Consent

[Amelita]

Exactly. It's hard to define.

Also, if we compare it to music. An artist writes and records a song. Another artist does a cover. Covers vary from being basically a copy of the original song to being a more creative take on it, what we refer to when we say "made it his own". Is using images/people maybe comparable to this? Could we say your image of Watson as Granger is actually your "cover" of the actress' and director's and screenwriter's and original author's (whoa) creation?

[MasterMischief]

I'm so conflicted.   :-\

[Kuroneko]

Exactly. It's hard to define.

Also, if we compare it to music. An artist writes and records a song. Another artist does a cover. Covers vary from being basically a copy of the original song to being a more creative take on it, what we refer to when we say "made it his own". Is using images/people maybe comparable to this? Could we say your image of Watson as Granger is actually your "cover" of the actress' and director's and screenwriter's and original author's (whoa) creation?

Though it's an interesting creative argument, just a point - musicians that cover songs have to pay for the rights to use another artist's work, so I personally don't think it's the same issue as the OP presented.

edited because I apparently am not awake enough to spell ... *headdesk*

[DudelRok]

Specifically, a lot of people on Elliquiy use photographs of models and actresses as their avatars, and as templates for characters in all sorts of scenarios. I'm wondering about how the models and actresses might feel if they found out. How would you react if one of the models in a photograph you were using asked you to stop? Extending this hypothetical further, let's say they had NO legal recourse and all that they could do is ask for you to stop? Would you? Why or why not?

This would depend on how I was approached about the situation, in all honesty. If the person in question has no legal standing behind their request and they come at me calmly and politely, I will gladly oblige them. If the person in question is rude and threatens me, instantly, with anything, anything at all, including legal action or even being reported to the site Admins, my response would be something along the lines of, "MAKE ME!" If, then, I was approached by say, one of E's Admins, I'd probably grumble about it but remove the image... though the grumbling would be more like "Damn it, I lost" than actually caring about some silly photo I'm using for some throw away character.

Bottom Line: If you're cool, I'm cool. If you're not cool, neither am I.

[MasterMischief]

Bottom Line: If you're cool, I'm cool. If you're not cool, neither am I.

You are welcome.  I just made you awesome.   O8)

Sorry.  You may continue the thread now.

[Moraline]

PART 1

to answer the original post...

Of course I would pull down the images of my avatar that I have used if she asked.

Her name is Kato and yes a lot of her pictures come from facebook which is interesting that the initial subject and video on this topic was about facebook. However, she is a professional model (among other things - including clothing designer.)

I also don't use Kato's pictures to harm her in anyway. I think she's beautiful and talented and I admire her. I would never use an image in anyway that might hurt her emotionally or financially. I respect her and if she had issue with me using her images I would remove them immediately.

Thankfully, she happens to have my email address and home phone number so if she wanted to pull the images down she'd have an easy time of it.



PART 2

Another fascinating subject here is that I had an image of myself as an avatar but after reading many discussions, I found that a lot of members of E dislike what they call "self-atars."

They actually find it rather creepy that someone would put themselves out into a make believe world of role play and use images of themselves in the fictional stories that they create.

After giving it much thought, I decided that I personally agreed with the concept. I am more comfortable using a model as my avatar and not putting myself out there for fiction.

It also makes sense because many people here are married, or have significant others and they come here to escape reality - not dwell in it. It makes them and their significant others more comfortable when it's all kept in the realm of fiction - which includes images. They aren't coming here to cheat on their spouses, they just want to write a good bit of erotic fiction.

[ManyMindsManyVoices]

"People are so weird... See, I think it's equally weird to say it's entirely cool to be someone else, but not yourself... I understand the reasoning, but I think it's because I understand the reasoning that I think it makes no sense. Mind you, I'm not saying this because I want to debate the point, it's unlikely for anyone to convince me otherwise, and you're entitled to that opinion. However, anyone who wanted to tell me how my personal behavior is 'creepy'(especially when their participation or exposure is entirely optional), can take a long walk off a short pier."

"As for the rest of the topic, I see it as straightforward. When you make anything, art or an image or a photo or music, public, you've given people the right to enjoy and utilize it. They can't profit or take credit for it without crossing a line, but otherwise, I just can't get behind the idea that an abstract thing in my brain (even if in a physical form) can belong to someone entirely."

"Would you say that if someone came up with a cure for cancer, they would be in the right to keep it for themselves, and that no one would be in the right to take it and spread it? Legally, that may actually be true, and that's part of why I hate the law and I'm an anarchist. However, I cannot abide that ethically in any way. Maybe that's a different circumstance, but it's not entirely unrelated, it lays groundwork for my argument at the very least."

"Anyway, people can feel how they want, it won't change my behavior unless I'm forced to. As I said before, though, anyone who forces my hand, will simply make me feel like I don't want to partake in their ideas and art anyway."

[Amelita]

Though it's an interesting creative argument, just a point - musicians that cover songs have to pay for the rights to use another artist's work, so I personally don't think it's the same issue as the OP presented.

edited because I apparently am not awake enough to spell ... *headdesk*

When releasing the songs officially, yes. Hundreds of thousands if not millions of people all over the world do covers on stage, on youtube, put it on myspace or whatever without ever paying a dime to the original artist.

See, I think it's equally weird to say it's entirely cool to be someone else, but not yourself...

I think the main thing here is the fact that no one claims to actually -be- the person in the avatar. They may use it as a face for a fictional character or online persona, but we know there is a John or Jane Smith sitting in front of a computer somewhere. Using yourself as a face for a character in roleplaying where it is supposed to be clear that the characters are fictional and indeed not you blurs some lines.

But aaanyways, gonna stop stalking this thread ::)

Good discussion, worth a thought. -nod-

[Oniya]

I think the main thing here is the fact that no one claims to actually -be- the person in the avatar. They may use it as a face for a fictional character or online persona, but we know there is a John or Jane Smith sitting in front of a computer somewhere. Using yourself as a face for a character in roleplaying where it is supposed to be clear that the characters are fictional and indeed not you blurs some lines.

Claiming to be the person in your avatar, when in fact you aren't, falls under the heading of 'Do not deceive.'  If it's someone famous to boot, that could potentially get Elliquiy in trouble.

[Moraline]

...

I think the main thing here is the fact that no one claims to actually -be- the person in the avatar. They may use it as a face for a fictional character or online persona, but we know there is a John or Jane Smith sitting in front of a computer somewhere. Using yourself as a face for a character in roleplaying where it is supposed to be clear that the characters are fictional and indeed not you blurs some lines.

But aaanyways, gonna stop stalking this thread ::)

Good discussion, worth a thought. -nod-

You hit the nail on the head exactly.

Avatar = not really you = everything is fun and fiction

That way no lines are blurred between role play and cyber sex. Which are two very different things.

When people use a self-atar it creeps some people out because it then begins to feel like cybersex and not fiction. It also upsets some peoples significant others.

I personally don't use a cartoon avatar because to me that just doesn't feel right. I like the fictional face of some model or movie star... and besides it's much more fun playing the social games and being flirty when you have a sexy model avatar. When else am I going to get a chance to flirt with a Hugh Jackman or whoever?!

[tozhma]

I'm glad to see so many people are willing to discuss this topic! Thank you guys! :-)

So, this raises another question actually.
Do you all have any idea how many characters in fiction are based on real people? Tons. Tons and tons. It's a very known method of writers to add depth to a character or even simply to use said people as inspiration. Can't we view appearances in the same way as personality and behavior? Isn't it what's on the inside that makes a person, after all? :P
Could this be true?:
Using pics to describe a character in a story isn't copying the real person any more than using their personality as inspiration would be.

OK, but just because it has happened many times doesn't mean it's right. Tell all books can still hurt, even when we use pseudonyms. More pointedly, what happens when you find a friend you've known for a while has been writing rape fiction with a character who says the same things you say, feels the same way you feel, and even looks a little bit like you? Do you feel comfortable around that friend?

"Would you say that if someone came up with a cure for cancer, they would be in the right to keep it for themselves, and that no one would be in the right to take it and spread it? Legally, that may actually be true, and that's part of why I hate the law and I'm an anarchist. However, I cannot abide that ethically in any way. Maybe that's a different circumstance, but it's not entirely unrelated, it lays groundwork for my argument at the very least."

Yes but I would argue that sexy photos and cancer cures are qualitatively different in that one can bring real and lasting change to a person's life, both in terms of preventing physical suffering, avoiding debt, and of course avoiding death. Sexy photos, at best, take you deep into fantasy for a while and have the potential to harm someone else in the process, at least as currently practiced.

[ManyMindsManyVoices]

"I disagree with your wording, people aren't 'hurt' by my use of pictures, they choose to be offended. Those are very different concepts. If a friend were having rape fantasies including me, that wouldn't change because I tell them to stop using my description or picture. If I dislike it, I stop being friends with that person, but they have the right to *think* whatever they want. I don't think I have the right to tell them to stop talking about it, or anything of that nature. They can say what they want, my signature explains my position on what I think about what people think about what someone else says..."

"Again, practice is not ideal, and some things can be hurtful in ways we cannot predict. However, if the only issue is, 'that makes me feel bad', then I need to suck it the hell up. I promise everyone here, someone out there is thinking about you in a way you aren't okay with, sexually, hatefully, or otherwise. I'd say, if we're speaking about practicality, telling a person to stop, or making them, is a decent way to drive an unstable person to act on it."

[tozhma]

"I disagree with your wording, people aren't 'hurt' by my use of pictures, they choose to be offended. Those are very different concepts. If a friend were having rape fantasies including me, that wouldn't change because I tell them to stop using my description or picture. If I dislike it, I stop being friends with that person, but they have the right to *think* whatever they want. I don't think I have the right to tell them to stop talking about it, or anything of that nature. They can say what they want, my signature explains my position on what I think about what people think about what someone else says..."

"Again, practice is not ideal, and some things can be hurtful in ways we cannot predict. However, if the only issue is, 'that makes me feel bad', then I need to suck it the hell up. I promise everyone here, someone out there is thinking about you in a way you aren't okay with, sexually, hatefully, or otherwise. I'd say, if we're speaking about practicality, telling a person to stop, or making them, is a decent way to drive an unstable person to act on it."

I'm glad you brought up the issue of offense. This is one of the trickier areas that I've come to when looking at this issue.

The Utilitarian/Consequentialist philosopher John Stuart Mill is quite famous for creating the harm principle which follows our common patterns of reasoning. It basically states that if you're not hurting anyone else then it's fine. We're all familiar with that. However, there is also, the offense principle and you can guess what that states.

I don't see the offense principle as a basis for any society I'd want to live in, yet I think the harm principle has its shortcomings, at least in practice. Indeed, someone may be offended by something which causes them great harm. Though is it possible to be harmed by something which causes great offense? Furthermore, is offense really a choice? I don't know that it is. I think that most people who are averse to people thinking about raping them are not simply choosing to be offended.

[ManyMindsManyVoices]

"I can choose to stop being offended the moment I realize I don't really have the right. I cannot police thought, I will not police thought. Rape me in your fantasies all you like, but if you do it in real life I will make the rest of your short life miserable."

"Anyway, again, I can't police thought, you  don't agree, then you don't. I just know I'd never picture it any other way. Don't take my words as hostile, they aren't meant to be. They are aggressive, maybe, but not at all hostile. Take my point and apply it as you will."

[Amelita]

OK, but just because it has happened many times doesn't mean it's right. Tell all books can still hurt, even when we use pseudonyms. More pointedly, what happens when you find a friend you've known for a while has been writing rape fiction with a character who says the same things you say, feels the same way you feel, and even looks a little bit like you? Do you feel comfortable around that friend?

I didn't mean the literal use of a person as a character. I meant when people use a person as inspiration for a character. If a character says things I say, feels how I feel and looks like me, it is not inspiration. (To use an example from another artform: using a piece by an artist so that you copy his subject, his colors and his style, create a painting that looks like a copy of the original, is not painting with that artist's painting as inspiration. Inspiration would be adopting the style and the concept of his subject into your own work that in the end didn't look like the original painting, even at all.) If a friend wrote -me- in a story without my consent I'd not be too happy about that no matter what the story was about. If they used me as inspiration to create their own character, I don't think I'd mind much. A rape thing, sure it would be a little weird for me since the genre makes me uncomfortable in general but a person having similar ideas or similar behavior as me in some story is neither harmful, offensive or really all that uncommon in my opinion. We're not as unique as we like to think ::)

Using -me- would be like using Hugh Jackman for a story and writing it out as the character actually -being- Hugh Jackman himself. Not wolverine or whatnot (that is a fictional character after all) but as himself, the actor. So, that is not what I assume is happening when people use that fine man as a face for a character.

[Moraline]

I'm glad you brought up the issue of offense. This is one of the trickier areas that I've come to when looking at this issue.

The Utilitarian/Consequentialist philosopher John Stuart Mill is quite famous for creating the harm principle which follows our common patterns of reasoning. It basically states that if you're not hurting anyone else then it's fine. We're all familiar with that. However, there is also, the offense principle and you can guess what that states.

I don't see the offense principle as a basis for any society I'd want to live in, yet I think the harm principle has its shortcomings, at least in practice. Indeed, someone may be offended by something which causes them great harm. Though is it possible to be harmed by something which causes great offense? Furthermore, is offense really a choice? I don't know that it is. I think that most people who are averse to people thinking about raping them are not simply choosing to be offended.

A little Off topic but you might find this interesting:

Psychology Today: Are We Responsible for Our Emotions? Published on July 25, 2010 by Aaron Ben-Zeév, Ph.D

Sorry, I eat this stuff up. My Father specializes in Social Psychology and is a Professor. I've been exposed to this stuff my whole life. He lives and breathes anything to do with the Social Sciences.

Also a quick Google search yields these results: *click*

The overriding theme is, "Although emotional behavior bears less personal responsibility than intellectual behavior does, we still have some responsibility over our emotional behavior." In other words, we are responsible for our feelings on a subject and the behavior we exhibit as a result of that.

So, yes. In one form or another we do make personal choices as to whether we are "offended" by something. Your gut reaction to something may be to be offended but you can make the choice as to whether or not you will allow yourself to continue to be offended by it and more precisely how you behave/react to it.

Anyways.. sorry to derail the thread with that.

Carry on then. *tips my hat*

[tozhma]

I'm going to be very cheeky and point out that Free Will has increasingly come under fire.

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/science/02free.html?pagewanted=all

[Moraline]

Long winded post on the subject of behavior and response

I wouldn't call that cheeky, it was creative yet flawed research done by a journalist for the NY Times and it was a few years old to boot - Published: January 2, 2007.

That article was referencing documentation from between 10 to 80 years old. (read as - long out of date)

What I linked was a 2 year old article from Psychology today, written by a Ph. D, and multiple papers(and books) published within the last few years by some of the largest and most reputable Uni's and Psychology organizations in North America.

Behavior and response are choices regardless of intellectual or emotional influence.

A person may have little control over a conditioned emotional initial response but you have choice over how you proceed with that response.

The only means to adversely affect that is one that involves a neuro-chemical(sp) imbalance that would require medicated psychiatric treatment.

Which is the basic fundamental way to assess whether someone requires medication. If a patient can't control their behavior then they require medication to help them to do so. Where this line gets drawn and at what point the patient can't control themselves is the subject of debate and why professionals do the job that they do - It's up to them to determine that point. But up until the point that a subject/patient is no longer able to control their behavior they still have a choice.

On the topic of image consent.

1) We shouldn't be using anybodies image from a legal standpoint unless we have ownership or permission to use the images. It's the law and it's pretty much black and white.  But...

2) I flat out think that it's harmless to use images of celebrities/models that are from public display.
There's a big difference between using an image with malicious intent and using an image as a prop in a non-public, non-commercial venture such as writing RP or fan-fiction.

I think we would find that the law very much deals with the subject of malicious intent as well. In Canada the laws specifically state through common-law that malicious intent has to be proven regardless for their to be any wrong doing.


However, if the image is private and not shared publicly then it should never be used because that is a violation of their privacy. In that case while there is potentially no malicious intent, I feel it's unethical. I still don't believe that any harm has been done unless malicious intent is found.

[tozhma]

Long winded post on the subject of behavior and response

I wouldn't call that cheeky, it was creative yet flawed research done by a journalist for the NY Times and it was a few years old to boot - Published: January 2, 2007.

That article was referencing documentation from between 10 to 80 years old. (read as - long out of date)

What I linked was a 2 year old article from Psychology today, written by a Ph. D, and multiple papers(and books) published within the last few years by some of the largest and most reputable Uni's and Psychology organizations in North America.

Behavior and response are choices regardless of intellectual or emotional influence.

A person may have little control over a conditioned emotional initial response but you have choice over how you proceed with that response.

The only means to adversely affect that is one that involves a neuro-chemical(sp) imbalance that would require medicated psychiatric treatment.

Which is the basic fundamental way to assess whether someone requires medication. If a patient can't control their behavior then they require medication to help them to do so. Where this line gets drawn and at what point the patient can't control themselves is the subject of debate and why professionals do the job that they do - It's up to them to determine that point. But up until the point that a subject/patient is no longer able to control their behavior they still have a choice.

On the topic of image consent.

1) We shouldn't be using anybodies image from a legal standpoint unless we have ownership or permission to use the images. It's the law and it's pretty much black and white.  But...

2) I flat out think that it's harmless to use images of celebrities/models that are from public display.
There's a big difference between using an image with malicious intent and using an image as a prop in a non-public, non-commercial venture such as writing RP or fan-fiction.

I think we would find that the law very much deals with the subject of malicious intent as well. In Canada the laws specifically state through common-law that malicious intent has to be proven regardless for their to be any wrong doing.


However, if the image is private and not shared publicly then it should never be used because that is a violation of their privacy. In that case while there is potentially no malicious intent, I feel it's unethical. I still don't believe that any harm has been done unless malicious intent is found.

Regarding consent, I agree with you, which is why I've never sent an email to any of the models in my av etc. asking their permission. It's a difficult position to take because the element of something-very-close-to-if-not-the-same-as sexual assault looms overhead. While I'm not one to victim blame, there is a certain point where posing in front of a camera for something other than personal reasons does come with an understandable loss of rights over that image's use. That being said, I still feel that we have a problem in society when you can eye-fuck someone in public with a camera and upload it to your j/o budz, and that's perfectly legal.

Now that we're in agreement on consent, we're free to go off the rails a bit if we choose. You're going to have a very difficult time proving Free Will exists, no matter how many PhD's write an article for a pop psych mag, much less an established academic journal. I will (no pun intended) see your pop psych article and raise you, pop science.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=free-will-and-the-brain-michael-gazzaniga-interview
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=finding-free-will

[Moraline]

... I will (no pun intended) see your pop psych article and raise you, pop science.
...

haha That was cute. *hugs*

You should create a new thread on this topic. Might be a good one for the Elliquiy U section, since we are drifting far off subject now.

A topic of Free Will and Behavior might make for some good discussion.

[Tamhansen]

A long time ago in a lawmakers office not so far far away as you may think, people debated the object of what is legal when regard to image rights and music rights. Now are we going to follow all those rules? I doubt it.

Let's take another example here. Say you just bought this amazing new movie on DVD, and you put up hard cash for it. You go over to a friend or family member and you decide to watch the movie together. At this point you are breaking the terms of the licensing agreement you implicitly agreed to when buying the DVD. I doubt many people will make an issue of that.

Now look at the problem at hand, being usage of pictures of celebs or artists on this or other sites. Once a picture is placed in the public domain, I.E. freely accesible online, the law clearly states that these images are free to use for anyone as long as no commercial purpose applies. In certain cases, when the work is published under copyright, credit must be given to the artist, not the model. So Bob and Alice tough luck unless they took their own pictures. They should consult the photographer.

As for facebook pics, you might want to read this line in the rights and responsiblities agreement:
4 When you publish content or information using the Public setting, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you

Basically, if you place a picture of yourself on facebook with public settings, i can do with it what I want. Even use your profile name and info alongside it.

So legally, there's no recourse. Morally, i can't tell, because morals are a subjective and personal idea, with no basis in anything objective.

[tozhma]

Morals are relative, though there is a vast swatch of humanity that would generally consider you to be a piece of shit with a pulse if you stole Facebook photos and did that.

[Amelita]

Well, depends on the perspective. As all things.

If you left photographs on park benches and sidewalks all over the city you wouldn't be very surprised or offended if someone grabbed a few. If you found out someone was keeping it on his/her desk as inspiration while writing a rape fantasy, you would probably blame yourself for leaving it on that bench/sidewalk to begin with, or so I imagine, even if you'd very likely be offended by the eventual use of it. A public setting on Facebook is like your average sidewalk in this sense.

And by you I don't really mean literally YOU. Also, must go see if my pics are definitely not set as public >.>

[tozhma]

Well, if deception is used in the process of attaining said photographs, it would at least suggest that the person copying the photographs did not expect to gain consent which alters the moral situation, and arguably the ethical one as well. Again, we have a problem when we generalize "Facebook photos". There are people who have more or less public accounts, or pseudo celebs who use their personal account as their promotional account. It all gets a bit fuzzy, but I think the generally speaking if there is any doubt, it is better to either ask or opt for something else.

[mayovagn]

While I personally agree that it is polite to stop using images if asked to, I would have to point out that copyright is entirely statutory and no statute can possibly be applied to flesh and blood living souls.

As living souls we are not bound by the laws of government and have no duty to perform functions of government. Here in Canada a lot of people are waking up to this and taking back their own power and their own rights.

Copyright was originally envisaged as a pact between society and the individual to encourage the creation of new works which would then swiftly pass into the public domain and therefore into everyone's collective social history rather than being locked up by government fiat.

However as living souls this fiat is not even applicable to us as previously mentioned. All you have to do to establish your total immunity to all laws bar 'Do no harm' is to establish your existence as a living soul of inherent rights.

Copyright is a false garden and if you disagree with it why that is your right and your privilege, yet if you do not know what your inherent rights are and how to invoke them when challenged, you will always fall foul of those who would wield such things against you.