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.