Ted wrote:
But I think your friend’s friends can see your content when they become tagged…
Depending, as Alexis pointed out correctly above, on your privacy setting (or rather, the individual photo’s privacy setting).
Peter wrote:
the belief that putting stuff on FB is not “publication”.
You cannot seriously argue that posting something in a closed group on Facebook is a publication, because someone could technically copy & paste the image and repost it, while the private groups you use to distribute images of fly-ins are not publications? It is exactly the same mechanics.
Patrick wrote:
(or rather, the individual photo’s privacy setting).
Which is the point I was trying to make, its your friends that decide…
the private groups you use to distribute images of fly-ins are not publications
If I have say the “traditional 500 FB friends” and put an image in my FB page then (regardless of any privacy config anywhere, but providing I chose the visibility to be a bit more than “just me” 
) all my 500 “friends” can see that image, regardless of whether they had anything to do with its relevance to them or participated in its acquisition. And some may not like that image, may find it ridiculous, may find it denigrating and thus worth distributing for a laugh (I get such images or videos sent to me almost daily; denigrating images are a part of the currency of the internet) etc.
Whereas if we have a fly-in and the group is sitting around a table and one person takes a photo (or a waiter takes a photo with someone’s phone) and the image is sent to those who were sitting around the table, that’s a very different situation for obvious reasons. For a start, all those who are getting the pic
What tends to happen in the telegram groups we use to organise fly-ins is that there are more people in the group than attended the fly-in, so some non-present people get to see the pics, but I don’t think that is unreasonable because the motivation to mis-use a pic (which is mostly what the whole privacy issue is about) is not likely to be present.
Hence my view is that putting an image, without consent, on FB, a “private” Flickr site, etc, etc, for all your “friends” to see does amount to “publication”, regardless whether this is legal or not in your own country.
So now you have – with a lot of effort – explained, why it‘s „ok”, if you take pictures of a group of pilots who meet at a fly-in and publish it without asking.
What’s missing: the explanation why it’s not “ok” if i make one photo (i checked) of a group of pilots who meet at Aero 2014 and never publish it anywhere.
;-)
Alexis, I give up.
Alexis, you should take up Peters flight offer, and one of you can take a picture of you smiling and post it here.
At the end you can have a beer and some vegetables, shake ends, and bury the hatchet ;)
~100% of personal stuff referenced here hasn’t to do with that mysterious feud you guys had and I think not that much people care ;). There’s good contributions from both so it would be a shame to see either of you going.
Edit: hands. But too good of a mistake to edit
There is no hatchet, Noe. It is true that Alexis has created a lot of work for me (running this site) with his bizzare antics, but in this thread I am just trying to pin down the goalposts which he, as a “journalist” this time around, is moving around at 140kt.
Beer, Handshake, all good. I have absolutely no interest in any confrontation. I can forget every stupid and meaningless fight after one day. None of it was important. Just stop the constant provocation and all is fine. If i wouldn‘t think this is an interesting and good forum – i wouldn‘t be here.
As a first step I‘ll delete the photo of you i made at Aero 2014 without asking (;-))
Noe wrote:
Alexis, you should take up Peters flight offer, and one of you can take a picture of you smiling and post it here.At the end you can have a beer and some vegetables, shake ends, and bury the hatchet ;)
~100% of personal stuff referenced here hasn’t to do with that mysterious feud you guys had and I think not that much people care ;). There’s good contributions from both so it would be a shame to see either of you going
Couldn’t agree more.
Peter wrote:
but in this thread I am just trying to pin down the goalposts which he, as a “journalist” this time around
It does read between the lines of each post of the two of you here, though. Example? Putting the word “journalist” in quotation marks.
There is good arguments on both sides in this thread and it’s a worthwhile discussion, even if not 100% related to flying. The personal stuff that always comes through each time the two of you engage in a discussion is a little bit tiring and has been beaten to death in the thread linked by Peter and maybe it’s a good idea to let go, at least in public posts. I find that would contribute to what euroga, I think, strives to be.
Peter wrote:
If I have say the “traditional 500 FB friends” and put an image in my FB page then (regardless of any privacy config anywhere, but providing I chose the visibility to be a bit more than “just me” ) all my 500 “friends” can see that image, regardless of whether they had anything to do with its relevance to them or participated in its acquisition.
I feel I have to insist on this argument because maybe there is a misunderstanding.
You are arguing that posting a photo to a given audience (greater than “yourself”) on Facebook constitutes publishing because the audience could take that photo and redistribute it:
Peter wrote:
Say you have 100 friends […] and each of them has 100, that is a publication to 10000 people.
At the same time, you are arguing that posting a photo to a given audience on, say, Telegram does not constitute publishing, because you find it unlikely that the people from that Telegram group will redistribute the image.
Both platforms, Facebook and Telegram, and many others give you very similar options to carefully arrange the audience you are sharing an image (or any other content) with. You can post to “larger” audiences within your reach (using broadcasts on Telegram and posting to your timeline with the audience setting to global on Facebook) and you can post to specific people (using groups on Telegram and using groups on Facebook or specifying who can see a specific image you post to your timeline on Facebook).
In both cases, every member of the audience can copy & paste the image and redistribute or even “publish” it but then it’s them publishing, not you.
In both cases, you can create an audience that you trust not to abuse the images you share. But also, in both cases every member of the audience can choose to abuse the image they have access to and copy & paste it, redistribute, or even “publish” it – but then it’s them publishing and abusing, not you.
Hence, to get back to the original question, that, in my view, is not a “publication” but that is a grey line obviously and can be discussed. Where does a publication begin? It’s not a matter of the tool, though.
I asked a barrister (not a specialist in this area of the law however) for his input on this.
