Are some things in your house more "private" than other things? (Privacy debate)

It’s my photo, and certainly I don’t want it published. But I am not claiming that “privacy” is the sole reason for withholding something from publication. It merely can be one reason. Frankly, I don’t think I owe anyone an explanation over why I may not choose to publish something. It’s none of their damned business.

However, there is something uniquely chilling about having something in your house and yet still having it copied and published, which is something that apparently you want to happen.

So, I’d take it that if you had a photo in a drawer at work and your boss published it, you wouldn’t mind?

No, privacy is privacy.

Copyright is (at least in part) giving the creator of a work control over whether or not it is published or not, and how it is published. No need to prove sufficient “privacy” concerns are required.


People enjoy (at least in the US and probably most other countries) the assumption that what happens in their house and what is in their house is “private” and because of this, they have final say over what goes on in that house. And this includes the stuff they have in the house. “A man’s house is his castle” and all that. I don’t know how else to explain this to you.

Also, some things that a person has may seem perfectly non-private, but still reflect a “private” aspect of a person. Perhaps they write poems and would be embarassed if everyone knew about it. The occasional family friend? That’s OK, but not everyone. Even if the poems are about harmless things like trees, the poet feels “sensitive” about them and does not want them released. To release them against the poet’s will would be humiliating and embarrassing and definitely they’d feel it was a violation of their “privacy.”

Or, perhaps they feel that their work is not fine-tuned enough, and therefore don’t want it published until it’s “ready.” To go ahead and release it anyway would feel like a serious violation of their feelings and their privacy. Why can’t their half-baked rough drafts stay “private”?

Hell, even a photo of someone wearing an unflatterig suit could be considered an invasion of that person’s privacy if it were published to the world. Once again, someone might not mind the neighbors seeing, but not the whole world. It is my belief that people have a right to have such feelings of privacy respected.

But why should her feelings be considered at all? This I don’t understand. You don’t want her to have final say–so no matter how adamantly she does not want it published, she’s shit out of luck if a judge tells her she is.

And how can one decide what may or may not be “embarrassing” to someone? A half-finished drawing, that show all sorts of flaws, would be very embarassing to an artist. Same with a novel. But how could a person who wants to copy the work know that this would be embarrassing? It certainly could not be obvious to them–they might think it looked great. So they go ahead and publish it, only to greatly humiliate the artist or author. And once that damage is done, no courts, no matter how they decide, can undo it.

I don’t understand why you seem so unconcerned about the actual creator of the work and how they might feel about any of this. It seems to me that they are waaaay down on the totem pole of people who are entitled to rights in your eyes. It’s almost as if they are merely some recepticle of “talent” that you want to exploit, but you don’t want to hear about how they might feel, or how some of these policies might affect how they deal with their work. You don’t want them to enjoy many rights or control over their work, but rather would prefer that everyone else decide for them (the snoopy person who gets “access,” the courts, etc.).

Copyright has terms that copyright holders must abide by.

If a person can’t even have control over the stuff that they have in their own house, well…that’s chilling.

Did the law force a still-living man to relinquish his private letters so they could be published against his will? Did they get “access” to the letters in his own private residence and tell him, “Sorry, we don’t care how you feel, we’ve got copies and we are going to get them published”?

I doubt that was the scenario, but if it was–that would be absolutely appalling. But if it was published after his death–that’s a different kettle of fish.

It’s a copyright law. I should think that it would be redundant to have two laws covering the same thing. And do you seriously think that privacy laws would allow someone to copy artwork or writing in someone’s home and publish it against their will?

So, your solution is for people to not treat their private residence like it’s “private” at all, and therefore, anything that they don’t wish to see published must be hidden under lock and key?

That is also chilling.

That would depend on the content of the photo, of course. Something non-private like kittens? No problem. I might be upset that he went rummaging through my drawers, though they’re technically not mine. But I wouldn’t think of suing him, or think that I had some right to keep him from (noncommercially) copying it.

I understand that. However, the type of “privacy” you’re proposing seems to be a subset of copyright that only applies inside one’s house (or while one’s work is at a lab or shop) - a monopoly on distributing an intellectual work, given to the creator, regardless of content.

Of course. But the right to decide what goes on in your house is basically limited to kicking people out who do things you don’t like.

If you make a rule that no one shall wear a hat in your house, and someone walks in wearing a hat, you don’t get to take it away; you can only ask him to leave. If a guest sees you doing something naughty in your house, you can make him leave, but you can’t force him not to tell anyone else what he saw. My position is just an extension of that - if someone snaps a photo of a painting on your wall, you can make him leave, but you can’t take his film or tell him what to do with the picture he took.

Yes, those are all good points, and they would be free to bring those up in front of whoever decides their case. That’s a benefit of using human judgment instead of a blind rule like “Thou shalt not copy any work in thy neighbor’s house.”

Well, it’s unlikely that anyone knows whether the artist will be harmed by the release of a work better than the artist herself. However, if you simply let anyone declare a work “private” and take their word for it, then everyone will do that, since it gives them much of the same control as copyright, no matter how “private” the work may actually be. A history of guarding a work is evidence that the artist isn’t just making it up for the court, that she genuinely believes she would be harmed by the work’s release.

Go ahead and pick at Nolo’s example; the fact remains that “… the fair use provision in the Copyright Act [makes] clear that the fact that a work is unpublished weighs against fair use, but is not determinative in and of itself. It can be permissible to use part of an unpublished work without permission if it falls under the fair use doctrine.”

I’m not suggesting that this “privacy” law is at all based on fair use, though. Just pointing out that unpublished works aren’t protected as much as you might think; that fair use is an example of a right based on nebulous guidelines like I’ve suggested for IP “privacy”; and that even though fair use isn’t strictly defined, most people don’t think every possible use is automatically legal, and there’s no reason to think they would treat “privacy” otherwise.

My solution is for people not to treat their home as some kind of personal copyright zone.

And that’s fine for you–but does that mean that everyone else’s pictures of kittens are also not “private enough”?

YES. A “monopoly” on the stuff in one’s house, that one owns, that one creates, is something that most people enjoy and should continue to enjoy. “A man’s house is his castle,” and all that.

And if they turn out to be untrustworthy, then you have to go through the long and rather arduous process of going to court, hoping that the judge deems your copied work private enough? And any “damage” to ones’ privacy would already be done by the extended months of publication, while waiting for the courts to decide whether or not the work was really private enough.

It sounds like a scenario that is destined to screw over the owner of the thing that was copied against their will in as many ways as possible.

And in fact, in a lot of cases you think it’s pretty cool that he’d sneak that picture, since, after all, the person who has the intellectual property is “hoarding” it.

I’ve given up trying to explain why this is chilling–that someone can’t even enjoy having stuff out in their house (unless they want to risk it being published to the world).

There are all sorts of rules in someone’s house. And this one is a particularly good one, because it protects them from scenarios such as this–having someone copy their work, publish it, get it out there where it can never really get taken back, and then having some judge (who will undoubtedly be overwhelmed with similar absurd lawsuits) decide whether that picture of the kittens is private enough.

No, that’s where you’ve gone astray.

Why should people have to justify to the courts or anywhere else that the unpublished stuff in their house is private enough? It’s in their house, they didn’t choose to publish it. That is it. They should not have the stuff in their own house published against their will, told that they are “hoarding” it, as if they can’t have final say the stuff they own in their house.

When they publish it, they’ve already stated to the world that it isn’t private. They published it. That means they don’t mind if the whole world sees it. They still should have a right to distribute it how they see fit (a right I understand you want taken away), but the fact is, they chose to publish it.

What you want is for anything that the artist makes, even the stuff that they never published, to be released against their will (if someone can get “access”). You want them to have to “justify” why it shouldn’t be published, way after the fact, after everyone’s seen in anyway. But it was in their house. Unpublished. And that’s not enough “evidence” that it was private to them? You’re much rather tie up the courts, making them decide whether or not the person is really “justified” in not wishing some of their own work that is in their house not be published?

There are distinct differences between these two scenarios.

I’d just like you to find me an example of the courts insisting that the unpublished works residing in the house (or other designated place of choice) of a living artist be published against their will. Because that’s what we are talking about here.

Could you provide me a cite that shows that the courts forced a living artist to give up the IP in his house so that it could be published against his will?

No, it’s a personal zone. People are still entitled to some control over the stuff they own. And as such, they should be abe to have their photos out or their half-finished paintings out on an easel without having to worry about someone publishing them.

But I doubt you will acknowledge this distinction.

Yes. Unless, perhaps, it’s a picture of the creator having sex with a kitten, which could humiliate him (or get him convicted) if it were to be published in the newspaper.

I’m sure you could come up with a few more counterexamples if you’re determined enough, but obscure counterexamples only provide more fuel for the argument that human judgment is best.

So apparently you do think your home should be a personal copyright zone. And so should a photo lab and a frame shop. Probably your car too, and your backpack if you forget it at a restaurant.

Now contrast it with copyright: Someone comes into your home and sees a picture on your wall. He makes a copy. You take him to court. He claims it’s fair use. How is it any easier to prosecute him under copyright law than under “privacy” law?

Main Entry: [sup]2[/sup]hoard
Function: verb
Date: before 12th century
transitive senses
1 : to lay up a hoard of
2 : to keep (as one’s thoughts) to oneself
intransitive senses : to lay up a hoard

  • hoard·er noun

Except it really doesn’t, because laws against copying don’t prevent people from copying any more than speed limits stop people from speeding. They only give you a way to get back at the copier once the damage has already been done, and prevent him from making any more copies.

They do have final say over the stuff in their own house. You realize the distinction between the painting on your wall and the photo in your friend’s camera, yes? You have final say over the painting; he has final say over the photo.

Just as soon as you find where I’ve said that such an example exists.

What we’re talking about is an artist’s expectations. You said an artist knows that his work will be subject to fair use if it’s published; I corrected you and said that the work may be subject to fair use even before it’s published. Whether an artist’s work kept in his “personal copyright zone” has been published and found to be fair use is irrelevant, because (1) the law says fair use applies even to unpublished works and doesn’t qualify it with “…but only if the creator is dead”, and (2) this “privacy” thing isn’t based on fair use.

Translation: “I doubt you will agree with my assertions.” Which is a good observation, but obvious to anyone who’s read any of these threads. :wink:

But that wasn’t my point, exactly. My point is that you think you can decide what everyone else should consider “private,” when dealing with their own property or own creations. I don’t think you have that right.

It’s like saying, “Well, I don’t have a problem with it, why do you?

That’s not the point. Your idea of what is “private enough” is meaningless. They have a problem with it–and it’s their stuff. Not your call to make whether or not it’s “private” enough for them. You can only speak for your own self.

By “human judgment” I mean, the person who owns it and created it. Not you, and not a judge. Not when it comes to stuff people create and keep unpublished.

So apparently you don’t understand that people actually have private property. And they own property. And they create this property, and it belongs to them.

You seem to think that the last person who should have a say over a creative work is the person who owns and created it.

The difference is that the person taking the picture in the house would be under the impression that he is legally entitled to take the picture and publish it, since, after all, he had “access” to it. That’s not how it is now.

Oh, very cute.

Tell me–is everything in a person’s house (that they don’t want to share against their will) evidence that they are “hoarding” their possessions?

I think someone asked you previously whether or not you had socialist leanings–do you? It certainly sounds like it.

So let’s get rid of the laws against speeding too! They obviously don’t work. :rolleyes:

So you are saying that he gets to decide for someone else whether or not their work is published.

But the artist does not have final say over whether or not the photographer’s work is published, even though the photographer is really not using content that is all “his.” So this is very one-sided, and always seems to lean against the private choice of an artist to not publish.

But hey–there are privacy laws that prevent a photographer from publishing a photographer of a person. (Unless the person is out in public.) But if they are in their home? Can’t do it. I believe that a lot of publications and agencies require that photographers provide signed releases from all models before they will allow the photos to be published. Doesn’t that affect the right of the photographer to be published? Can’t have that. He should always have final say over his photograph. Unless, of course, this “say” is treading on someone else’s rights, which is does in the case of the person who does not want a picture of themselves to be published, and the person who does not want his stuff in his house to be published.

Ah, I assume that this is your way of saying that such an example does not exist, and for good reason.

IN THEIR LIFETIME? Could you give me an example of someone’s unpublished work will be taken from them, in their lifetime and published against their will? That could be part of “fair use”? Because that is what we ware talking about

You mean their home.

I’m taking it here that you don’t think that artists really have any rights over their work. Not really. Oh, maybe you’ll throw a crumb or two their way, but they have no absolute rights.

I mean, if they can’t even have say over whether or not it will be published in their lifetime, if everyone else gets to decide for them whether or not the stuff in their house is “private enough,” well, I think you’ve made your position very clear.

Tell me–does this position only apply to IP, or do you think that no one really should have a say over the stuff they own, and is in their house?

For the purposes of this monopoly on distribution, yes. Otherwise it’s just Copyright Lite.

Of course it belongs to them. No one can take that painting off their wall without their consent. The painting belongs to the person who created it; the film in the visitor’s camera belongs to the visitor. It’s not that complicated. :wink:

Again, what makes you think everyone would have that impression? They don’t have that impression about fair use now, do they?

I guess you could say that… it fits the definition. But hoarding physical property isn’t necessarily a bad thing, since it can only be in one place at a time.

What, I don’t like copyright so I must be a commie? That is so fifty years ago. Why don’t you look in the thread where the question was asked?

If you want to start a thread about that, be my guest.

I don’t know why you’re so obsessed with finding an example. The law is crystal clear: the fact that a work is unpublished doesn’t make it exempt from fair use.

But I’ll throw you a bone anyway…

There you go. Hopefully that’ll be the end of that hijack. Let me remind you that fair use is only relevant to this “privacy” thread in two ways: (1) because I corrected a statement you made about artists’ expectations; (2) as an example of a fuzzy IP-related right that people generally have no trouble understanding.

They have an exclusive right to put their work to commercial use.

Only IP, of course. You should understand the differences between intellectual and physical property by now. :wink:

Hmm, it occurs to me that L. Ron Hubbard was dead at the time of that court decision (although officially, “The being we knew as L. Ron Hubbard still exists … He has simply moved on to his next step”), though the copyright holder was still around. I guess that wasn’t much of a bone after all.

Oh well - the rest of my post stands, particularly the legal cite and the relevance of fair use to this discussion.

*Originally posted by Mr2001 *

Ah, that person may physically own the photograph, but they cannot publish it, if they photograph someone who does not sign a model release (unless they were photographed in public, or unless they are involved in some sort of newsworthy event).

So why is that? The person hasn’t copyrighted their face, and their face is certainly seen in public (unless they are a recluse) so why are there privacy laws that prevent the photographer from publishing? Certainly the subject of the photo doesn’t need to “justify” why they don’t want their photo published–they don’t need any reason at all. They can just refuse to allow it.

Why, they are “hoarding” the “sharing” of their countenance! And it isn’t as if it would take anything away from them to allow their photo to be published. Plenty of copies of their image can be given away, and they’ll still have their face. So why should they be allowed to “hoarde” their face like that?

Because I’ve never heard tell of an incident of someone publishing a living person’s private, unpublished works, against their will, under “fair use.” Fair use is rather restrictive even with published works, after all.

I think it’s going to be very hard to find such a cite. And if it ever has happened, my hunch would be that it wouldn’t be for the run-of-the-mill artist who is (according to others) “hoarding” their work from fans. Which is, I suspect, what you’d like to see happen–any time an artist isn’t as forthcoming with their work as others would like them (the artist) to be, why, just find a way to have “access” to the work and distribute it anyway!

But that’s not how it happens. And people already know this, which is why they are pissing and moaning about how they can’t get all the “stuff” they want (legally, and for free) through “sharing.” If they know that they can’t get the published stuff they want (for free), what makes you think that they will assume they can finagle a way to get the unpublished stuff in a private home of the creator of the work legally and for free?

That makes no sense.

I don’t recall which thread right now, and I never did recall you giving any substantive answer. But I do find it interesting that you won’t answer now. What? Is it too private to discuss here? Well, I don’t think it’s too private, so obviously you shouldn’t have any call to think it’s too private either. :wink:

Which is rendered useless because you want everyone and their sister to be able to get free copies, and in fact, you think that anyone who does not want to publish their work is “hoarding” it. Those horrible, greedy artists…

Whether or not you are socialist, I don’t know, but this all sounds very socialist to me (you evillll commie! ;)). Once again, it appears that the artists are way down on the totem pole in your mind. Thank God that your evil commie plan will never come to be in this country. :wink:

I think we’ve come to the end of the road. Your political leanings (whatever they may be) are too far afield on this issue–I don’t know that there’s much to say to someone who obviously thinks that artists are so low on the totem pole as far as rights are concerned.

Indeed - I agree that a photo of a person taken in a private situation is generally private.

The same reason they’re allowed to “hoard” any other private information.

That’s not an answer. The question was “What makes you think everyone would have that impression [that it’s legal to copy private works, or that no works are private]?”

Your suspicions about me are wrong again. Shocking.

If the work is private, how would these mysterious “others” even know about it, let alone gain access to it legally?

Here is the thread, and I’ll quote my answer:

Interestingly enough, although pervert posed the question there as “BTW, Earlier I offhandedly accused you of having socialist sympathies. Do you?”, in fact he hadn’t asked me before; his only prior comments about socialism were directed to Mr. Feely, in response to a comment I don’t agree with.

It’s not private, it’s just irrelevant. For the record, I don’t agree with eliminating private property, having the state own and control the “means of production”, or centrally controlling the distribution of goods or labor. I agree with capitalism, subject to a few regulations - but I disagree with actions and regulations that make a product artificially scarce.

If you think the only use for an artistic work is in making copies of it available for noncommercial use, you’re either deluded or just not using your imagination. Here’s one hint: Movie studios, TV studios, and video game companies pay to use songs and artwork in their products. Here’s another: Fans enjoy seeing their favorite artists in person, discussing, signing, or performing their works.

Linux is free; you can download it from hundreds of sites. Yet people still make money from Linux - they just find other ways to do it, besides charging for copies of the software.

I guess that’s one way to look at it. Or you could say society and the public domain are so high on the totem pole as far as rights are concerned - some of us actually prefer policies that help the public domain, instead of merely giving it lip service. (But that’s a subject for another thread. ;))

No, not necessarily. It could be simply not taken in a public place (like a tourist milling around in Disneyland). But even then, professional photographers are urged to always get a model release. Always. Even if the person is a professional model who makes their livng posing for photographs, the photographer will do well to get a model release.

But the model is not “hoarding” their face, if they willingly pose for a professional photographer. But the photographer still needs to get a release. Without it, the model might sue and prevent the photo from being published. And the model won’t have to explain why the photo is private enough, either.

Because you can’t even tell them what is “private” and what isn’t. If having it in their house and not publishing it isn’t evidence that it’s “private” (and apparently it’s not according to you) then what will the standards be? And why shouldn’t people assume that since stuff in a person’s home (or negatives they take to get published) are not really private enough, that they should be able to copy them?

You’re spinning again. How shocking. I’ve already explained that there are “private” things that people have in their homes and that they don’t mind family seeing, but not the whole world.

Besides, why does a photographer need to get a signed release from a model who willingly posed for them on a boat (for instance)? Certainly that photo was not taken in the most secret and “private” of circumstances, yet the model still has legal rirghts to prevent the photo from publication, unless they sign a release. “Private” does not mean tucked away in a dungeon.

Actually, it is pretty telling. So you’re not a full-blown socialist, but I definitely don’t think your notions will set well with most folks in the USA. Thank God for that, you commie. :wink:

That only covers a fraction of the different artists out there, who never will sell their work to movie studios, video game companies, and they’ll never be invited to meet with their fans. And it doesn’t mean that they are no good or that they need to get a “real job” (this always seems to be where this conversation goes at this point). It’s just not the nature of their work. Their source of income will dry up and blow away, and I guess they’ll have to get a “real” job like everyone else. :rolleyes:

Look–it’s dandy that Linux is free and all that, but you can’t make every situation fit into that nice tidy little Linux example you give.

If society were so high on the totem pole, why don’t we force anyone who is “hoarding” their material goods to share with everyone else? Certainly society would benefit if all those rich people were forced to give away all their extra stuff that they don’t really need. Why just stick it to the artists and creative folks while leaving the rich folks alone?

No, this makes no sense. Thank God your commie notions won’t become law here.

OK, that certainly sounds wise. Now exactly how does that relate to copyright and “privacy” as we’re discussing it here?

I’ve already mentioned works containing financial or medical information, and works that would result in public humiliation or legal problems if distributed. I’ll go ahead and add: photos or recordings made of a person in a nonpublic situation. Public humiliation and legal problems are somewhat subjective (but no more than the fair use guidelines, or many other laws), but the other guidelines are obvious.

Those family members should know that the work is private, and that the creator doesn’t let anyone else see it.

Because that’s the way the law is written. I would limit the need for a release to nonpublic situations - a boat in the middle of a lake is private, a boat tied up at a crowded dock is public.

If IP reform is a “socialist” idea, this is the first I’ve heard of it. Copyright law existed in the USSR and exists today in Cuba, Vietnam, and China.

If they can’t think of a way to profit from their work without laws to make it artificially scarce, then yes, they should find another job. Meanwhile, the more clever artists will be making money from their art in other ways.

Because, as you know, material goods are fundamentally different from intellectual property: If I’m forced to share my car, I don’t have a car. Next?

Well, since the “notions” you say make no sense are your own, what does that make you? :stuck_out_tongue:

Round and round we go.

This is primarily a privacy debate. Hence the title of the OP.

The model can restrict the publication of his or her photo, even if it is does not seem “private enough” to other people. Because they get to have final say. And only if they sign away their rights (model release) does someone else get to publish their photo.

Other items, (not just someone’s countenance) are “private” too. Like, stuff that shows an aspect to them that they don’t want the public to know, stuff they made that they didn’t publish (didn’t make “public”). And, come to think of it, their house is private. That’s why they call it a “private residence.”

Why the double standard? Why can a person have final say over the publication of a photo that might not seem that private (a person, fully dressed, doing nothing scandalous, who is seen out in public every day, a professional model who makes a living posing for photos, etc.) but they cannot have final say over their own work, kept in their house, and unpublished?

Or, do you think that the model should not have the right to nix the publication of a perfectly innocuous picture taken of themselves (just because it was taken on a boat, or inside a structure or residence)? Do you want that choice taken away from them, because they sometimes might forbid the publication of seemingly very *non-*private pictures of themselves? (So obviously the picture wasn’t private enough?) They are “hoarding” that picture, then, and depriving the public of it! The nerve!

But what artworks and creative works are “private” enough? You wanna give us the low down and get really specific with this, so we all know what kinds of creative works should be OK to copy and publish (while they are in the private residence of the owner)?

Once again, trying to dodge the point. We’ve gone through this before. They can have “family photos” and various other family things (childlike artwork, poems written for class, photo albums, portrait painted of grandma, etc.) on display, but these are not meant for mass publication. They are “in home” only.

They can also have works that they simply do not want to share, because it exposes a side of them that they don’t want the public to know about. Like, perhaps the Classical composer doesn’t want the public to hear the hillbilly banjo music that he composes for his own enjoyment. There’s nothing intimate or “private” specifically about hillbilly banjo music, so how is anyone going to be able to know that it might be private to him?

You already said that unless everyone who had any “access” to the work signed a contract, that work could be published. So even a family member or trusted friend could publish this “private” stuff against artist’s will, and it would all be legal, as long as the judge deemed it not private enough. So I guess the only option would be for everyone to just keep anything they don’t want to see published in a locked vault, then, eh?

Ah. So you want to change privacy laws as well.

Yeah, yeah yeah, the same old “get a real job” line.

And you know, the work will really be “scarse” if you were to have your way. Because many of the people whose work you enjoy will (but were not “clever” enough to make a living now that anyone can copy their work for free) will be out getting those “real” jobs. No time to make more of that work that benefits society so much.

There have been whole threads covering this subject, and suffice it to say, I never found your arguments compelling. And a lot of other people don’t buy it either, judging from those threads.

Well, why shouldn’t the rich people stop “hoarding” the stuff that they have? Society would benefit greatly if they were forced to share, after all! Screw the individual’s rights to keep the manifestations of their own labor! It’s OK if the artists get screwed, but everyone else is off-limits?

Because whether a work deserves protection depends (mainly) on its content, not on who made it or how much control they’d like to have over what people do with it.

You sure use that phrase a lot, “private enough.” I suspect it’s because it lets you pretend you’re fighting against invasion of one’s personal space, not just fighting for a watered-down form of copyright. Everyone loves privacy, so what kind of horrible person would be opposed to privacy, right? It’s the same thinking that brought us names like “USA PATRIOT Act”.

I’ve already posted guidelines and examples of private and nonprivate works. If you want something more “specific”, you’ll need to be more specific about what it is you want. More guidelines and examples? Names of works you can see in a museum or buy in a store? (Hint: If you can buy it in a store or see it in a museum, it ain’t private.)

Indeed. Let them publish it. If he suffers humiliation or a damaged reputation as a result, then let him take them to court. I’m not moved by arguments that an artist “doesn’t want” his work used in a certain way.

It’s not a high priority. And from what you said earlier, it wouldn’t even be a change:

Just like a few centuries ago, when there was no art, poetry, music, or theater because there was no copyright? Oh wait… people didn’t need copyright to create then. I don’t think people are that different today, and I don’t think most artists are so undesirable or unimaginative that the only way they can make money is by selling copies.

Then I guess we’re even.

Apparently you still don’t grasp the difference between physical and intellectual property. Keep trying.

But the “content” of a Classical composer’s banjo music does not impact him and his public image?

This is a double standard. A model can control the publication of a photo of themselves, but you don’t think an artist should be able to control the stuff that they have in their house.

Dodging the issue.

I’m sorry that you don’t understand that some aspects of a person’s life, including the stuff that they write, paint or create can be considered “private.” I’ll just chalk it up to your complete and total lack of understanding of how artists feel about the work they create, since you’ve never done that kind of work yourself.

But these are specifically works that are not in museums or stores.

One person’s nude is another person’s painting of their spouse. (We see nudes in museums or stores.) So is one nude “private” and another something that should be in a store or museum? I have tons of nude drawings in my sketchbooks, as do many artists. Which are “private” and which are not? Can you tell me? They are all in my sketchbook, nestled in a bookcase. So, you tell me. Which are private enough?

And this is where you show your true colors. And you’re not getting it.

His identity, his “style,” is associated with Classical music. He doesn’t his image muddied by his private project, which is banjo music. He feels it would affect his public image, and invade on his private life.

You are, once again, deciding what is "private enough" for someone else. If you don’t think it’s “private,” then the hell with anyone who does. He can’t have a different standard of “privacy” than you do, so screw him. Why should I be surprised.

“Public” like a tourist at Disneyland. “Public” like people milling around a marketplace, or at a news conference (something newsworthy).

Do you think that those models who pose on beaches for swimsuit ads don’t have to sign model releases because they were on a “public” beach?

This is an old one. We didn’t have the Internet back then. We didn’t have cheap ways of publishing and broadcasting creative works. We didn’t have people who could “access” the artwork in someone else’s house, copy it and distribute it with such ease back then.

And apparently, you think that if you can’t put it in your pocket, it’s not a “real” work.

Disclaimer: I am not trying to misrepresent your opinions. I am restating my understanding of them in order to ellicit a better one.

I have been trying to follow this thread. I seem to be getting lost in your examples and counter examples and what they may mean. If it is not inappropriate, can you summarize the principles you are espousing and answer a couple questions?

How would you limit the power of the government to enforce the privacy you are after. I understand that you do not want others to be able to publish your artistic works. But some of the examples you have used seem to indicate that you might want the full force of the government to be used against someone who copies a poem for instance and shows it around the office. What punishment do you think is justified?

It seems to me that you are advocating that some "IP"should be subject to state protection. But only if its publication would result in harm of some sort to the creator. Can you explain the principle which dictates this level? Also, some of your comments indicate that applying copyright to IP is in some sense wrong. Did I miss something?

BTW, your right. I confused you and Mr Feely in another thread. Sorry. My bad.

Like I said, if he’s been harmed by it, then he has recourse.

I’m sorry your arguments are so weak that you must resort to fighting strawmen. I understand that people consider those things private. I do not agree, however, that other people should be prohibited from making copies of it, merely because someone considers it private.

Ah, the good old ad hominem. That’s no way to earn GD cred.

Well, let’s look at the guidelines I wrote earlier. Is a nude painting a “photo or recording made of a person in a nonpublic situation”? I’d say yes, wouldn’t you?

So it’s private, at least until the subject decides to sell it or display it to the public (or authorizes the artist to make that decision, and he does so), at which point it’s no longer private.

They’re all private (as long as you haven’t offered them for sale or display to the public), which you could have figured out for yourself simply by following the thread.

Again: If he suffers humiliation or a damaged reputation as a result, then let him take them to court. Maybe you should read the text that you’re quoting before spouting off non sequiturs in response.

Hmm, yeah, just like the law decides what’s “fair enough” for someone else. If you don’t think a use is “fair” use, then the hell with anyone who does, right? But you don’t seem to have a problem with that.

The law defines “fair use” in order to make it clear which uses are protected and which aren’t, and it could define “private works” the same way. The “fair” in “fair use” doesn’t have to mean the same thing as in “fair and square” or “interstate fair” or “fair maiden”; neither does “private” in this sense have to have the same meaning as in “private life” or “private office” or even “private eye”.

Privacy is a convenient label to put on it, but what we’re talking about is really Copyright Lite for works that meet certain criteria - criteria that happen to coincide with some parts of the common meaning of “privacy” but not others.

Do I think they do now? I don’t know or even care much, since I’m not a photographer or a model. I’ll take your word that they do.

Do I think they should? Well, a crowded beach isn’t any less public than a crowded marketplace or theme park. However, there’s a chance that distributing a swimsuit photo without the subject’s consent could cause public humiliation, so it would be wise to get some kind of proof that the subject intended for the picture to be taken and distributed, to stave off “he said, she said” arguments in court.

We did, however, have theater. You could transcribe a play and sell the script out on the street. Yet somehow, people like Shakespeare kept writing plays. How unthinkable!

Oh, it’s real all right - but treating it the same as something that can only be in one pocket at a time makes about as much sense as rewinding a DVD before you return it.

*Originally posted by Mr2001 *

No, you didn’t care about that before:

He “doesn’t want” it published at all, because it’s something he does for himself. He “doesn’t want” other people to hear it because it’s none of their damned business that he also composes hillbilly banjo music. It may or may not humiliate him or “harm” him (hey, for all we know, it might indear his fans to him more if they knew he also composed banjo music) but he’s decided that it’s none of their business and he doesn’t want them to see that side of him. And yes, maybe it’ll damage him, but even if it doesn’t, it’s a private side to him. That’s what art can be to a lot of people.

Just calling it as I see it.

How does this make sense? “It’s private to the person who made it, but that doesn’t matter”?

But it is the crux of the matter. You don’t know what it feels like, you’ve demonstrated repeatedly that you don’t “get” how or why an artist feels the way they do about their work, and yet you want to take the decision away from the people who do understand.

Well, how recognizable does it have to be? What if it’s a stick figure representing a person? What if it’s a fictional “made up” person? (I do a lot of those.) How is someone going to tell?

Should I be allowed to “hoarde” my drawings of fictional people, even though they are of no one real? Or if someone can prove that they are not really a portrait of an existing person, can they publish them anyway?

See, we could go all day like this. :stuck_out_tongue:

Because so far, I’ve seen no examples of “fair use” forcing a living artist to publish an unpublished work that they had in their home.

You still aren’t getting it. Privacy is different for each person. If they don’t want something published that they feel reveals a side of them that they don’t want the world to see, and if this thing is stashed in their home where the world isn’t going to see it anyway, why make it possible for someone to finagle a way to publish it anyway?

Is that the best you can do?

Please. With no printing presses, with no DVD reproductions of the theatrical production, so forth, it doesn’t remotely compare.

Well, not just any “harm”. It would have to involve the release of sensitive personal information (medical, financial), or public humiliation or other damage to the creator or subject’s reputation, etc., as I’ve mentioned before.

The principle is that while potential loss of profit is not a good reason to restrict someone’s freedom of expression, nor is an artist’s wish that his work not be used in a certain way, there are still good reasons to restrict freedom of expression. A clear threat to public safety is one: shouting “fire!” in a crowded theater. Fraud (slander and libel) is another good reason. And a legitimate privacy interest is another - whether the interested party is the creator or someone else.

The tough part is defining a legitimate privacy interest, without defining the mere wish that something not be released as a privacy interest.

I think I’ve answered this question above, if you’re asking how I can support some restrictions without supporting copyright.

The only thing one can conclude from that statement is that you’re being deliberately dishonest. Here’s the line you quoted from me, in context:

The only way to interpret that as “not caring” whether the artist is harmed is to intentionally ignore all but the last sentence.

If he isn’t harmed, then too bad. He doesn’t get to restrict other people’s freedom of expression just because he “doesn’t want” them to have it.

Because one person considering something “private” doesn’t automatically mean anyone has to respect their wishes. If I decide my income is “private”, does that mean I don’t have to share it with the government on my tax returns? Of course not.

The same soppy emotional appeal.

“Oh gee, I see the light now. I heard before that you guys didn’t like it when people used your work, but now I know that you REALLY REALLY don’t like it! That changes everything!” Please. That’s pathetic.

You don’t know what it feels like to murder someone, do you? (I hope not.) Does that mean you don’t get to “take the decision away” from people who do understand it? Of course not. An act is either right or wrong, regardless of the emotions running through someone’s head when he commits it. A wrong act doesn’t suddenly become OK when you “understand” what he’s feeling.

Restricting someone’s freedom of expression doesn’t become right just because the person doing it feels really strongly about it - otherwise the fundamentalists would’ve banned the teaching of evolution and gay pride parades by now.

If it’s fictional, then it’s not private. If not, then you can find the model as proof, since after all, it’s her privacy on the line, not yours.

I don’t think a competent judge would have trouble telling the difference between a stick figure and a representation of a person.

No and yes.

Yes… as long as you keep asking trivial questions.

Because not wanting something to happen doesn’t mean you have the right to prevent it from happening.

pervert, I apologize, I missed your previous post. To answer your question, I don’t seriously think that the government should be brought in to prosescute the nosy friend who “shared” the poem and the picture at her office, since it was done on such a small scale. I merely brought up the example to garner opinions from the Teeming Millions as to whether or not they thought that such an action was unacceptable. Everyone so far seemed to think it was totally unacceptable. If you add into the mix the possibility of publishing the swiped copy of the photo or poem, then yeah, once again, the response so far seems to be that it’s unacceptable and no one should have to right to do that without the owner’s permission.

That’s basically been what it’s about for me. Someone works on a “private” (as in personal, for themself, etc.) creative project on their home. They don’t intend to publish it, or at least they don’t intend to publish it at the present time. Mr2001, however, seems to think that if someone can get their hands on the private creative project in the person’s home, then it should be published, against the creator’s will. (With a few exceptions, of course. Which would invariably require long drawn-out court battles after the work was published and the “private” work revealed to the public.)

I think that’s awful. So far I’ve seen no one else here think it’s anything other than unacceptable.

Tell me, do people have the right anymore to decide what activities they do in their own are “private”? If they aren’t torturing someone or breaking some law, they can do whatever the hell they want in their house, and they can have stuff in their damned house, and the rest of the world doesn’t get to peek in and get copies of that stuff and know all about that stuff.

Give me a freakin’ break.

Give me a freakin’ break. What next? You gonna bring in the Nazis? I expect that to be next.

Let’s bring up the Nazis next! Yes! Let’s! :rolleyes:

So basically what you’re saying is that no one is entitled to have any private aspect of their life, in their house, unless they are willing to have the whole world see it. Oh wait–if they lock it up in a vault, maybe then can it remain private. :rolleyes:

Ah, so I see. So I must prove that all my models exist, or the portraits can be published, eh? What if I drew her in the park and didn’t get her name? Or do all artists have to get model releases too, before they are able to paint and sketch people? What if I drew her from my memory, but haven’t seen her in ages and don’t know how to contact her?

Fat lot you know. Portrait art is my forte (so to speak), so I know intimately how this works. There’s a fine line between “likeness” and “who the hell is that”? Some people may automatically recognize a portrait as a specific person, others will see no likeness at all, others still may see a marginal likeness, and so on. What if the judge is one that sees no likeness, yet many others can, and do? How is that fair to the model’s privacy?

And it’s so pathetically easy, since you are so woefully ignorant about some of this stuff. (Like how the creation of representational portrait artwork can work.) It’s not even remotely as cut-and-dried as you paint (huh…pardon that pun) it to be, but you can’t see that, since you don’t have a clue what you are talking about.

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

Nice dodge. As usual, you wave your hands around instead of addressing the point.

What I’m saying is that it doesn’t matter how upset an artist might get by having someone copy his work. You don’t get to outlaw things just because they hurt your precious feelings.

But go ahead and pretend I said what you claim; you obviously have a much easier time with strawmen.

If she isn’t opposed to publishing the picture, then no legitimate privacy interest is being infringed. It’s her privacy on the line, not yours.

Then call the people who do see a likeness as witnesses. Or is it too much to ask that you should actually have some evidence before restricting someone’s freedom of expression?