Court Rules It's Ok To Tag Pics On Facebook Without Permission 201
neoflexycurrent writes "A federal court has ruled that photos of a woman on Facebook showing her drinking were properly used as evidence in a child custody case. She had argued she was identified without permission. But the court rejected that argument. In reaching that decision, the court made the interesting observation that: '[t]here is nothing within the law that requires [one's] permission when someone takes a picture and posts it on a Facebook page. There is nothing that requires [one's] permission when she [is] "tagged" or identified as a person in those pictures.'"
tagging is fine (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:tagging is fine (Score:4, Insightful)
Tagging a photo is similar to someone asking "who is that person" and the photographer telling him.
Exactly. Besides, she used the wrong defence: she should have said she's wasn't drinking that much.
Question from a Facebook newbie (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, a Facebook non-user. If someone on Facebook takes a photo with me in it and 'links' it to my account, what you say may be true. But if I don't have a Facebook account and I am simply identified as PPH, how do I stop someone from searching through others Facebook accounts (which may be unsecured) for instances of PPH?
Do I have to have a Facebook account to control this sort of third party tagging? Isn't that a form of blackmail?
Re:tagging is fine (Score:5, Insightful)
The phrase you are looking for is "easy cases make bad law [google.com].
For those who are unclear: the WORST law, in terms of setting precedents to be relied on later, comes from cases in which a defendant is "obviously guilty of something" or just plain unsympathetic. The end result is a jury ruling on the emotional bounds of what they are presented, rather than on facts in the case, or in the appellate side, a bunch of judges making "fuck it we can see they are guilty why are you bothering us with this crap" rulings.
Ironically, the counterargument - hard cases make bad law [google.com] - is also valid. Hard cases require very case-specific rulings and legal hair-splitting in order to arrive at the verdict or appellate review result, but then inevitably someone comes along and tries to apply them to completely different situations as precedent.