Am I the only one who thinks this is weird....... SIS & BIL

[Carols Clucks]

Quote:
She is not selling a commercial product that requires a photo release or entering them in to a contest that requires a release.

If the photos were taken by a professional photographer who signed the image or stamped it with their copyright and scanned, then yes it is a violation of the photographers use of their image.


If the photo is used in an editorial purpose, like this is my family, you need no release. This includes things like news papers and those cheap magazines by the check out stand. (as long as you did not trespass to take the photo)

 

[lockedhearts]

Quote:
She is not selling a commercial product that requires a photo release or entering them in to a contest that requires a release.

If the photos were taken by a professional photographer who signed the image or stamped it with their copyright and scanned, then yes it is a violation of the photographers use of their image.


If the photo is used in an editorial purpose, like this is my family, you need no release. This includes things like news papers and those cheap magazines by the check out stand. (as long as you did not trespass to take the photo)

Thanks! I chose not to point that out, I have a good friend who is a photographer and I had already double checked this info with her too.

 

[Olive Hill]

Maybe she's concerned about your safety. Even if you have heard through the family gossip tree that the brother himself is not dangerous what about the people he associates with? Just because he has not been violent yet does not mean he will not turn violent. Just because what you've heard through the grapevine is that he's not dangerous doesn't mean that your sister and BIL do not know otherwise. You never, ever know what goes on behind closed doors. There's no way to know what he has or has not said or done to them.

Deb -- It's not about being "paranoid" it's about privacy. Some people are more private than others. It doesn't really matter what their reason for that is. It is their right to be so. My siblings know that I do not wish them to display pictures of my family on their facebook pages without my permission (which I rarely give). It's about privacy and most people do not know how to effectively use privacy controls on the internet and even those who do are still at risk of hacking. You might not think it's important, MANY people do. That's okay. It's easy to be respectful of people's wishes if they don't want their pictures displayed -- just don't do it. If you want your's displayed you can still do that.

 

[BusyBlonde]

My DH had an an Aunt and Uncle who did this. Their son was constantly in trouble (drugs, fighting, drunk driving, jail for all of the above); they moved from their home state to where we live (400 miles away), bought a house here, and one in another state closer to their home state, but still a couple hundred miles from their original home. They even paid 6 months rent for him to move out of their house into an apartment in their home state before they moved.

Fast forward. When they first let him move to our state (after his 6-month lease was up), they immediately moved out of that house and to the second house they'd purchased. They 'asked' DH if we'd keep an eye on his cousin. Well, we did. We became his 'family' in a totally unfamiliar area.

Well - he had his ups and downs. We had to give him 'tough love' (not let him come over messed up, not enable him) - but he finally did come around. He's been down here maybe 5 years. His parents now come and live in 'their' house for the harder winter months, with him. In fact, he was here for dinner tonight, after helping my DH with a job he did today.

DH's cousin was totally spoiled by his parents. They gave him $$$, cars, paid for everything - gave him everything but their attention and any discipline (DH was raised very close to them, knows for a fact). Now, his cousin is realizing his parents did him no favors, and is fighting his parents to treat his son (their grandson) with less favoritism and more discipline. DH's cousin has "earned" our respect. He had to earn it within our boundaries of what was and was not acceptable, boundaries his parents never gave him. And he was in his late 30's at the point he came into my life.

It's never too late for someone to redeem their self - but they have to really WANT to. I don't know all the particulars in your family's case - and it doesn't sound like you do either. But that's my experience with a similar situation.

 

[Carolyn]

Redhen, I personally do not think anything about Facebook is truly Private. I do think you are right about the pics though.

Lockedhearts, no you are not the only one who thinks their behaviour is weird. Assumedly they have their reasons which may not be the brother per say; it may be the company he keeps or harrassment from those trying to find him such as creditors.

What should you do?...duh, you didn't ask that question. Sorry you didn't get to vent in peace. Hang in there; family problems are frustrating at best.

 

[Carols Clucks]

An easy thing to do, is change the privacy on those photos to friends only or a custom list so only your family can see them.

 

[lockedhearts]

Quote:
Personally, and I do not know all the details, but yes I totally agree the person has to want help or to change. This is the reason I am no longer married to the EX with similar problems sans the jail time. But in my observations of the situation with the younger brother, they have all "condemmed" him as hopeless, which means no one has really tried to help him. I tried and tried with my EX , he finally got a wake up call when his father passed away and he was not allowed at the funeral by his mother. Thankfully this made a huge impact and while he has a long way to go, he made amends with his mother and was with her before she passed away.

I also find it odd that my sister and BIL, who claim to be christians would not try to help the younger brother. GRanted it is hard to help someone who does not want it, but they have not bothered to visit him in jail the last few years, they really do not know him, who knows if he has changed, he was in jail when his mother passed away, maybe that was the thing that snapped him back to reality.

 

[Olive Hill]

Quote:
She is not selling a commercial product that requires a photo release or entering them in to a contest that requires a release.

If the photos were taken by a professional photographer who signed the image or stamped it with their copyright and scanned, then yes it is a violation of the photographers use of their image.


If the photo is used in an editorial purpose, like this is my family, you need no release. This includes things like news papers and those cheap magazines by the check out stand. (as long as you did not trespass to take the photo)

There is no grounds for monetary reimbursement because it is not commercial but she can still be forced to remove them and she can still be sued for invasion of privacy. There are not clear, set standards for when something is or is not an invasion or privacy. Usually if it is taken in a public place it would not be considered a matter of invasion or policy but that's only a guideline. The only way to FOR SURE know that you are legal in displaying photography of any person is to have permission to do so. "Editorial" use, furthermore, does not generally apply to personal use. "This is my family" is not newsworthy which is what the editorial clause is designed to protect. You'll also notice most news stories use illustrative photography that is quite vague, unless the story is about a specific person the pictures will often not focus on any one person or object. That's for this very reason.

The semantics are really not important though, I suppose. You either respect the wishes of the people in your life or you don't. Regardless of what is legal.

 

[Carols Clucks]

OliveHill:

Not arguing ethics of family photos on facebook,


But do you think that these photos were obtained with out their knowledge? At a parents anniversary party? That they had no idea some one at the event might have a camera? What was their expectation of privacy?


What to do, is limit the access of photos to people you know when posting on FB.


I, personally only put clients photos on my website for anyone to see that have requested no password. Otherwise I use a password for them so they can share with only who they want.

 

[Olive Hill]

They probably most assuredly expected someone to have a camera and expected photographs to be a possibility, that doesn't mean however, that they expected those photographs to be posted to Facebook. That's where social media has made privacy a tricky thing, increasingly so as more and more people of all age groups utilize it while, at the same time, a fair segment still does not embrace it.

I agree about privacy controls, like I said several posts ago:

It's about privacy and most people do not know how to effectively use privacy controls on the internet and even those who do are still at risk of hacking.

Like I said, it's murky water. And it really only stands to get murkier at this point with all the technology we have at our disposal.