, you could be liable if you use a photograph of someone without their consent to gain some commercial benefit.
The 3930
(26 items)
 
Junior's 3930
(22 items)
 
DATA/HTPC
(20 items)
 
  hide details  
Reply
The 3930
(26 items)
 
Junior's 3930
(22 items)
 
DATA/HTPC
(20 items)
 
  hide details  
Reply
post #73 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackVenom View Post

In other news: OCN will continue to censor even the most tiniest offense
This is a good move on Reddits part. And for those people using the taking of pix unknowningly to the subject and uploaded online... who cares about some guy 3000miles away from you checking them out. This can easily be done w/o the internet and have a greater effect. You can take a pic and post it all over the office, bathrooms, the city... it'll do more damage if you keep it local where people know who you are. Most of the crap ive seen posted that would fit in this category is crap some idiot took and posted on facebook. Some of you people would probably ban dihydrogen monoxide if you could.
EDIT: As for in the public, you should be doing, wearing, having anything that you wouldn't want everyone to see (hence youre in public to begin with - anything else is your risk)
In private it's difference. Maybe we should work on laws that protect our privacy? (I'd really like to say how we (uhmericans) screwed that up but that's just one more reason for a mod to censor this post)

OCN is a privately owned forum and you are in no way entitled to free speech here smile.gif -- This ain't overclock.gov, but .net.

Just because they are in the public eye does not mean they don't have privacy under our laws. You can't watch women use the bathroom because they are in public facilities and you think it means they forfeit their rights to privacy. Weather locally or on another planet, its still morally reprehensible and it can still effect one emotionally. Just search for Amanda Todd, the teen that recently killed herself because she was bullied to no end because some idiot decided to post pictures of her online.

Also law =! morality.
Po' Pimpin'
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
i5 2500k @ stock Biostar TZ68K+ [A3] 4GB  Sandforce 1222 64GB SSD 
Optical DriveCoolingOSMonitor
LG 22x DVD-+RW  Stock Windows 7 x64 Acer S211HL 1080p 
PowerCaseMouse
600w Diablotek Linkworld Electronic Inland 
  hide details  
Reply
Po' Pimpin'
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
i5 2500k @ stock Biostar TZ68K+ [A3] 4GB  Sandforce 1222 64GB SSD 
Optical DriveCoolingOSMonitor
LG 22x DVD-+RW  Stock Windows 7 x64 Acer S211HL 1080p 
PowerCaseMouse
600w Diablotek Linkworld Electronic Inland 
  hide details  
Reply
post #74 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by BizzareRide View Post

OCN is a privately owned forum and you are in no way entitled to free speech here smile.gif -- This ain't overclock.gov, but .net.
Just because they are in the public eye does not mean they don't have privacy under our laws. You can't watch women use the bathroom because they are in public facilities and you think it means they forfeit their rights to privacy. Weather locally or on another planet, its still morally reprehensible and it can still effect one emotionally. Just search for Amanda Todd, the teen that recently killed herself because she was bullied to no end because some idiot decided to post pictures of her online.
Also law =! morality.

Right, but if you saw something you have the right to write about it wink.gif Which brings me full circle back to my point on the British government putting gagging order son the British press.

Photo's is one thing, but speech is a totally different thing. If I have proof that you're a jerk I ought to have the right to publish it. Somewhere, last year, that right was not upheld in British courts. I think it was rubbished sometime this year but the point stands. people in the public eye ought to watch what they're doing. They get away with murder (over here anyway) FOr instance, superstar Robbie Williams was once caught with possession of cocaine. He wasn't arrested or fined. Random Joe on the street in possession with cocaine would be butt raped to oblivion and back...
The Riginator
(20 items)
 
 
Wife's Rig
(5 items)
 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Qualcomm Snapdragon S600 Adreno 330 2GB LPDDR3 NAND Storage 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Samsung 32GB MicroSD Android 4.4.2 KitKat 5 inch (441ppi) 1080x1920 Super AMOLED SwiftKey 
Power
2600mAh Battery 
  hide details  
Reply
The Riginator
(20 items)
 
 
Wife's Rig
(5 items)
 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Qualcomm Snapdragon S600 Adreno 330 2GB LPDDR3 NAND Storage 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Samsung 32GB MicroSD Android 4.4.2 KitKat 5 inch (441ppi) 1080x1920 Super AMOLED SwiftKey 
Power
2600mAh Battery 
  hide details  
Reply
post #75 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsm106 View Post

What laws did you link? Dude sells his photos, that's a commercial enterprise! Seriously? You can't make a profit off someones likeness for free. Well, lol I suppose you can but you are liable for it.
From WIPO

I quoted them in my post, but here you go again: CP laws. There's also a good write up on photography laws that you can find here. As long as an image is being used in an editorial fashion (which would include being posted to a website like Reddit), isn't being sold for commercial purposes, and was taken in a public location, you don't need a model release and the images don't break any laws.
Work in Progress
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-3570k Gigabyte GA-Z77X-UD3H Gigabyte 7950 Windforce G.Skill Sniper 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Mushkin Chronos  WD Caviar Blue WD Caviar Black Lite-On iHas 124 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Thermaltake Water 2.0 Extreme Windows 7 Ultimate Asus VH236H Cooler Master Quickfire Rapid 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Seasonic X750 Fractal Design Arc Midi Mionix Naos 5000 Ratpadz XT 
AudioAudio
HT Omega Striker Audio Technica ATH-AD700 
  hide details  
Reply
Work in Progress
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-3570k Gigabyte GA-Z77X-UD3H Gigabyte 7950 Windforce G.Skill Sniper 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Mushkin Chronos  WD Caviar Blue WD Caviar Black Lite-On iHas 124 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Thermaltake Water 2.0 Extreme Windows 7 Ultimate Asus VH236H Cooler Master Quickfire Rapid 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Seasonic X750 Fractal Design Arc Midi Mionix Naos 5000 Ratpadz XT 
AudioAudio
HT Omega Striker Audio Technica ATH-AD700 
  hide details  
Reply
post #76 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by nubbinator View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tsm106 View Post

What laws did you link? Dude sells his photos, that's a commercial enterprise! Seriously? You can't make a profit off someones likeness for free. Well, lol I suppose you can but you are liable for it.
From WIPO

I quoted them in my post, but here you go again: CP laws. There's also a good write up on photography laws that you can find here. As long as an image is being used in an editorial fashion (which would include being posted to a website like Reddit), isn't being sold for commercial purposes, and was taken in a public location, you don't need a model release and the images don't break any laws.

Quote:
Actually, no, you wouldn't. There's a Magnum photographer who has actually made his living off of getting in people's faces with his camera and photographing them in public. He has sold and published his pictures and never once used a model release. It's generally only if the image has a commercial application that you need a model release form. As Reddit is a public forum and the people posting the images are not using them commercially and as the images were taken in a public location, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy and the shots are perfectly legal. Whether they are ethical or moral is a different question, but under the law, at least in the US, there is no law being violated.


Do you even follow you're own arguments??? The sale of a photo is a commercial enterprise.

Btw I was never talking about the photos posted on reddit according to any laws, and the original sub topic was regarding a posters photo, NOT reddit.
The 3930
(26 items)
 
Junior's 3930
(22 items)
 
DATA/HTPC
(20 items)
 
  hide details  
Reply
The 3930
(26 items)
 
Junior's 3930
(22 items)
 
DATA/HTPC
(20 items)
 
  hide details  
Reply
post #77 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsm106 View Post

Do you even follow you're own arguments??? The sale of a photo is a commercial enterprise.
Btw I was never talking about the photos posted on reddit according to any laws, and the original sub topic was regarding a posters photo, NOT reddit.

Yes, I did read what I posted, but you clearly don't know the difference between commercial and other uses. Selling photos is not a commercial enterprise. There are many artists and journalists who sell their photos without a model release since their images fall under the editorial and artistic categories. Commercial use are images like stock photographs that are sold for use in advertisements, marketing, and product placement. It is photography that is used to sell a product, promote a business or brand, or used in commercial applications, such as menus and instruction manuals. Selling photos that you took does not make them commercial photos.
Work in Progress
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-3570k Gigabyte GA-Z77X-UD3H Gigabyte 7950 Windforce G.Skill Sniper 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Mushkin Chronos  WD Caviar Blue WD Caviar Black Lite-On iHas 124 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Thermaltake Water 2.0 Extreme Windows 7 Ultimate Asus VH236H Cooler Master Quickfire Rapid 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Seasonic X750 Fractal Design Arc Midi Mionix Naos 5000 Ratpadz XT 
AudioAudio
HT Omega Striker Audio Technica ATH-AD700 
  hide details  
Reply
Work in Progress
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-3570k Gigabyte GA-Z77X-UD3H Gigabyte 7950 Windforce G.Skill Sniper 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Mushkin Chronos  WD Caviar Blue WD Caviar Black Lite-On iHas 124 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Thermaltake Water 2.0 Extreme Windows 7 Ultimate Asus VH236H Cooler Master Quickfire Rapid 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Seasonic X750 Fractal Design Arc Midi Mionix Naos 5000 Ratpadz XT 
AudioAudio
HT Omega Striker Audio Technica ATH-AD700 
  hide details  
Reply
post #78 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by nubbinator View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tsm106 View Post

Do you even follow you're own arguments??? The sale of a photo is a commercial enterprise.
Btw I was never talking about the photos posted on reddit according to any laws, and the original sub topic was regarding a posters photo, NOT reddit.

Yes, I did read what I posted, but you clearly don't know the difference between commercial and other uses. Selling photos is not a commercial enterprise. There are many artists and journalists who sell their photos without a model release since their images fall under the editorial and artistic categories. Commercial use are images like stock photographs that are sold for use in advertisements, marketing, and product placement. It is photography that is used to sell a product, promote a business or brand, or used in commercial applications, such as menus and instruction manuals. Selling photos that you took does not make them commercial photos.


Seriously?

Quote:
Under this right, you could be liable if you use a photograph of someone without their consent to gain some commercial benefit.


Root word, commerce, meaning to what? Buy and sell maybe? Why would you sell a photo, oh that's right to MAKE MONEY. Refer to underlined part.
The 3930
(26 items)
 
Junior's 3930
(22 items)
 
DATA/HTPC
(20 items)
 
  hide details  
Reply
The 3930
(26 items)
 
Junior's 3930
(22 items)
 
DATA/HTPC
(20 items)
 
  hide details  
Reply
post #79 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsm106 View Post

Seriously?
Root word, commerce, meaning to what? Buy and sell maybe? Why would you sell a photo, oh that's right to MAKE MONEY. Refer to underlined part.

Are you just arguing for the sake of argument or do you really not understand the legal distinction? Creating an image and selling it does not constitute commercial use. It has to be sold for use in a commercial fashion to be commercial photography. As I have said several times, it is images used in advertising and branding, manuals, and in other ways by commercial enterprises. An individual selling their art or photographs does not fall under commercial category.

For example, commissioning a piece of artwork for display or buying a piece of art from an artist does not constitute commerce. Commissioning a piece for use in an ad campaign or for branding a company would fall under the category of commercial.

I'm done with trying to get you to understand this though. If you can't accept that there is a legal distinction between the two even if someone sells the work, there is no convincing you otherwise.
Work in Progress
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-3570k Gigabyte GA-Z77X-UD3H Gigabyte 7950 Windforce G.Skill Sniper 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Mushkin Chronos  WD Caviar Blue WD Caviar Black Lite-On iHas 124 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Thermaltake Water 2.0 Extreme Windows 7 Ultimate Asus VH236H Cooler Master Quickfire Rapid 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Seasonic X750 Fractal Design Arc Midi Mionix Naos 5000 Ratpadz XT 
AudioAudio
HT Omega Striker Audio Technica ATH-AD700 
  hide details  
Reply
Work in Progress
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-3570k Gigabyte GA-Z77X-UD3H Gigabyte 7950 Windforce G.Skill Sniper 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Mushkin Chronos  WD Caviar Blue WD Caviar Black Lite-On iHas 124 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Thermaltake Water 2.0 Extreme Windows 7 Ultimate Asus VH236H Cooler Master Quickfire Rapid 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Seasonic X750 Fractal Design Arc Midi Mionix Naos 5000 Ratpadz XT 
AudioAudio
HT Omega Striker Audio Technica ATH-AD700 
  hide details  
Reply
post #80 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by BizzareRide View Post

OCN is a privately owned forum and you are in no way entitled to free speech here smile.gif -- This ain't overclock.gov, but .net.
Just because they are in the public eye does not mean they don't have privacy under our laws. You can't watch women use the bathroom because they are in public facilities and you think it means they forfeit their rights to privacy. Weather locally or on another planet, its still morally reprehensible and it can still effect one emotionally. Just search for Amanda Todd, the teen that recently killed herself because she was bullied to no end because some idiot decided to post pictures of her online.
Also law =! morality.
Right, it is, never said it wasn't, and so is Reddit. What was your point, again? The bathroom is covered under reasonable expectation of privacy, btw... a bit different than being wide open.

Also =! != !=.
IntelAsylum R2.1
(14 items)
 
M11xR2
(13 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 2500k ASRock Z77 Extreme6 MSI GTX 970 GAMING 4G 16GB Ripjaw X 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOS
R0: 2x1TB WD Se Samsung 840 EVO LG UH12LS28 BDD Windows 7 Ultimate x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Dell E2414H x2 M$ Sidewinder x4 Seasonic 600W CM HAF 932A 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitec M705 MouseMat 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
i7 GT335m 1gb 4gb ddr3 Sandisk 128GB SSD 
OS
Windows/Linux/Depends 
  hide details  
Reply
IntelAsylum R2.1
(14 items)
 
M11xR2
(13 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 2500k ASRock Z77 Extreme6 MSI GTX 970 GAMING 4G 16GB Ripjaw X 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOS
R0: 2x1TB WD Se Samsung 840 EVO LG UH12LS28 BDD Windows 7 Ultimate x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Dell E2414H x2 M$ Sidewinder x4 Seasonic 600W CM HAF 932A 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitec M705 MouseMat 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
i7 GT335m 1gb 4gb ddr3 Sandisk 128GB SSD 
OS
Windows/Linux/Depends 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Technology and Science News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [BBC] Reddit will not ban 'distasteful' content, chief executive says