[try_the_bass]

But in these cases, it is the "clever soul" who's to blame, especially if they cannot be legally restricted from being "clever".

Like I said in another part of this thread: we should not be confounding "freely available" with "free to use without limitation". The various forms of open source licensing are testament to this concept: some things are indeed freely offered; others stipulate that you can't use them to make money without also offering your source code freely, etc. In both cases, the code is offered freely, but in the latter case, you're not legally allowed to use it without limitation.

Public information is often taken down because it can't be limited in such ways, and it relies on an honor system of sorts. Once people stop being honorable, there is no other choice but to take the resource away. The fault there absolutely rests with the individuals that have violated the implicit honor system.

[Dylan16807]

There is nothing dishonorable in taking pictures of yourself. This clever soul is not acting outside reasonable limits, and should not be blamed.

[try_the_bass]

This "clever soul" is trying to monetize this work, and encouraging others to do the same, which is pretty sketch.

It's pretty clear that the providers of a key piece of their endeavor aren't happy with them using the public infrastructure in this way. Is it not dishonorable to go against someone's wishes when they're providing something charitable?

[Dylan16807]

When the public infrastructure is cameras that are constantly broadcasting the people nearby, and the use is saving a frame when you're one of the people nearby, no I do not see that as dishonorable. The intent of the provider only goes so far when it comes to super straightforward uses. And it's not a burden on the system. And if anything, now they're getting permission to take photos of that person in that moment (which is nice even if they don't personally make recordings of the broadcast).

[try_the_bass]

I think the provider's concern is that a) it will become a burden on the system if this usage becomes widespread, and b) it encourages people to engage in risky behavior in order to have their image captured on one of these cameras.

Both of these are valid arguments, which you seem to discount out of hand, as if the provider's concerns are inherently invalid.

Let me flip the question: should anyone who captures an image of you in a public setting be free to monetize your likeness? If you are arguing that the provider's concerns and wishes are irrelevant, would that not also apply to every person who leaves the privacy of their own homes? That they, too, would have absolutely no say in how their likeness in public settings is used?

I feel like we've already established a precedent that yes, you should have some say in how your likeness is used, even when it's captured in settings where you are freely putting it on display in public.

Why does this not apply to other resources that are just as freely given?

[Dylan16807]

The idea that it might become a burden seems unrealistic to me.

And banning pictures is a bad way to keep people out of traffic.

As to your flip... it really doesn't make sense to me. This art project gives people control of their own images! The city is trying to stop them from controlling their own images.

Saying the provider's wishes don't matter (which is a pretty strong exaggeration of what I said) does not even resemble saying the subject's wishes don't matter.

[try_the_bass]

It seems like you intentionally missed my point: when you're in public, you are the provider of some non-trivial amount of data. There is no distinction between subject and provider in that case.

To follow your logic in that case is to argue that you should have no control over how your likeness is used once you provide it to the public by simply being in public.

This is nonsense. The provider of the information being collected should generally have some say in how that data is used; and if we want a respectful and kind society, we should respect those wishes so long as they are not unreasonable.

It is not unreasonable for NYCDOT to ask that people not use their traffic cameras to take selfies. Encouraging people to flout those wishes, even in the name of "art", is to encourage a society that does not respect other people's wishes.

[kayo_20211030]

Good point.

But, for a lot of things, we have to exist in the gap between ethics and law. If someone, with access to ostensibly public NYCDOT information, uses it for "dishonorable" (not illegal) purposes, the DOT has three choices: legislate its use, remove it completely, or ignore the issue. Whatever they do, with the exception of the ignore option, will result in the vilification of our clever soul. That person did not make any of the decisions that caused the removal of the previously accessible public information. They just had a thing, they used it, and something happened. Could that have been foreseen? Maybe, but marginal. Guaranteed? Probably not at all. I just don't think that blame is fair. Let the NYCDOT do what it'll do and the rest of us can replot our courses if necessary.

OSS libraries, released to the web or wherever, have the same set of choices; and the authors can do as they please. It's their stuff, and their right entirely. But, blaming someone who acted "dishonorably" and resulted in a novel set of legal restrictions on an OSS library doesn't seem right either.

[try_the_bass]

This is where intent becomes important.

If someone took an open source library that had a restrictive license, and used it in violation of that license, if it can be proven that they did so with the intention of ignoring the license, they can be held accountable. In this case, even if they were ignorant of the license, they can still be held accountable. We can definitely assign blame to these people, and more so in the case of the one doing it with malicious intent.

So why is the same not true of these cameras? Especially if now this person has been informed that their usage is against the wishes of the provider; even if it's questionable whether or not the initial usage is "dishonorable", once the provider's intentions have been made clear, if the "clever soul" persists, it's not out of malice, which is definitely dishonorable.

Intentionally violating someone's expressed preferences is often legal, but I think it's almost uniformly seen as a negative (i.e. dishonorable) thing. Except in the most extreme cases, where someone's preferences are generally considered unreasonable, we have good reason to treat those who ignore preferences as untrustworthy or unjust.

So there exists a fourth option: NYCDOT makes a plain request that this kind of usage stop, and then rely on people to honor those wishes. This is like basic social reciprocity, so I'm constantly amazed by how many people argue that we shouldn't engage in it. At the end of the day, that's what you're saying we should do: be fine with people who are asked to stop, and who respond with "no, you can't make me". It's not unreasonable that NYCDOT ask that their cameras not be used to gain people likes or viewers or money; but it does strike me as unreasonable to applaud people who intentionally ignore (and even flout!) the lack of enforceability of that ask.