[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.

[Dylan16807]

It was not intentional.

> when you're in public, you are the provider

I see.

I think we should draw a distinction between information provided on purpose or not. And other distinctions based on who is in the information. So I see your point now, but I think the calculation goes differently because my argument is not nearly that simple nor entirely focused on that specific aspect.

You have control over your likeness because it's your likeness. If you provide someone else's likeness, you deserve much less control. If they want to control it, you deserve even less.

> 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.

I'd give a lot more leeway for going against the wishes of the provider in particular. I don't think they should get a very privileged position. It's not burdening them, and it's not their personal information. They can ask but I don't think polite society requires agreeing in this case. It's nice of them to be worried about other people's safety but it's a pretty minor safety issue and the person walking around is the one who gets to make the decisions about their own safety.

[try_the_bass]

I think I agree that there's a distinction to be made between information provided on purpose (or for a purpose) and not. However, I think I come to the opposite conclusion: information provided on purpose should have stronger guarantees in favor of the provider's wishes, because purpose implies intent, and intent requires effort to turn into action.

Your likeness, on the other hand, is freely given to all observers, at no real cost or effort to yourself. You just are, and it is. In fact, you touch on this when you talk about "burden" on the provider.

NYCDOT might not be providing their personal information, but effort and cost is required to maintain this infrastructure, and I think the effort begets respect, at the very least.

While I agree that someone should always have some level of input into how their likeness is used, because it truly is no burden on them to provide it, I think respectively less weight should be given to it. I think the best effort should still be given to respecting a person's wishes when it comes to their likeness, of course, but perhaps comparatively less than when someone intentionally shares something that took effort to create.

So it appears in fact I agree with your logic, but have somehow arrived at the opposite conclusion. Perhaps because I consider "burden" more broadly than just the marginal effort of supporting an additional viewer of a camera feed?