Strategically Communicating

On October 15 in Strategically Communicating, my post “Voyeurism escalates to creepshots in our “paparazzi culture,” explored how distasteful violations of privacy.  As noted, Websites such as Reddit create a thriving online subculture to escalate voyeurism from a creepy individual pursuit to a collective resource for sharing photos and bragging rights to “creepshots” (a.k.a. upskirts),  which can be described as the deliberate and secret photography of women’s crotches, breasts, and rear ends in everyday life.

If it were legally wrong,  someone would have sued, and won, for violation of privacy, right? Information I read indicated that “creepshots”  were not removed because individuals do not have a right to privacy in a public space.

However, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) , “Privacy; Legal Guide for Bloggers” uses a criteria that may be helpful for victims of “creepshots” who want the photos removed from the internet. The EFF asks “What is offensive to the reasonable person?”  EFF goes on to say that “To state a claim, the plaintiff must show that the matter made public was one that would be offensive and objectionable to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities. For example, disclosing that the plaintiff returned $240,000 he found on the street was held not to be offensive, but the publication of an “upskirt” photo would likely be found to be offensive to a reasonable person.”

Do you feel that EFF’s definition is enough to have “creepshots”  removed? Why do you think “creepshots” are still legally on the internet?

Earlier this year, right about the time that Pinterest became so popular it seemed as though every single girl was on Pinterest planning her imaginary dream wedding, posts started to circulate about Pinterest’s violation of copyright law.  Most posts centered on the fact that someone positing on Pinterest could be in violation of copy right law, if he or she did not have permission to post content, say from another website, and that the poster was solely responsible for posting potentially copyrighted material. (See article: http://www.popphoto.com/news/2012/03/pinterest%E2%80%99s-photo-copyright-infringement-issues-get-more-complex)

In the wake of this revelation, Pinterest users threatened to drop left and right if Pinterest didn’t fix the loophole. Pinterest made a few adjustments and tightened up the language and now each post is a link back to the original site. For a current copy of the site’s copy right statement, see: http://pinterest.com/about/copyright/. But it seems to me that due to the nature of the site and the way in which it allows you to pull images from nearly any site without necessarily giving credit to the site, that it is still pretty easy to violate copyright law or fair use law without even knowing it. And yet, to my knowledge, the droves of users who originally threatened to leave have not left.

And so I wonder, in this age of “share everything” are we becoming complacent because we are surrounded by constant sharing of images and material, and in so doing, do we put ourselves at risk because of the pervasiveness culture of content-sharing?

In a world where twice in one week a Presidential campaign doesn’t clear it’s use of footage, surely we could do with some clarity around Fair Use.

The CSM site seems to at once revel in and worry about the immense grey area.  Indeed, the CSM finds that “the journalistic mission is in peril, because of lack of clarity around copyright and fair use,”  but in the next breath claims that “copyright law does not exactly specify how to apply fair use, and that is to creators’ advantage.”

God help us if we’re looking to the CSM materials to clear things up.  Their Online Video page has been posted for 5 years without update. Several of the hyperlinks are dead, and the informational video left me too befuddled by aged YouTube remixes to pick out useful information.

It is unnerving to learn the fair use confusion extends to professional journalists.  According to CSM, fair use is “about reasoning and logic; it’s not about just following the rules.”  I wonder if at current a more representative “guide book” looks something like this?  I wonder if the CSM would agree that there’s a lot about new media we just haven’t figured out yet and that with the sheer volume of new media, we may for a long time be  feeling our way in the dark and making publishing decisions mostly by weighing consequences?

The culture of celebrity seems to be taking over our society. Taking the perfect photo of a public figure leaving the grocery store, pumping gas, or if the photographer is really lucky, catching them in a compromising situation, can bring in major money. Whether they are a politician, award-winning actor, or even a reality star, they know that this comes with the job. They are now a public figure and might be subject to gossip, intrusive photographs and very little privacy all in the name on entertainment.

But what about their children? These kids did not ask to have famous parents; they did not ask to have photos taken of them at the park or walking home from school. Blogger and author Allie Hagan is earning a living off of her Tumblr turned into book, “Suri’s Burn Book” (http://surisburnbook.tumblr.com/page/2). This blog and book is written in the made up voice of Suri Cruise (Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes’ daughter) as she critiques and often makes fun of other “famous” children. Does this go to far? Suri and children like her did not ask to have famous parents. They are probably not actively trying to become public figures. For citizens, members of the media, and entrepreneurs this is a very gray area. Do they have the right to use  images of these children without consent for entertainment and profit? Is it reasonable for the kids and their families to seek privacy? Where does privacy end and celebrity begin?