No expectation of privacy on public transit | Hacker News Reader

No expectation of privacy on public transit

chicagotribune.com

47 pointsmayank47 comments

I used to be really into street photography[1] and this issue tends to creep up from time to time.

If you're on public property of any sort, you don't really have any expectation of privacy outside of the bathrooms or such.[2] That shouldn't be the surprise and that shouldn't be the title of this link. Hell, you can take photographs of people and things on private property as long as it's readily visible from public property and you're not trespassing on the private property.

But! Using said photographs commercially (generally, any use that brings in direct profit) can be a misappropriation of likeness and also a violation of one's right to publicity[3] -- the right to control and make money from the commercial use of his or her identity.

Being an asshole about it and changing every photograph on the site to hers is an interesting move. I'd really love to see what would happen if she pressed charges in response to that.

---

[1] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Street_photog...

[2] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Photography_a...

[3] http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/using-name-or-likenes...

It seems to me that they are profiting from the commercial use of her likeness.

That was my implication -- that if they're guilty of anything(other than being total assholes), it's this (and not the privacy issue).

Yes, I thought you were implying that but I wanted to make it more concrete.

People seemed to have misunderstood the title of the link -- I meant it as a declarative statement, not a surprised exclamation. Perhaps I should have added "consequences of" to the beginning, but my point was just to share a particularly unpleasant experience.

On the plus side, the discussions below about using AdSense to monetize a website dedicated to profiting off non-consensual pictures of people is quite interesting.

That might make an interesting court case. How would that be different from the journalistic exception? After all, newspapers make their money by selling ads too.

> the discussions below about using AdSense to monetize a website dedicated to profiting off non-consensual pictures of people is quite interesting.

Yeah, there are a few sites like this now ("People of Wal-Mart", some content on "Look at this fucking hipster") and I've always wondered about the same thing.

You're usually in the clear if you're just creating one-off works of art or news/editorial commentary -- and not primarily seeking merch sales or ad revenue... But these sites are pull wholesale exploitation of public photos for ad revenue. (Although, "People of Wal-Mart" claims to honor takedown requests and I haven't heard any hub-bub about them pulling a stunt like this one. And since most of the photos on that site are indoor, within Wal-Mart private property, there's that issue they could theoretically put up with.)

In my mind, sites like these could be a lot harder to police than copyright infringement (on say, YouTube or elsewhere) since the onus of litigation is on an individual being photographed, rather than a large multinational rights-holding company. (Personally, I really don't have the time to go looking for photos of myself that others may have taken of me.)

IANAL but it seems like this is harassment of some sort.

Also, when close minded people make fun of the diversity of a particular city, the people of that city can be brutal in their response. This is already evident in the fact that the Times picked this story up and ran it.

I think there is a response along the lines of "Yeah. There are weirdos on the bus. And, yeah, we sometimes snicker. But they are OUR weirdos in OUR city and no one messes with that."

> Hell, you can take photographs of people and things on private property as long as it's readily visible from public property and you're not trespassing on the private property.

…In the United States. EU is a little different in this respect, at least.

I can understand why the owner of the website is concerned about competition: being a dick on the internet is a very crowded market.

I wonder if we'll see more of this sort of asocial behaviour as the 4chan generation grows up - or at least gets older - and find themselves in more positions of authority/power?

Asocial? People watching and making fun of everyone not in your ingroup is not exactly one of humanity's more recent inventions.

Neither is being a dick.

Neither is being upset when a photo of you shows up somewhere.

The only insight here is how slow of a news day today must be.

You can report a policy violation to Google AdSense by clicking on the link in the bottom right corner of the offending site:

http://www.peopleofpublictransit.com/

I hope Google cuts them off.

Which of the AdSense policies are they violating though?

AdSense policies are part of a larger superset of things that you can get cut off for. State and federal laws are also part of that set. As the article notes, "state law that prohibits people from using someone else's identity for commercial purposes without that person's permission". I'm not a lawyer, but in my (unqualified) opinion this is pretty clear cut.

Ah. So if you have blog with ads and you use (say) a photo from flickr, your use of the photo is deemed commercial? ie: Use of ads indicates commercial intent?

The value of a blog is the writing. They don't really depend on the one photo they use. The "value" of the website in question is that they get to laugh at photos that you can't use commercially. Without the photos, the website is nothing. A legal battle around this question probably depends largely on the lawyers arguing about where the value of the commercial entity derives from.

To get a real answer you'd have to ask a lawyer. But my intuition is a blog that uses one photo per post in fine, while the website in question is not fine because it requires the photos to even exist as a website.

I don't think there's any legal requirement on text:photo ratio; photojournalists' blogs that are nothing but streams of photos of people in public places haven't been required to get model releases, and are probably protected by the first amendment. Granted, most of them are more legit journalism than this is.

I think it's a bit more complex and gray-area when you need a model release, even for commercial publications. The canonical "need one" example is using someone's likeness on a billboard to sell products, or on the label of your product. The canonical "don't need one, even if use is commercial" example is newspapers publishing photographs taken in a public place as part of an article. For example, you don't need a protester's permission to publish a photo of them at a rally, even if your newspaper/magazine sells ads and is for profit.

There's a lot of in-between area, though. This site doesn't seem to be clearly using the photos in the model/advertising sort of way; they're not using them to launch a line of public-transit-rider products or putting them on tshirts or something. It's definitely a step down from journalistic reporting, but I could see it arguably falling closer to that than to the usual cases where model releases are needed. You could imagine a genuine reporter running a story on fashion trends in different demographics or something, illustrated by a few photos taken out in public, and this is basically the half-assed, mean-spirited tabloid version of that focusing on one particular demographic.

(Though as far as AdSense in particular goes, Google can of course make up any rules they want.)

You don't see newspapers vindictively replacing all of their content except ads with a humiliating photo and a mocking, false story about their subject.

I agree, but that's more a question of whether it's valuable/interesting/trashy than a question of whether it's promotional modeling use, isn't it? This just doesn't look like the kind of uses that model releases are normally required for.

You generally, at least in the USA and UK CAN use a person photo for commercial use without their consent - otherwise crowd shots of a game would be impossible, The only limitation is that you cannot imply they endorse a product unless they do. Even then a shot of them actually using a product - a celebrity with a can of your soda in their hand, would be acceptable as reportage.

Adsense policies forbid certain things which may not be unlawful, such as promoting intolerance against an individual.

1) "Any other content that is illegal, promotes illegal activity or infringes on the legal rights of others."

The site engages in commercial exploitation of photos of non-public persons without their consent.

2) "Content related to racial intolerance or advocacy against any individual, group or organisation."

The texts that accompany the pictures generally mock and harass the subjects. From the article:

"A recent picture of an obese woman sleeping had one comment: "OMG … it's 'The Bulk.'" Another, showing a pair of Hasidic Jews on a train, included a joke apparently referencing concentration camps during the Holocaust."

I dealt with a similar incident once and never got anywhere with Google. You'll find that they're NOT eager to take hosted pages down or even put a site offering nothing but links to pirated adult videos under anything but strict safe search and you'll get a form email for your troubles that doesn't tell you a damn thing.

In short, unless you have an inside contact, they're pretty unhelpful and you're not likely to get an explanation of what they need to have to fulfill your request, because everything is automated and you're not likely to see an unscripted reply. Maybe AdSense is different and they'll be more likely to pull the plug because they can avoid paying out, but I don't know. I wouldn't hold my breath, though.

I did this just now. Thanks.

Just because you are within the bounds of legality doesn't mean that your not being a dick about it. There is a line between providing the public with some cheap laughs and being a total ass. Kubera, the anonymous employee, and the company as a whole crossed it.

Taking the photos in public, no problem. Posting them to the site, no problem. Laughing your ass off at them, again no problem. Not doing what you said you would if someone requested it taken down, problem.

If you say you're going to take something down upon notice, just do it.

From People of Public Transit FAQ:

Q. What if I see myself in a post and want you to take it down? You need to send in 9 forms of identification to prove to us that it’s really you. Seriously, just tell us and we’ll happily remove it for you.

From People of Walmart FAQ:

I’M IN A PICTURE ON YOUR WEBSITE AND I WANT IT TAKEN DOWN. HOW DO I DO THAT? Simply email us and we will take it down, no problem. If you like your photo but hate the caption or comment send us an email and we can remove it.

Does anyone have cases from People of Walmart? Have they pulled any stunts like this on a take down request before?

I agree.

You have no expectation of privacy, but I think an expectation of respect, politeness, and reasonable behaviour is OK.

That's the thing: I almost feel like POPT is pulling this (legally risky -- commercial use [via ad revenue] of likeness, possible harassment, etc.) stunt to grab attention to their own site.

While POW is still in the same grey area (regarding commercial use of likeness), at least they seem to honor takedown requests -- or at least, I gather this since I've never heard a single complaint about it and their site is still alive and kickin.

Let John Kubera know how you feel about his efforts to help photography: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RRba28d...

John is the one on the left with the mustache.

This is fucked up.

It's interesting that "People of Public Transit" seems to provoke a negative reaction, while "People of Walmart"[1] has been hailed as funny and even "the best website ever"[2].

I guess context is everything in this situation. Walmart bad, public transpo good.

1. http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/

2. http://www.nowpublic.com/culture/people-walmart-best-website...

I think the negative reaction has more to do with how the website owner was not only discourteous, but has gone further in promoting a campaign of harassment against someone.

Let John Kubera know how you feel about his efforts to help photography: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RRba28d...

John is the one on the left with the mustache.

This is not so much about privacy so much as being a douche bag. This type of bullshit behavior makes it impossible for real photographers attempting to capture 21st century life the way Garry Winogrand might have impossible. There can never be trust between subjects and photographers. Just try getting model releases if this shit keeps happening. Let John Kubera know how you feel about his efforts to help photography: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RRba28d.... John is the one on the left with the mustache.

it's when I see story like this that I remember I really hate assholes ...

what's killing me too is that they get away with that but something like google streetview have to blur people face for privacy reason

their TOS (see 3.1.7) considering the context is ridiculous (and obviously not followed)

on top of that, they use the chicago tribune article as advertizing for their website (that I never heard of before)

and that is really the worst part, those guys with no idea (people of wallmart -> people of the public transit, shit my dad says -> stuff my boss says, etc.) may end up getting some bucks with more popularity, all that by exploiting the stupidity of people who can not understand a bit of difference from the norm.

the only thing those guys deserve is to get DoS'ed and/or banned and/or ignored.

Entrepreneurship should be rewarded when you do something cool, not when you exploit someone else.

[edit] and here the photo of the asshole http://twitpic.com/2sb48b

Sorry, the website owner might be being a dick, but it's long established that there's no expectation of privacy in a public place. If you want to use someone's image in news on, or on your Flickr account, or on a site showing off "Do's and Don'ts" you don't need permission. For more commercial things, like an ad or a book, you do need a model's consent.

> but it's long established that there's no expectation of privacy in a public place

My point with sharing that link was to point out a particularly nasty consequence of that.

Considering the website in question is essentially a commercial enterprise (It utilizes Adsense) I'd say this falls outside the realm of fair use.

Fair use is a defense against a claim of copyright infringement.

This is about whether you can publish someone's picture -- and perhaps even profit off it.

Sorry to tell you but the First Amendment is clear here, like this kind of speech or not.

It's like you guys have never seen Hot or Not, the NY Times Sunday style section or a copy of Vice magazine. Get a grip.

Jesus. I hardly ever get annoyed by things on the internet, but seriously, wtf? This makes my skin crawl.

Why would there be?

She should DoS his site to teach that punk a lesson.

Douchebags always exist. There really should be some kind of quality control as to who gets to start their own website or company. This would of course be impossible but in theory it would let us use our brains for more useful stuff instead of constantly having to wade through all the bullshit done and created by idiots like the site owner.

I should have mentioned i know its not a crime to take a picture in a public spot. Just saying doing stuff like that is not cool.

I'll be the voice of dissent here: I think it's ok. Her whole style of clothing and even choices in hair color are norm violating, attention grabbing devices. If she would have left well-enough alone, her picture would have faded into obscurity with millions of other pictures.

Instead, she brought more publicity to the event. She actually allowed a news outlet to cover the incident.

While the owner of the website is not being a super-friendly-pushover, and I know his behavior falls into what society considers asshole behavior, I feel things will be really fucked up if he is legally forced to remove the pictures, or if Google cuts his page revenue. That'll be censorship in my opinion.

If he was legally forced to remove the pictures, I suppose that would be censorship, although not automatically bad. IP rights rely on censorship to stop other people from publishing what's covered by the IP. The problem with censorship isn't that it exists, it's that it's used inappropriately.

Google deciding not to do business with a dick and/or someone who violates their terms of service is not censorship. As far as I'm aware, Google isn't the government.

Instead, she brought more publicity to the event. She actually allowed a news outlet to cover the incident.

You know, I'm positively tired of the "Streisand effect" argument. Are we supposed to let anything pass out of fear that a mildly embarrassing situation escalates?

Perhaps she does not even care about the picture. Perhaps she does not want to live in a society where harassing unsuspecting individuals is acceptable. Without going public and finding like-minded people, nothing will change.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com