I would prefer to remain avatarless as well. I want people to focus on my intellect and the strength of my arguments, and not become distracted by my heartbreaking beauty.
So I shouldn’t have made your pic my desktop wallpaper? Okay, back to George Clooney, then.
I wouldn’t use it, but I don’t care if someone else does. At least it might cut down on the number of people referring to me as with male pronouns.
At the risk of being blunt: This is the internet. The gallery is a public site. What were you possibly expecting? It’s like you sat a bunch of stuff out on a table at the edge of the sidewalk in the front yard, posted an ad to Craigslist that the table was there, and were then suddenly shocked when passersby started taking things from it.
Then why did you submit a photo to the gallery? The proposed addon in something that would essentially be the equivalent of keeping a tab open to the gallery page and looking up people as they post to see what they look like. *All *it does is make that faster. It doesn’t add a photo for everyone to see; *only *people who download and install the addon will see the photos, and they will *only *see photos of people who’ve submitted them to the site.
Actually, it’s not.
The SDMB and Arnold’s web sites are private web sites that are publicly accessible to anyone. Their respective privacy and copyright notices should spell out what may or may not be used by a third party. In the apparent absence of both on Arnold’s site, the best one may do is request their photo be removed from the site.
In an ideal world both sites would have privacy and copyright notices stating a poster retains copyright to their own work and that either site has a right to use what is on either site as they see fit, or it does not. Again, you maintain some control by requesting removal of your photo if you choose not to participate in a third-party mashup. It’s too bad Arnold doesn’t state that copyright for posted images are retained by the copyright owner and posting images on his site doesn’t constitute permission to publish elsewhere without the copyright owner’s permission.
I never thought it was necessary. But hey, if someone writes up the necessary legalese for me, I can put it in the page footer for the gallery pages. In this day and age, those warnings always seem superfluous to me, because it’s not really going to stop anybody, but it doesn’t hurt to include it I suppose.
For those who are objecting to Reply’s little script - would your objections be resolved if his script was tied to a document that allowed a poster to opt out of having their photo used by his script?
Reply, at this point, I’m thinking that the script is perhaps not such a good idea, several people are objecting to it. Unless you can find a way to convince the skeptics, I might have to ask you not to use the gallery photos. I’m still willing to be convinced otherwise.
Too late. A few weeks ago I printed out your picture and whenever I see one of your posts I hold it up next to the monitor.
Can someone explain why you’d be willing to upload your photo to the SDMB Portrait Gallery for public consumption but not want people to see it on the SDMB? If you wanted to remain anonymous why did you have your picture added to the gallery in the first place?
I’m not trying to convince anyone. I don’t really care either way; for now, I’d rather let this discussion continue and see what more people think.
I’m going to have to ask for some clarification here. How is anything private that’s publicly viewable – indeed, meant for public viewing – still private? People supplied their pictures knowing that it would be available on the internet for all to see without any sort of authentication. Yes, there is an expectation of privacy, but is it a reasonable expectation of privacy?
And just in case I wasn’t being clear, there is no copying or republishing going on, at least not in the traditional sense. There is a downloading of bytes to a user’s computer that allows the photos to be displayed, but that sort of “copying” necessarily has to happen even if people view the gallery directly.
Think of this way: If I were an extraordinarily lazy person, I could have a friend sit next to me with his laptop while I read the SDMB. “So, what does Duckster look like? Oh, cool. Ok, now what does AClockworkMelon look like? Neat. Let’s check out this other thread…” Would you consider that a violation of privacy? That is exactly what the plugin does.
That said, I want to make something clear: I’m not vested in this. It was just a programming exercise for me that I thought others might want to use. The whole reason I’m running it by Arnold, the SDMB, and everyone else beforehand is to make people aware of it and give them a chance to provide feedback. If it turns out the majority (or even a vocal minority) strongly disapprove, well, it simply doesn’t get made available. That’s fine with me.
I do, however, hope it’s obvious by now that this is something any computer person can whip up in a few minutes without asking anyone’s permission; people who are seriously concerned about that should probably not have their photos available to begin with. This is the Internet, folks… have we learned nothing from the ongoing MySpace/Facebook/personal blog embarrassment incidents?
I’m not waiting, I am asking Arnold to remove my picture. This is a clear change in the stated use of the picture and the conditions under which the picture was provided.
I still don’t see how it’s rational to want someone to be able to look at your picture in a thread promoted on this very website, but not to allow those same people to download a plugin from that website to be able to see your picture. It’s the same thing.
I can only see this as being irrational, and therefore the antithesis of this website. We’re supposed to be fighting ignorance, not encouraging it.
Whether you understand it or not is irrelevant.
That’s premature – nothing has changed yet, and even if the plugin is made available, it’s clear an opt-out mechanism (at the very least) would be appreciated.
Arnold gave the preliminary go-ahead to this with the understanding that permission would be sought first both from the SDMD and from the users and that is the way it remains. This will not become public without at least a majority desire for it, and even then I’ll provide a way for people to exclude themselves.
I’ll be sure to use that in GD and see how well it goes.
My understanding has nothing to do with it. You guys have yet to voice a rational reason for your objections, which means your objections can be ignored by any rational person.
I have no dog in this fight as I never uploaded my picture - but I see this as a necessary step in moving forward with this proposal. Actually I believe there should be an opt-in document specifically permitting use of an image, the default position being if no consent is given it may not be used. I honestly believe it should be up to individual users to consent to how their image is used.
I know this is not consistent with posts where the admin of the board reserves the right to ownership of our posts, but we posters knew that going in.
The photo album made no such declaration. Without clear consent those photos should not be used.
IMHO
No I don’t like the idea. I’m a very private person, and I’m already regretting sending my pic to Arnold, which I just did yesterday. I would request my picture be deleted if this happened – which I might do anyway.
I have no real rational reason for this, so I can’t defend it in a debate or discussion.
Why are you arguing about it when you don’t have your picture in the gallery? This is all none of your business. *Your *objections are being ignored. What you say and what you understand are irrelevant.
I read this earlier and forgot to reply. The gist of it has been discussed in subsequent posts, but there is one thing I want to ask you: Is there a compromise with which you personally would be comfortable? An opt-out solution? Opt-in? Per-user hover (indicating desire to look up a specific person, as you mentioned)?
You mean the website about a newspaper column written by a character that is as real as Santa Claus? There is something wrong about that basic premise.
Fighting ignorance indeed.