NZ Politics

804 readers

1 users here now

Kia ora and welcome to the NZ Politics community!

This is a place for respectful discussions about everything that's political and kiwi

This is an inclusive space where diverse opinions are valued, but please don't be a dick

Other kiwi communities here

Banner image by Tom Ackroyd, CC-BY-SA

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Dave@lemmy.nz

RaoulDuke@lemmy.nz

Rotorua kuia caught up in Hobson's Pledge's anti-Māori ward campaign (www.rnz.co.nz)

submitted 4 months ago by Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nz to c/politics@lemmy.nz

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

How on earth is this legal? First, taking a photo of someone in public and monetising it without their knowledge, and second using that photo in a political message the subject doesn't agree with at all.

Absolutely bizarre.

top 7 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

How on earth is this legal?

Well, it says in the article they weren't allowed to use this photo for this purpose.

I'm going to give it a 70% chance they knew there would be drama and were banking on this free exposure for their cause.

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nz 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I dunno, I don't really believe in the "any publicity is good publicity" thing, and I think someone like Don Brash is smart enough to know that.

I think this is more likely just someone being bad at their job.

[–] absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Disagree.

The "fair to use" comment shows they know there are rules around this stuff. Anyone in advertising knows about image rights.

I'm assuming that they were hoping the person in the image wouldn't notice/care.

She should take HP to court for defamation; it is clearly implying that she endorses their position.

It is less clear about the role of the photographer here; you or your image are not protected when you are in a public place. But that doesn't give blanket rights to photographers when you are out and about; taking the image is fine, selling it is not. But iStock and Shutterstock not being under NZ jurisdiction complicate this significantly.

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 3 points 4 months ago

There are Wikimedia guidelines here, the table just says no to commercial use without clarifying (the part about NZ further down also doesn't clarify): https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements

I am guessing there is some editorial allowance here, otherwise a freelance photographer couldn't be paid by a newspaper. So I'm thinking the photographer selling it for editorial use on stock image sites may not actually break any rules, though I have failed to find those rules.

I did find this from the Police:

However, you can take and/or publish photos or film of people where there is no expectation of privacy, such as a beach, shopping mall, park or other public place.

https://www.police.govt.nz/faq/what-are-rules-around-taking-photos-or-filming-public-place?nondesktop

[–] BlueEther@no.lastname.nz 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I would say that this is a new low, but the these twats it may well not be

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nz 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Nah, this isn't even close to the worst thing these guys have done.

[–] BalpeenHammer@lemmy.nz 1 points 4 months ago

There is no bottom to the right wing.