"Kilt Don't"s vs. Anonymous Namecalling

[JolyStNicholas]

I feel in this as in other matters here on our board, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and each of us should respect that, it is the job of the moderators, not individual members, to correct other members or their posts. As long as these opinions are kept in the "jest mode" as someone else mentioned, I see nothing wrong with what Matt or any other members have posted as far as Do's or Don'ts!

Just my opinion!

[Lady M]

If we're entitled to our opinions, we're entitled to have the opinion that what someone said or posted about someone else is disrespectful. Opinions go both ways. Either we all can have them or neither side can. And you're correct, it is the job of the moderators to police the board. However, this board has a "report" function for us to use. I assume if they did not want it in place, it would have been shut off long ago. It also has a comments and suggestion section, which could easily be turned off if suggestions were unwelcome.

Different people accept different levels of jokes or jesting. We need to respect that we all have a different tipping point over the issue and keep the poking fun to a minimum at best. As I said in another thread, comments or words only about "that guy I saw in the mini kilt" is quite a different story between actually posting the man's photo.

When we do this, we're crossing the lines of privacy and respect to that man, whether we agree how he was dressed or not.

[ghostlight]

As long as these opinions are kept in the "jest mode" as someone else mentioned, I see nothing wrong with what Matt or any other members have posted as far as Do's or Don'ts!

I would like to respectfully remind that there is a difference between jesting with someone and jesting at his expense.

The former requires his participation. The latter, especially when done behind his back, is disrespectful.

All that had to be done to avoid the issue entirely in all of these cases was a simple photo crop, blur, blackout, etc. to remove personally identifiable information. All are relatively simple and quick to accomplish.

[Clan McKinnon]

I am new to the kilted dress and am sure I have made some major mistakes worth laughing at, but if I were to come here and find my, or one of my families picture posted as "what not to do" I would think that the poster was a bit of a snob for doing so and a bit of a coward for posting the picture there and not having the huevos to a) ask if it was OK and b) tell me what the offense was that I was making and help me understand how I could avoid doing it in the future.

There is a place where political correctness goes too far and I do not think Ghostlights comments were that place, his posts were spot on in my humble opinion.

[M. A. C. Newsome]

Question for consideration: Is there a difference between posting a photo and saying, "Hey, look what this numbskull is wearing!? Can you believe it???" and posting a photo or photos of a prevalant fashion trend or reocurring faux pas and making comments critical about that fashion?

I for one see the former as insutling to the individual, while I view the latter as simply critique of a style.

[ghostlight]

Question for consideration: Is there a difference between posting a photo and saying, "Hey, look what this numbskull is wearing!? Can you believe it???" and posting a photo or photos of a prevalant fashion trend or reocurring faux pas and making comments critical about that fashion? I for one see the former as insutling to the individual, while I view the latter as simply critique of a style.

That's not really the point.

My point is this:

Is it even necessary to individually identify the specific person in either case?

[ccga3359]

I'll play devil's advocate. Here is an well known individual, no stranger to self-promotion. Now I have a great deal of respect for Sir Richard Branson but in this publicity shot he has committed a major faux pas. I personally wouldn't call the man a knucklehead but one does wonder how this could have happened. I do see the humour involved as Sir Richard is usually quite dapper. By pointing this particular mistake out one could educate those less aware of kilt conventions or to make light those who could be offended by the cavalier wearing of a revered garment.

Now the pic:

[Bigkahuna]

I have seen a great number of rather humourous photos of people in various states of "Highland Dress". While i do not find the photos particularly disturbing, what bothers me is that no one took the time or the opportunity to correct these poor misguided fools and explain to them their errors. Shame on us.

[Lady M]

Since this seems directly related to a recent thread and I came across it while doing some research, I thought I'd share it. Now, this is in regards to Europe, which was not the country in question in the recent thread but it may be a viewing of things to come. It certianly cites a precident.

European Court of Human Rights has now ruled that the taking of a pictures without the explicit consent of the person being photographed is a violation of that person’s right of privacy – even if it is taken in a public and even if it is never used.

The actual press release is here.

As far as using photos you didn't take, rather than ones you took yourself, within the laws of the United States at least, I reference the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

If there is no monetary gain for using photos you didn't take, there's still copyright infringement. This is covered by the NET act.

Using someones likeness or photo without their permission or using their photo (one they took themselves) is a legal slippery slope. The World Intellectual Property Organization has a write up about the Legal Pitfalls in Taking or Using Photographs of Copyright Material, Trademarks and People. This doesn't include the ruling by the European Court of Human Rights but it discusses in cases other than Europe.

Now, in the United States, where you can still photograph without permission, there are rules you must follow about doing it. A snippet from here...

Q. Can I publish pictures of people I’ve photographed without permission?

A: That depends upon the purpose of the picture. If it’s artistic or editorial in nature, or can be characterized as to inform or educate, then you do not need your subject’s explicit permission.

If the picture or any associated text may be libelous, defamatory, or fall outside of what courts have described as “the normal sensibilities” of the target audience, then you may need permission from the subject for your own protection. You also need permission from the subject if the picture is used for commercial purposes, such as in an advertisement.

Food for thought.

[McMurdo]

I would like to thank Ghostlight for bringing this up and everyone else who has had their say on this most important issue. The moderating staff are looking into the concerns posed here. Therefore we feel that for now it is best that we close this thread and deal with the issues at hand. Again thank you all who participated in the thread and thank you Ghostlight for bringing your concerns to the forum.


Thread Closed.