Aug 17, 2009: Surprised Model

[ZenGum]

Heya Janet, nice to see a hardcore lurker posting.

I think there is something very wrong about using pictures for advertising purposes without the permission of the people in the pictures, or the taker of the pictures.

For the people in the pictures, the ad constitutes an implicit endorsement of the product, which is probably fraudulent. For the photo store, it suggests that this is what your photos come out like if you use them; again, deceitful.

For the photographer; that is how professional photographers make their living, and while there is some "fair use" for research, teaching and criticism (and IotD, which consists of all three ), comercial use like the sign is breach of copyright.

But still, as was said before, if you put your picture on the net, you never know where it will end up, and you should expect some weird shit will happen eventually. That is why I am a faceless dwellar - there are no pics of me here. I regret not being in the collage, but that is the price I pay for my invisibility.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

if you put your picture on the net, you never know where it will end up, and you should expect some weird shit will happen eventually. That is why I am a faceless dwellar - there are no pics of me here. I regret not being in the collage, but that is the price I pay for my invisibility.

I agree - I have additional reasons for remaining anonymous, but what you posted is also a large part of it.
Those here that I am closest to know me and what I look like.