Twitter now requires permission from the subjects of photos and videos published on its connection.
There are some implementation issues, but the intention is good.
“I would be frustrated too, as it’s easy to see how it curtails expression.
Lifewire / Charlie Sorrel
I genuinely feel for them as a fellow purveyor of information.”
“Increasingly, everyone in my photographs are also photographers themselves.
There is no expectation of privacy in the public realm; that’s literally what public is.
Lifewire / Charlie Sorrel
This would be great news, but Twitter doesn’t actually require permission from anyone.
In practice, then, it may make little difference.
Go Elsewhere
Also, Twitter is just one avenue for publishing images.
Lifewire / Charlie Sorrel
Plus, how many street photographers are there, really?
“Personally, I think Twitter has got this one right,” says Attkisson.
“The reality is that street photographers are just a small fraction of social media users.”
However, recording a person in a private setting without their consent would be unlawful.”
In short, nothing has changed.
But really, the lack of social networks never hurt the most renowned photographers in history anyway.
Until this policy really kicks in, we wont know the consequences.
Rich folks might have their people monitor Twitter for images and ask for them to be taken down.
The police might demand images of cops abusing citizens be removed, despite the public-interest exemptions.
It will all come down to interpretation.
Andbecause Twitter makes up its rules and polices them itselfthat interpretation is opaque.
