Richard Hartmann <richih.mailinglist@gmail.com> writes: > Three corner cases I can't get out of my mind: > > * What about people who appear to the group photo while wearing > no-photo lanyards? I think keeping the shot as-is, but not tagging > them by name, would be prudent. Tagging is a different issue. IMO nobody should tag any other person on any photo. I'm well aware that with todays face recognition technology this won't help much, but still I belive there's a difference between having an anonymous picture published and putting names to the persons on it. Of course not tagging someone does not mean that it's OK to make the picture if the person does not want to be photographed. > > * What about people who seat themselves in the normal talk room > audience, or even act as speaker etc, and have a no-photo lanyard? My > gut feeling is that both these actions imply consent to be video-taped > as long as the talk is taped/streamed in the first place. As long as it's made clear that the area is being videoed I agree. > > * What defines a "photo of a person"? I suspect we will all agree that > that "frontal body shot including face" meets all criteria while "half > a shoe" does not. Specifically, I am wondering if having a profile or > the back of someone's head in a picture, even though those people > don't want to be photographed, would be OK. Personally, I think a > profile is too much and a back-of-the-head shot should be avoided if > possible. I'd say as long as the person is recognizable. That's also the definition the law uses at least in Germany. Gaudenz
Attachment:
pgp2Xqza_cFab.pgp
Description: PGP signature