Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

When I upload photos to Instagram, I am not explicitly consenting to my photos being used for people's fetishes, even privately. I can't stop people from doing what they want privately with my public photos, and I know that, but I still find it morally wrong and disturbing. But I'm not sure that it's legal to republish someone's public Instagram photos on another website either. I'm no legal expert, but I believe it's still a copyright violation to copy someone's Instagram photos and use them as content in your own creations.

But legal or not, I think it ought to be considered common decency not to post photos of someone on a fetish website without asking for their explicit permission to do so.



> When I upload photos to Instagram, I am not explicitly consenting to my photos being used for people's fetishes, even privately.

Well, they're in facebooks domain now, so you really don't have a tell in whats okay and what not after you uploaded them[0].

> but I still find it morally wrong and disturbing.

that's okay of course, but it obviously won't stop anyone from doing anything they deem okay and acceptable. How are the supposed to know what you find morally wrong and disturbing, anyways? For all they know those pictures are public and you want to present yourself to the world.

> legal to republish someone's public Instagram photos

According to the link that's instagrams business, not yours. If facebook doesn't care then there's not much you can do about it since you don't have royalities over the pictures in which you appear.

> But legal or not, I think it ought to be considered common decency not to post photos of someone on a fetish website without asking for their explicit permission to do so

Some people would consider "not poisoning the public water supplies forever" common human decency, but that doesn't stop multiple actors from doing so. "human decency" is not worth a penny on the internet, which is in my opinion common knowledge that we try to teach kids in primary school here. It does not matter what you think, since it's out of your hands you made your data public.

[0] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2249952/Face...


What if it was just text links to the instagram accounts? What if it was iframes?


1. bet iframing instagram content will lead to iframe busting and maybe site being cease and desisted.

2. text links sure, because it has a whole other behavior and then if someone wants they can take the picture down, make it private or whatever. same thing for iframe but I bet it won't happen there because instagram itself will shut down the iframing reeaaalll quick.

so in short, yes, if it was a bunch of other things that have some similarities but are not exactly the same it would probably be ok with people.


I think this would be better because the person who owns the photograph still has control. They can delete the original post and have it disappear from wikifeet. Consent is best. The next best thing is control. A screenshot is neither.


Again, legal, but not a nice or decent thing to do.


So, OK basically? Indecent things are allowed. You can criticize them, of course, but they are still allowed.

People have the right to write non-nice things about you (as long as it's not libel). They can write that they don't like you for whatever reason, or they can write that they get off thinking about you. There's freedom of expression to do stupid, non-nice and indecent shit.


What is that expression? Something like “if your best defence of something is that it isn’t against the law you have already lost”


If that is the case, it means that the people who attack you have already lost as well.


what?


No one is saying it's not legal. Most people here understand what libel is and what freedom of expression is.

The point is that it's still a bit weird, creepy and unpleasant. This man can continue doing it, and I can continue thinking he's quite damaged.


> The point is that it's still a bit weird, creepy and unpleasant. This man can continue doing it, and I can continue thinking he's quite damaged.

That's alright. I'm pretty much indifferent to the whole thing, but I still enjoyed the interview. Notice that the man may be "quite damaged", but still the first thing that he does is ask the interviewer if she was offended by her public photos being there, and offering to delete them.


He didn’t offer to delete them. He offered “not to do it again.” Which means she is stuck.


The fact that the asking bit comes after the pictures have already been repurposed is the entire point. If he would have asked beforehand and gotten permission no one would care.


Enjoying the interview is utterly orthogonal to the point you originally made.

> "ask the interviewer if she was offended by her public photos being there, and offering to delete them."

You may see that as being polite, I see that as just another creepy power play, where he's now implying he has control over her pics.


At least in EU - the platform is responsible for the content their users upload.

So based on that posting personal information like address, name, age etc. Without consent can put this site out of business after few fines.


Totally, but its such a grey line. If you posted some pictures and certain groups use it as their "personal materials" privately (without sharing), I'm not sure how we can stop that


> When I upload photos to Instagram, I am not explicitly consenting to my photos being used for people's fetishes, even privately.

I agree with you, morally. However, there is no hope of controlling what someone thinks when looking at your uploaded photos.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: