I suspect we will come to a standstill here, we're reaching a pretty fundamental difference in opinion.
IMO what you're suggesting is a complete overreaching of privacy rights, and would make this society even more litigious and difficult to navigate than it is already.
For example, if you were any of the individuals in the background here:
under your system, you're allowed to ask me to take down my vacation photos. Because you happened to be in them. Worse, if you want the law to reach far enough to ban what Mr. Boyle has done, you'd be able to sue me for taking a vacation photo and daring to post it for people to see.
This would be wildly illegal also! Not only do we have strangers identifiably in our pictures, but they are the main subject to boot! The shock! The dismay!
How many people's rights to privacy were violated by this heinous example of blatant disregard for people's rights?!
I could go on and be even more hyperbolic - but what you're suggesting is that any use of anybody's likeness be banned by default, and edge cases for "legitimate" use be created to skirt around the fact that this would, well, cripple just about any sense of fair use we already have. Of course, "legitimacy" would be incredibly narrowly defined. So we're going to ban all use of people's likenesses... unless it's by tourists. Or journalists. Or for the protection of private property (e.g., CCTV), or...?
IMO this would simply result in a net loss of freedom for everyone involved. To main some semblance of normality, we'd force people working in tourist-heavy areas to sign over blanket photographic rights so the tourists can continue taking snapshots without fear of legal repercussion. As opposed to right now where people still hang onto their own inalienable rights. This would probably become de rigeur for anyone with any significant facing to the public - aid workers, people marching in a parade, etc etc. So in the end instead of simply having rights, we by default just sign everything away in a tome of a contract that's hardly comprehensible to anyone so that life can, well, continue.
It's hard to imagine a worse case of regulatory over-reach.
Again, you're taking a very naïve view of my position by presenting extreme cases and saying "look what will happen!"
In actuality, courts will continue to exercise their right to interpret the vagaries of the law on a case-by-case basis and to set precedents for fair use.
> IMO what you're suggesting is a complete overreaching of privacy rights, and would make this society even more litigious and difficult to navigate than it is already.
And I feel we would be better off for it. Maybe we'll just have to leave it at that.
Exactly how would we be better off for it? How many instances has a person's image been legally used to his/her detriment? Compare that to how many instances photos of unwilling (or unaware) subjects have helped society? Any kind of restriction on a right leads to a chilling of even legal exercises of that right. That's why it is legal to publish a lie in America. Not because our justice system encourages the publication of lies, but because any overreaching rule would people from publishing the truth out of fear of being sued on a technicality.
IMO what you're suggesting is a complete overreaching of privacy rights, and would make this society even more litigious and difficult to navigate than it is already.
For example, if you were any of the individuals in the background here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fangfangzhang/3844004957/
under your system, you're allowed to ask me to take down my vacation photos. Because you happened to be in them. Worse, if you want the law to reach far enough to ban what Mr. Boyle has done, you'd be able to sue me for taking a vacation photo and daring to post it for people to see.
And forget creating memories of events:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/david_cioni/2899941922/
This would be wildly illegal also! Not only do we have strangers identifiably in our pictures, but they are the main subject to boot! The shock! The dismay!
How many people's rights to privacy were violated by this heinous example of blatant disregard for people's rights?!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/away_we_go/5925301750/
I could go on and be even more hyperbolic - but what you're suggesting is that any use of anybody's likeness be banned by default, and edge cases for "legitimate" use be created to skirt around the fact that this would, well, cripple just about any sense of fair use we already have. Of course, "legitimacy" would be incredibly narrowly defined. So we're going to ban all use of people's likenesses... unless it's by tourists. Or journalists. Or for the protection of private property (e.g., CCTV), or...?
IMO this would simply result in a net loss of freedom for everyone involved. To main some semblance of normality, we'd force people working in tourist-heavy areas to sign over blanket photographic rights so the tourists can continue taking snapshots without fear of legal repercussion. As opposed to right now where people still hang onto their own inalienable rights. This would probably become de rigeur for anyone with any significant facing to the public - aid workers, people marching in a parade, etc etc. So in the end instead of simply having rights, we by default just sign everything away in a tome of a contract that's hardly comprehensible to anyone so that life can, well, continue.
It's hard to imagine a worse case of regulatory over-reach.