Re: FW: Windows Live and Privacy

["Brian Loe" <knobdy () gmail com>]

On 12/6/06, Peter Kosinar <goober () nuf ksp sk> wrote:

> Brian, did you read that carefully?

No, of course not. :)

> ] Using someone's image for commercial benefit
> ]
> ] 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.
>
> It seems you've just given Dr. Solly an argument -for- his cause :-) ...
> unless you assume Microsoft is going to do what they're going to do for
> -no- commercial benefit.

One, I don't think Microsoft is going to use it for profit. So far,
everything I've used of Live has been free - marketing I guess you'd
call it.

Two, this is probably true the world over. Even Howard Stern, or
anyone else that makes prank phone calls, has to get a release from
those being pranked before he can play them on the air. That is not to
say its a violation of copyright - which is what we're discussing.
Further, taking a picture of streets, where Solly just happens to get
into the frame of one, would probably not be a big deal. We've all
seen millions of photographs of people from all over the world who
have never given their permission to be in the photograph (victims of
the bombings in England, 9/11 victims, tsunami victims, etc., etc.)
and the burden it would be on a photographer would make it impossible
anyway.
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.