Karmastic
Posts: 1650
Joined: 4/5/2012 From: Los Angeles Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess quote:
ORIGINAL: Karmastic quote:
ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess quote:
ORIGINAL: Karmastic it has nothing to do with the photos. although, when u take and post a photo, you're publishing it, and i think u don't need to mark it as such to receive copyright protection. regardless, i can think of a 100 "fair use" exceptions where they could use your pics. i included the warning, and it DOES have a useful purpose in this limited context: someone doing research for a term paper, or anyone else doing any kind of research cannot ethically converse with me to obtain information. now being ethical is no guarantee, but if you're doing research, and have 1 unethical choice, and a hundred ethical choices, you'll probably choose one of the ethical choices. some may say this doesn't happen, or that it's stupid to include in my profile because it's such a low risk. to them, i say, it doesn't hurt, and any woman who would be put off by something so trivial isn't a good match for me anyway. btw - i'm not talking out of my ass here, I'm "trained". But anyone doing academic research cannot enlist subjects without their knowledge. You have to agree to be part of a study in order to be in a conversation with someone doing research. They can't pretend to be a regular user of CM and contact you and not tell you that they are actually corresponding with you for research purposes. I believe that is illegal regardless of whether you put the disclaimer up or not. Again, I'm not sure the disclaimer adds anything to the rights that people already have by law. Im not familiar with any laws, codes, case law, or common law that says it's illegal, criminal, unlawful, or actionable to pose as someone to collect data. do u remember where u heard this, or can u cite anything? i specialized in intellectual property law in school, as well being associated with clinical studies IRL. it's true u need informed consent for most studies, but there's plenty of studies where the true intent is blind. and other studies where they go out and collect "free" public data, like on internet sites and boards (like here). Yes, but you still need informed consent if they are asking you specific information that you are providing (they don't have to reveal their hypothesis, but they have to get your consent to participate). I think what is considered public/private and the issue of informed consent on the Internet is one that is still being grappled with. http://www.bmj.com/content/323/7321/1103.short http://nationalethicscenter.org/resources/187/download/ethical_legal.pdf fantastic links, thank you! i skimmed/read both, and you hit the nail on the head, that the first question is defining what's public and what's private (expectation of privacy), and that's still an undecided question in this realm (being grappled with). i would lean towards a researcher being required to disclose themselves and not pose to elicit and gain more data from you. but i could see lazy ones not doing that. and therefore, still stick by the truism that the paragraph can't hurt, and any woman put off by it isn't right for me.
|