High School Confidential

May 23, 2006 1:06 AM

I was thinking about setting up a flickr page to display a very extensive set of photos I took during high school, between 1996 and 2000. Since most of the things I do on the internet come back to bite me in the ass, I thought I would ask about the legal and ethical questions this kind of project might raise and what kind of pertinent information I may have overlooked.

Back in high school I carried around cameras obsessively. I was watching my grandmother die of alzheimers and I wanted to remember everything so I have drawers full of pictures from that era.

I think it might be fun to shine some light on an era that, looking back at it ten years later, doesn't seem too spectacular or interesting (but I'm sure the same thing could've been said about the late fifties in the mid-sixties and I love all that shit).

(ACTUAL QUESTIONS IN THIS PARAGRAPH)
One problem is, a lot of the pictures involve teenagers engaged in illegal activity. There are a lot of people doing drugs and a lot of parties where everybody's in their underwear. Is putting a black bar over the eyes enough? Can this be construed as child porn? I don't want to oust a bunch of future politicians and parents and role models before they've had a chance to shine. Is using first names too much information when people already have a time period, a city, and possibly a high school. Or should I just call it "High School, late 90s"?

The other question I have is... is this a stupid idea? I have probably more pictures saved than anyone else around at the time and I feel like I can put a spotlight on a bunch of people and scenes that tend to get overlooked and underphotographed in high school, but is that enough? It's high school kids photographed by high school kids and I'm sure that a good portion of the photos are just extended middle fingers and goofy poses.

All input is welcome, but I'm most interested in the legal opinions.

Thanks

posted by elr to media & arts (14 comments total)

First of all, the chances of people who want to see these photos actually stumbling upon your flickr are slim.

How about just uploading the photos where people aren't in their underwear or doing drugs?

If someone contacts you about the photos, you can tell him or her, "wanna see the good stuff?" and send them privately?
posted by k8t at 1:14 AM on May 23, 2006

Is using first names too much information when people already have a time period, a city, and possibly a high school.

Yes, in my opinion.

I don't know about the legality of it, I guess it depends on where you live, but you're not a journalist or reporter so I doubt you'd be strictly required to seek permission.

The ethics of it are even more relative. Personally, I really don't like the idea, in general, of people putting up photos of other people who were not asked and did not know they'd end up on the internet and are not their friends anymore etc. A street scene or a music show or crowd, anywhere in public, is different, and even then in some situations a little extra thoughtfulness, even when not necessary or required by law, is nicer (ie. recent thread on 'fashion victims' in the London Undeground, the faces were blurred).

If you really, really want to put up these photos, I think you shouldn't even add any specific information on location and school. And if you do want to be extra considerate, maybe blur faces instead of using black bars which would look a little sleazier.

One problem is, a lot of the pictures involve teenagers engaged in illegal activity. There are a lot of people doing drugs and a lot of parties where everybody's in their underwear. (...) is this a stupid idea?

Hmm, I don't know, but from what you describe, it doesn't sound like a great idea to me or like it'd be a revealing social documentary.

Maybe no one will ever recognise themselves or others in those pics, maybe it'd all be taken as a goofy fun thing and no one pictured there would be bothered even if they knew about it, but you don't know that and I don't think you can assume that. As a principle I believe those ex-teenagers have a right to their privacy.

(This is just my totally subjective take, obviously).
posted by funambulist at 1:55 AM on May 23, 2006

My suggestion would be to just wait another ten to fifteen years before publishing the pictures. Not only would they then have a little more historical resonance—as it often seems that contemporary culture is particularly fascinated with what happened twenty years or so previously—but the photos’ potential to offend or embarrass would likely have faded by that time too (unless, of course, one of your semi-naked, drug-addled subjects happens to be running for public office at the time).
posted by misteraitch at 2:51 AM on May 23, 2006

Check out the EFF's legal guide for bloggers, particularly the section on guide to other peoples' privacy rights.

Do not post anything that shows under-18 people in sexual congress, especially if they're in partial or full deshabille. You'll go straight to prison for that.
posted by ikkyu2 at 4:57 AM on May 23, 2006

Aside from any legal issues, I think that this is a bad idea.

Post pictures involving yourself or your family and such, but dragging other folks into this project just seems unethical. Don't do it.
posted by bim at 5:50 AM on May 23, 2006

Avoid people under 18 nude or having sex - that is an obvious one. If it is just teenagers running around in their underwear, well consider it similar to an Abercrombie & Fitch catalogue. Beyond that, go for it.

You are not using the pictures to make money. Most of the crimes you photographed are probably past the statute of limitations.

If someone contacts you and requests that you take a pic down - cross that bridge when you come to it.
posted by Ateo Fiel at 6:53 AM on May 23, 2006

funambulist writes "you're not a journalist or reporter so I doubt you'd be strictly required to seek permission. "

Actually images used for news purposes require no permission be obtained (except for the copyright owner who is usually the photographer), private use as proposed here is more restrictive.
posted by Mitheral at 7:15 AM on May 23, 2006

1. You could be exposing yourself to civil liability for invasion of privacy.

2. You could be exposing your high school friends to criminal liability for illegal acts you captured on film.

3. You could be exposing yourself to criminal liability for your role in any illegal activities taking place while you were taking pictures.

I would, if I were you:

- avoid posting any pictures depciting any illegal activity
- avoid posting any pictures depciting any sexual activity
- avoid posting any pictures depciting any nudity, even partial
- get a written release from anyone whose picture you want to put online
- don't use any names or other identifying information without written permission

Much of the criminal liability would be past statute of limitations, but would you really want to take a chance just because you wanted to post some old pictures?
posted by mikewas at 7:23 AM on May 23, 2006

Flickr has a "viewable to friends/family" only option which will keep the general public away from seeing it. They can only be viewed by the people you want to view it.
posted by macadamiaranch at 7:47 AM on May 23, 2006

The other question I have is... is this a stupid idea?

I'm afraid so.

The Internet hive mind is capable of tracking down pretty much anyone and anything. If you post embarrassing photos of people without identifying them, someone will be able to identify them. By that time the photos will have been archived and copied by people all over the Internet, and it'll be impossible to recall them.
posted by russilwvong at 10:39 AM on May 23, 2006

Jan Wong, a journalist, once put it this way: don't write anything on the Internet that you wouldn't want to see published on the front page of a national newspaper. No matter how obscure your corner of the Internet may seem, it won't stay that way for long once it gets people's attention. (She was referring to anti-Semitic comments that were posted to a private e-mail list by some high school students.)
posted by russilwvong at 10:43 AM on May 23, 2006

Well, I guess it's not gonna happen, at least for now. I really think that these pictures will have value but that may not be til at least another decade, when we're more detached from the culture of the 90s and anything controversial would look more like, as the president would say, youthful indiscretions.
posted by elr at 11:02 PM on May 23, 2006

elr, I don't think that's the point. This isn't an issue of cultural ideas of what makes for controversial behaviour, it's an issue of privacy. Ten or fifty years from now is not going to make any difference in that respect.
posted by funambulist at 3:11 AM on May 24, 2006

Dude, don't put any of the even slightly controversial pictures up.
posted by exhilaration at 2:24 PM on May 25, 2006