7 ms·

"I'm a developer evangelist" This is code for professional bullshitter. We (the real developers) don't need any "evangelizing." Our work speaks for itself.

commentor 14y ago
FYI - she took your picture and published it, without a model release . . . technically, per the letter of the law - that is illegal . . . just sayin'
- crystallize 14y ago
  Her taking a picture and posting it to Twitter (which is different from publishing) is not illegal. She didn't need a model release. The only time you need a model release is if you intend to sell the photograph of a person to be used for commercial purposes. You know, sell the picture to a company for the company to use it in an advertisement. At that time, a model release is required. No monetary gain was acquired in this situation, so why would a release be required? Know Copyright and publishing laws when you comment... just sayin'
  - dingledongle 14y ago
    The "word on the street" is that she uses Twitter to drive up her blog traffic, so if that can be proven in a civil case you're wrong about that. It will be hard to prove for a normal person. But if you read Amanda Blum's article about this you'll see that she has done stuff like this before. If a lawyer can build a case around an established pattern of using twitter to monetize traffic. All they have to do is subpoena her blog monetization records and her twitter posts to establish her intent to commercialize the photo. Some expert testimony from Amanda and there could be a case here. But does she have enough money to make it worth going after? I don't know. But it would probably be satisfying to the victims in this to watch her try and fake cry in court about how she was "doing it for the children" when we all know she was doing it for the web traffic.
  - dingledongle 14y ago
    PS Crystillize if you had any actual experience with the law rather than Internet armchair surfing, you would know that Twitter is no different than TV when you're sitting in front of a judge defending your case. If she's making money off her Twitter posts -- and it appears she was and still is -- she better be ready to pony up if the people she's using to generate that money ask for their fair share of it. In this case, she's received national attention and will probably spin it into a profitable book or something. Not so for the victims. If these guys don't sue it's more likely because it's just not their style. But if the tables were turned, and they photographed her with libelous remarks attached, I'll bet you lunch that she'd sue them. They have a case if they want it. And by the way, they claim she did libel them. The forking part of the conversation had no sexual connotation; and she has yet to provide anything resembling a direct quote except for the expression "big dongle." Which is pretty funny and fairly harmless, frankly. She spiced it up with the "forking" thing because she's a tabloid journalist. And after this no serious publication would hire her as a journalist, because she doesn't fact check. "Hey guys, I'm about to tell 10,000 subscribers your "forking" joke. Can you say it again so I can actually hear it?" That is how professional journalists behave, because they have a spine.
- cfc_uk_ 13y ago
  I think that if you are in a public space you have no expectation of privacy therefore your picture can be taken...what is allowed or not allowed after that... I don't know. I do think that she had a responsibility to blur out Alex's name on his badge though.

commentor 14y ago

FYI - she took your picture and published it, without a model release . . . technically, per the letter of the law - that is illegal . . . just sayin'

crystallize 14y ago
Her taking a picture and posting it to Twitter (which is different from publishing) is not illegal. She didn't need a model release. The only time you need a model release is if you intend to sell the photograph of a person to be used for commercial purposes. You know, sell the picture to a company for the company to use it in an advertisement. At that time, a model release is required. No monetary gain was acquired in this situation, so why would a release be required? Know Copyright and publishing laws when you comment... just sayin'
- dingledongle 14y ago
  The "word on the street" is that she uses Twitter to drive up her blog traffic, so if that can be proven in a civil case you're wrong about that. It will be hard to prove for a normal person. But if you read Amanda Blum's article about this you'll see that she has done stuff like this before. If a lawyer can build a case around an established pattern of using twitter to monetize traffic. All they have to do is subpoena her blog monetization records and her twitter posts to establish her intent to commercialize the photo. Some expert testimony from Amanda and there could be a case here. But does she have enough money to make it worth going after? I don't know. But it would probably be satisfying to the victims in this to watch her try and fake cry in court about how she was "doing it for the children" when we all know she was doing it for the web traffic.
- dingledongle 14y ago
  PS Crystillize if you had any actual experience with the law rather than Internet armchair surfing, you would know that Twitter is no different than TV when you're sitting in front of a judge defending your case. If she's making money off her Twitter posts -- and it appears she was and still is -- she better be ready to pony up if the people she's using to generate that money ask for their fair share of it. In this case, she's received national attention and will probably spin it into a profitable book or something. Not so for the victims. If these guys don't sue it's more likely because it's just not their style. But if the tables were turned, and they photographed her with libelous remarks attached, I'll bet you lunch that she'd sue them. They have a case if they want it. And by the way, they claim she did libel them. The forking part of the conversation had no sexual connotation; and she has yet to provide anything resembling a direct quote except for the expression "big dongle." Which is pretty funny and fairly harmless, frankly. She spiced it up with the "forking" thing because she's a tabloid journalist. And after this no serious publication would hire her as a journalist, because she doesn't fact check. "Hey guys, I'm about to tell 10,000 subscribers your "forking" joke. Can you say it again so I can actually hear it?" That is how professional journalists behave, because they have a spine.
cfc_uk_ 13y ago
I think that if you are in a public space you have no expectation of privacy therefore your picture can be taken...what is allowed or not allowed after that... I don't know. I do think that she had a responsibility to blur out Alex's name on his badge though.