[Thalia]

I've already been searching, but have been unable to find anything online about the wisdom of or refusal to allow your employer to put your photo with name online on their public website if it isn't really necessary (for example, I do not even work with the public, there is really no reason for it to be up there.)

I sent an email off asking for it to be removed, although it is already in Google, so it's probably in the cache for good now. I don't think I'll get an argument, but just in case, any info or ideas or thoughts anyone has would be useful.

What do you all think about this?

 

[Life2k]

I agree that you should not be forced to have your photo representing a company unless you are in a leadership role. The crazies do not need any more targets.

 

[1vegan]

I think you might have some right on privacy, and I'd look up the local laws on privacy.

Another argument could be that you want to limit the risk of identity theft.

Good luck!

 

[bstutzma]

I am often shocked by this. Once I was using craigslist to sell something, and based just on the person's e-mail address, and with a little help from google, I was able to find out what she did for work, where she worked, and a picture of what she looked like. I was stunned. I didn't need all that info, but it was very easy to find.

 

[Tame]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1vegan

I think you might have some right on privacy, and I'd look up the local laws on privacy.

No, it doesn't violate a right to privacy.

Quote:

Another argument could be that you want to limit the risk of identity theft.

That would be a bad argument, as the picture on a website would have no purpose in identity theft.

Thalia - I do agree with you though, and your best bet would be to make the case that women can be singled out by online stalkers through websites with names and photos.

 

[Ludi]

"The distinctions among privacy rights, publicity rights, and copyright are best illustrated by example, as follows: An advertiser wishes to use a photograph for a print advertisement. The advertiser approaches the photographer, who holds the copyright in the photograph, and negotiates a license to use the photograph. The advertiser also is required to determine the relationship between the photographer and the subject of the photograph. If no formal relationship (e.g., a release form signed by the subject) exists that permits the photographer to license the use of the photograph for all uses or otherwise waives the subject's, sitter's or model's rights, then the advertiser must seek permission from the subject of the photograph because the subject has retained both privacy and publicity rights in the use of their likeness. The privacy right or interest of the subject is personal in character, that the subject and his/her likeness not be cast before the public eye without his/her consent, the right to be left alone. The publicity right of the subject is that their image may not be commercially exploited without his/her consent and potentially compensation....While many states have privacy and/or publicity laws, others do not recognize such rights or recognize such rights under other state laws or common law legal theories such as misappropriation and false representation. What may be permitted in one state may not be permitted in another."

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/copothr.html

You need to look up the privacy rights in your state and/or contact a lawyer.

 

[remilard]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Life2k

I agree that you should not be forced to have your photo representing a company unless you are in a leadership role.

I agree, it should be voluntary below the officer/partner/principal level.

 

[Bonoluvr]

There was a segment on Dr. Phil yesterday about women being scammed on the internet. This guy pulled a pic off the internet from a site where it was posted, he used this picture to make believe it was him. He would contact women via yahoo chat or something anyway, get them to fall for him and send him money.

they took the photo he was using and located the real person from the photo, he lived in London, and he himself was a victim of identity theft.

so i guess my point is any crazy can pull your picture and use if for some other purpose, i wouldnt want my pic online either.

 

[Joe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ludi

"The distinctions among privacy rights, publicity rights, and copyright are best illustrated by example, as follows: An advertiser wishes to use a photograph for a print advertisement. The advertiser approaches the photographer, who holds the copyright in the photograph, and negotiates a license to use the photograph. The advertiser also is required to determine the relationship between the photographer and the subject of the photograph. If no formal relationship (e.g., a release form signed by the subject) exists that permits the photographer to license the use of the photograph for all uses or otherwise waives the subject's, sitter's or model's rights, then the advertiser must seek permission from the subject of the photograph because the subject has retained both privacy and publicity rights in the use of their likeness. The privacy right or interest of the subject is personal in character, that the subject and his/her likeness not be cast before the public eye without his/her consent, the right to be left alone. The publicity right of the subject is that their image may not be commercially exploited without his/her consent and potentially compensation....While many states have privacy and/or publicity laws, others do not recognize such rights or recognize such rights under other state laws or common law legal theories such as misappropriation and false representation. What may be permitted in one state may not be permitted in another."

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/copothr.html

You need to look up the privacy rights in your state and/or contact a lawyer.

That's an excellent citation, and a subject of interest to anyone who is involved (or may be involved) with putting up people's pictures on a website.

 

[Thalia]

I actually took the picture I gave them. Of course I never explicitly said I was handing over copyright rights to them. Perhaps that in and of itself might be reason to ask for it back.

 

[Ludi]

If you took the picture you automatically own copyright to it unless another arrangement was made.

 

[Skylark]

I don't like the idea of my photo in connection with my employer being available for all to view. It's bad enough my name, work email and work phone number are there for anyone to contact me regardless of intent. Sometimes the photographers get part of me in the photo when I'm interviewing someone, and I've always insisted on having the photo cropped so I'm not in the publication photo.

However, I won't be able to get around it for an upcoming project in which the reporters work a day at a regular labor job and write first-person narratives about the experience. The photographers will definitely photograph us. Despite traditional journalism practices, in this case, the reporters' experiences are the story.

The stories will run in both the print edition of the paper and appear online, I expect.

 

[Skylark]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarahjayn1980

Despite the exposure, it sounds like a neat story!

Oh, it is! I'm doing my day-of-work tomorrow.