Once Again, Walmart Stops People From Printing Family Photos Due To Copyright Law Claims

from the a-real-winner dept

It's been many years since we first wrote about how stores like Walmart were dealing with ridiculous copyright laws by telling employees to simply not allow the printing of "professional-looking" photos, just in case they were covered by someone else's copyright. Last year, a story popped up about a Walmart employee not letting a family print their own old family photos for this reason. It looks like we've got yet another such story. greenbird was the first of a few of you to send in this story about Walmart (yet again) not allowing the printing of family photos (this time for a funeral, which makes it that much more tragic), with copyright used as the reason. Once again, the employee made some dumb statements, such as saying "copyright is forever."

But, just like last time, I have to say that we shouldn't blame the Walmart employee, who is just trying to protect her job, and lives in a world where copyright maximalists constantly push this sort of message. It's not her fault, it's the fault of current copyright law, which makes such things seems reasonable, and the ongoing effort by lobbyists and politicians to only push copyright law further in that direction.

42 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Does The White House Have Any Legal Right To Demand No Modifications To Its Photos?

from the doesn't-appear-that-way dept

You may recall earlier this year that there was a fair bit of controversy when the White House started putting photos up on Flickr. Or, rather, there was controversy over the licensing. Everyone thought it was great that the White House would have its own Flickr channel and constantly post photos -- but since Flickr only had certain licensing options that you could put on a photo, there was a problem. Even though the White House chose a Creative Commons Attribution license at the time, that was still too much. Government documents are not covered by copyright, and the photos clearly should be public domain. After a bit of back-and-forth, Flickr created a special public domain license so the White House could properly designate the photos.

And yet... it appears that the White House is now trying to claw back some rights over these photos that it just doesn't have. Tim Lee points out that along with these officials photos is a licensing claim that goes well beyond the public domain, stating:

This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House.

The problem is the White House has no right to say that you can't manipulate the photo, since the photo is public domain. It's really unfortunate that, once again, we're seeing how little people seem to understand (or value) the public domain.

48 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Law Professor (?!?) Claims Copyright Infringement Because Blog Uses Faculty Photo In Blog Post [Update]

from the check-out-copyright-law-sometime,-prof dept

Just because you're a law professor, it doesn't mean you really understand the law, apparently. Eric Goldman (a law professor who does understand the law) alerts us to a bizarre lawsuit involving University of Miami law professor D. Marvin Jones, who was the subject of a series of blog posts on the popular law blog, AboveTheLaw, concerning a 2007 attempt where Jones was detained by police for allegedly soliciting a prostitute -- something he vehemently claims was not true, and authorities did, in fact, drop the charges and expunge the record. Jones makes a few different claims against ATL, all of which seem frivolous and unlikely to stand, but the most ridiculous of all is the claim that his copyright was violated by ATL using his faculty photo. A few problems with that: It's quite unlikely that Jones actually holds the copyright on the photo, and he makes no effort to show that the copyright was ever registered (a necessary prerequisite in bringing a copyright infringement lawsuit). And, of course, if somehow it turns out he does own the copyright and did register it, it's still an obvious (not even close) fair use claim. Now it's quite clear that the posts were embarrassing to Jones -- especially assuming that it's true that the original detainment was bogus, but it's difficult to see how bringing a poorly thought out lawsuit against the site fixes that. If anything, it seems to reflect even more poorly on Jones. Update: Good news. Above The Law is reporting that Prof. Jones has dismissed the lawsuit. Hopefully this means he came to his sense after seeing all of the coverage -- most coming from other lawyers highlighting how problematic this lawsuit was from the beginning.

18 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Olympics Clarifies Problems With Flickr Photos... But Still Doesn't Make Sense

from the you-don't-own-the-photos dept

Last week, we wrote about the International Olympic Committee's complaints concerning a guy, Richard Giles, who had posted some images he took at the Beijing Olympics on Flickr under a Creative Commons license. At the time, it wasn't entirely clear if the complaint was the license or that the photos were up, at all, but as we noted, either way, it didn't make sense. The IOC has responded and said the main complaint is with the Creative Commons license, but, again, it's difficult to see how the IOC has any argument at all. The photos were taken by Giles, and thus he has every right to license them as he sees fit -- including under CC licenses. Furthermore, as Thomas Hawk points out in the link above, once you license something CC, you can't go back on it. It's still not clear why the IOC sees this as a bad thing. Giles is helping to promote their event. For free. Next time, maybe he should just send them a bill.

34 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Washington Redskins Won't Let Washington Post Blogger Show Photos Of Upset Fans; WaPo Caves

from the journalistic-integrity dept

We've already discussed how ridiculous it is that any mainstream publication agrees to the NFL's policies that effectively set rules for how they can report on sporting events. How can a publication claim to have journalistic integrity after agreeing to specific rules on what they will and won't report on concerning a news event? On top of that, we've pointed out how ridiculous one particular football team, the Washington Redskins, has become in dealing with fans. Despite having the longest record of continuous sellouts in professional sports, the Redskins have been suing over 100 fans who were unable to pay for their season tickets. The Redskins could have easily just resold the tickets (and, in fact, they are reselling the tickets). But also suing some of the team's biggest fans after they've been hit by the financial crisis? That's just obnoxious.

Lots of fans are pissed off at the Redskins this season, and a local radio station came up with a plan to get fans to wear paper bags over their heads during a recent game -- even going out and handing out a bunch of bags outside the stadium for just that purpose. Of course, gametime came and security confiscated most of the bags, saying that such bags are not allowed in the stadium. Still, Dan Steinberg, who writes the DC Sports Blog for the Washington Post, went around looking for such disgruntled fans. And while he didn't find many with paper bags, he did find other disgruntled fans displaying their... disgruntlement. These included t-shirts that were anti-Dan Snyder (owner of the team) along with some other things. Steinberg took photos of these protesters and posted them to his blog.

But not for long.

The photos soon disappeared, and the photo editor for the Washington Post admitted that the Redskins had called them claiming that taking photos of disgruntled fans was a violation of policy:

"The Redskins said he was in violation of his credentials for taking the photographs. We honored that request, because at the end of the day, they control access to their facility."

First off all, how ridiculous is it that the Redskins are so insanely controlling that it thinks that banning photos of disgruntled fans will suddenly make people not realize that fans are disgruntled?

But, more importantly, what a shame that the Washington Post would simply fold like that. Yes, the Redskins control access to the facilities, but the Washington Post is effectively providing free advertising for the Redskins pretty much every day, by writing articles about them. The Redskins don't want to lose coverage from the Post. If the Washington Post had any journalistic integrity, why wouldn't it stand up to the Redskins and say "hey, disgruntled fans are news, and we're here to report the news." And people wonder why folks don't trust the coverage in their local newspapers any more. Apparently, those newspapers -- even the big "respected" names -- have no problem caving in to ridiculous requests from those they cover.

Meanwhile, The Big Lead (which gets a few of the details of the story mixed up) wonders what would happen if other people took such photos and sent them to the Washington Post to put on its blog, since the Redskins' main complaint is that Steinberg violated his credentials by taking the photos. If others took the photos though...

35 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Go To The Olympics? Take Photos? Put Them On Flickr? Await Olympic Committee Legal Threat Letter

from the and-the-gold-medal-in-promotional-idiocracy-goes-to... dept

And we've got yet another example of insane attempts by the Olympics to extend copyright and trademark law well beyond its stated intentions (which, tragically, some governments have been known to accept in order to get the Olympics on their home turf). This time, it involves the International Olympic Committee sending a cease-and-desist to a guy who posted the photos he took at the Beijing Olympics on Flickr. Seriously.

It's hard to understand what they're complaining about specifically. They mention that he violated the "terms and conditions" on the back of the ticket (which are often not enforceable, anyway) in "licensing pictures." Inquistr suggests the problem is that the guy, Richard Giles, put his own photos (on which he owns the copyright) on Flickr under a Creative Commons license. It's difficult to see what sort of leg the IOC has to stand on here (though, it may involve jurisdiction in a few different countries). The guy took photos himself -- so it's his copyright. Putting them under a CC license is then his decision. The trademark claims are laughable. At best, the IOC might be able to claim breach of contract in violating the "back of the ticket" agreement -- but even that seems like a stretch, and it's difficult to see what sort of "harm" the IOC could suggest these photos caused.

It's difficult to understand what the IOC thinks its accomplishing here. This was someone spreading the word (and view) of his Olympic attendance to his friends and many others online. You would think that would be seen as good and free advertising rather than as something for which the legal dogs should be unleashed. What sort of organization lets loose its lawyers on a fan posting photos showing off his cool experience attending an event? Honestly, I can't fathom what anyone at the IOC could possibly be thinking here.

44 Comments | Leave a Comment..

The Speed At Which Wrong Information Flows

from the unfortunate dept

If you've been following the news of the protests in Iran over the past few days, you've no doubt heard about the story of Neda Soltani, who was shot and killed on video, and has become, as some news reports have noted, "the face of Iran's struggle." Not to get into the politics of it all, what is quite fascinating is the news that the photo that many individuals and news sources are using for Soltani isn't just of a different Neda Soltani, but it's due to confusion over how Facebook works (found via Mathew Ingram).

Basically, a woman named Amy Beam, who was interested in the Neda Soltani in the video contacted other Neda Soltani's found on Facebook, and one communicated back with her, and eventually they "friended" each other on Facebook. Soon after, the "living" Neda Soltani posted a translation of an article about the killed Neda Soltani on Amy's Facebook "wall." However, the way this works, is that along with the post on the wall, it includes the poster's own avatar/profile photo -- in this case the living Neda Soltani. From that, others who were friends of Amy saw the name Neda Soltani, the story about the killed woman, and the photo of the living woman -- and assumed they were all the same woman... and from there the photo started spreading like wildfire, including websites, TV, banners and elsewhere. And the really scary part is that the living Neda Soltani is now quite afraid for her life, since she's suddenly become "the face of the face of the struggle in Iran" despite not being the woman who was shot.

Certainly, bad information flows at incredible speed in this day and age, but the series of events and confusion that led to this result is quite fascinating, if a bit scary (especially for the living Neda Soltani). There's an effort under way to alert everyone using the wrong photo to change their images, but you have to wonder how effective that will be.

15 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Judge Rules That Press Can Use Perp Walk Photos; Freedom Of The Press Lives

from the phew dept

Last month, we were troubled by the fact that a judge in NY was even considering barring local newspapers from using photos of a politician handcuffed in their news coverage about him. The judge was afraid it could bias a jury, but the newspapers pointed to that whole "freedom of the press" bit. Vince writes in to let us know that the judge has in fact allowed the press to use the photos, correctly noting that the First Amendment issue seems to outweigh the others. Still, it remains troubling that the question even lingered as long as it did, and that the judge needed to justify the decision with such precise details (including the idea that it was okay because NY is a large metro area, and because the time difference between the photos and the trial). It seems like it should be pretty straightforward that a court shouldn't be able to get involved in the editorial decisions of a newspaper, so long as what the newspaper is printing is truthful.

26 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Judge Apparently Thinks He Can Tell Newspaper Which Photos It Can Use

from the that-doesn't-seem-right... dept

Romenesko points us to the news that a judge is considering barring news organizations from showing photos of a handcuffed local legislator, Roger Corbin. Corbin was arrested on tax charges, and (not surprisingly), local news sources have shown photos of him in handcuffs. This seems both accurate and newsworthy. However, the judge seems to think that these photos could bias the jury, saying that it was "troubling" to him that the news organizations used the handcuffed photos rather than photos of Corbin back when he was an upstanding legislator. Of course, as the lawyer for the news organizations pointed out: "Courts do not get [into] telling the media what to publish." The judge then apparently compared the handcuff photos to child porn in explaining that the First Amendment wasn't absolute, and the gov't could restrain the use of certain photos (apparently skipping over the incredibly high barrier normally used to justify anything of that nature). The judge hasn't made a final decision yet, but even the fact that he's considering telling newspapers that they can't publish photos of a guy in handcuffs seems troubling.

40 Comments | Leave a Comment..

More Troubling Proposed Anti-Social Networking Laws: CA Wants Photo Removal Law

from the get-over-it dept

It's amazing what sort of laws politicians will come up with when they overreact to something that new technology allows, without bothering to understand the issue. It appears some California state politicians are upset about the fact that people are uploading photos and videos to social networking sites, and those photos may reveal something the subject of the photo wouldn't like. So, they want to require any site that allows uploads of images or videos to be required to take down that content on request of a subject in that content. Yes, even if the photo or video were taken in public.

In looking over text of the bill (warning: pdf), it looks like the original idea was worse: that social networking sites would be required to prevent anyone from copying an image off of a website. It looks like someone explained to the bill's sponsor how that's impossible. However, even though the bill claims that it's aimed at photos of people who had an expectation of privacy, that doesn't appear to be anywhere in the actual text. Instead, sites would be required to take down content on the request of anyone in the image. Sites would also be responsible for verifying that the takedown request came from the person actually in the photo, though there's no mechanism to determine how. It's also not clear how to deal with photos that involve multiple people.

But, honestly, what's most unclear... is why such a law is needed in the first place? It seems like a major hassle for no good reason whatsoever -- especially in an era where taking photos and sharing them has become the norm for many people.

29 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Ohio Legislator Wants To Criminalize Kids Taking Nude Pics Of Themselves

from the too-much-free-time dept

The uproar over "sexting" -- kids taking nude pictures of themselves and sending them with their cameraphones -- is in full swing, with lots of politicians looking to wring some publicity out of it. In our earlier post about the Pennsylvania prosecutor who threatened to bring child-porn charges against some kids for taking their own pictures, Steve L left a comment noting that a politician in Ohio plans to introduce legislation that would make sexting a misdemeanor offense. He says he wants to criminalize the activity to protect kids from the "extra burden" of being charged with felony sex offenses. It's bizarre, though, as he says that teen sexters "did something stupid, but I don't think anyone wants for them to be called sex offenders," and "I think what these teens need is education about how this type of behavior could affect their lives." So the way to educate them is to make them criminals?

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

56 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Why Is The AP Invoking The DMCA Over The Obama Poster?

from the dmca-abuse dept

We've been covering the ongoing legal brouhaha between the Associated Press and Shepard Fairey over whether or not his iconic Obama poster was copyright infringement of an Associated Press photo -- with most of the focus being on whether or not the use was protected by fair use. However, the EFF is noting something quite odd (and quite troubling) in the AP's countersuit against Fairey: it's claiming that his post violates the DMCA. That should leave you scratching your head, considering that the DMCA seems almost entirely unrelated to Fairey making a poster. But the AP seems to be claiming that in removing the little copyright notice beneath its photo, Fairey violated section 1202.

As the EFF notes, since Fairey didn't "strip" the data from the image, but merely appears to have cropped the image for his purposes, it's hard to see how Fairey actually violated the DMCA here. However, more to the point, the EFF explains why this is likely been thrown into the case by the AP. By invoking the DMCA, it adds much greater potential statutory fines, than for a straight copyright infringement case. That gives the AP a much bigger potential award -- which it can use to pressure Fairey into settling. As the EFF points out, such huge potential fines creates a pretty massive chilling effect on others -- something all too common with the DMCA.

29 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Has Mannie Garcia Changed His Tune About Shepard Fairey's Obama Poster?

from the unfortunate,-if-true dept

The Wall Street Journal is running an editorial by L. Gordon Crovitz, discussing the ongoing legal battle between Shepard Fairey and the Associated Press over Fairey's iconic poster of Barack Obama that was used during the campaign:

The editorial admits that the legal issues aren't entirely clear, but definitely seems to lean towards the AP's side of the story, including making a rather odd assertion that this case is different than cases of people using snippets of songs on YouTube because "there's no opportunity to license snippets of songs and no harm done" to musicians whose music is used on YouTube. Now, I actually agree that there's really no harm done by music on YouTube, but I would imagine that some of the musicians engaged in ongoing legal battles against YouTube might disagree with Crovitz -- and he's not using the argument in the way we would. He's saying that music on YouTube is a different story compared to the AP and the original photographer who "make their livings selling their work." That may be true, but as I hope Crovitz knows, just because you make a living selling your work, it doesn't mean that fair use doesn't apply.

Also troubling is the false implication from Crovitz that since the AP and Garcia make their livings selling their work, this poster somehow diminishes that ability. I can't see how anyone could make that claim. In both cases, it would seem to have only increased the ability of both the AP and Garcia to make money, rather than decreased it. This particular photo wasn't exactly a huge money maker for the AP or Garcia -- and now it (and they!) are getting a ton of attention because of it.

But, perhaps most troubling may be the quotes Crovitz uses in support of his argument from the photographer, Garcia. As we noted way back when Garcia was first identified by someone else as the photographer, he didn't mind at all and even seemed flattered:

"I know artists like to look at things; they see things and they make stuff. It's a really cool piece of work.... I wouldn't mind getting a signed litho or something from the artist to put up on my wall."

But, when Crovitz spoke to him, he seems to have changed his tune:

"When I found out, I was disappointed in the fact that someone was able to go onto the Internet and take something that doesn't belong to them and then use it. That part of this whole story is crucial for people to understand: that simply because it's on the Internet doesn't mean it's free for the taking, and just because you can take it doesn't mean it belongs to you."

It's really too bad if Garcia has changed his tune. It was really great, for once, to see someone flattered that their work inspired someone to do something great with it, rather than becoming litigious.

23 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Slate Realizes It Has A Valuable Community

from the take-a-hint dept

What will be the defining picture of today's economic crisis? The '30s had bread lines and the '70s had gas lines, but as Slate points out, "in many ways this economic crisis, despite its deepening severity, has been less visible than previous ones. You can't take a photograph of a collateralized debt obligation." So, like any smart media company these days, Slate is turning to the community for help capturing that iconic moment.

To do so, Slate has created a Flickr pool entitled Shoot the Recession that currently has more than 100 user-contributed photos in it. NPR's Planet Money has been doing this, too, but because Slate is more visual, it would seem that more people would be motivated. This is a smart move - it lowers the expense for Slate to report on the crisis and recognizes that people are motivated by things other than money (reputation being the big one here). But it is also smart because instead of reinventing the wheel, Slate loosely joins together another small piece of the web - Flickr. Though there is still a lot more Slate and its peers can do, this is a step in the right direction.

Kevin Donovan is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Kevin Donovan and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

2 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Is Anything In Shepard Fairey's Image Actually Copyrightable By The AP?

from the searching...-searching...-searching... dept

With a lawsuit underway after the Associated Press accused artist Shepard Fairey of copyright infringement over his iconic Barack Obama poster (Fairey initiated the actual lawsuit, asking for a declaratory judgment that his image did not infringe, but that was after the AP publicly stated they were going to go after him for infringement), many are looking over the legal issues, and examining whether or not Fairey's use is fair use. In our initial post on the subject, it seemed pretty obvious that it was fair use, in large part because the AP didn't even realize it was an AP photo until someone else pointed it out -- suggesting that it was a transformative work, which represents a big part of the "test" for fair use.

However, law professor Peter Friedman, has a very interesting look at some of the relevant case law, pointing out that courts have clearly said that the elements of a photograph that are copyrightable are only those elements created by the photographer. He quotes some recent court rulings that have found that the copyright only covers those specific things (e.g., "posing the subjects, lighting, angle, selection of film and camera, evoking the desired expression, and almost any other variant involved"), but elements beyond that are not covered by copyright. Friedman then points out that Fairey's image uses none of those supposedly copyrightable elements.

Basically, Fairey used Obama's pose -- which was not set up by the photographer, thus not covered -- and changed pretty much everything else about the image. So, he's wondering, what in the iconic image actually is covered by copyright?

Fairey's poster was not a copy of the photograph. It used one element, the angle of Obama's face, and changed everything else from the photograph. I doubt the choice of the angle was a creative choice on the part of the photographer. First, I would be surprised if the angle was not forced on him by the place the photographic pool was required to be, and, second, the angle is so generic that I can hardly imagine it represents the kind of creative decision that amounts to originality. If Fairey had simply painted a copy of the photograph, I'd agree that it was an infringement. But he didn't. He changed everything except the angle of the head. And surely the choice of subject matter for the photograph was not a creative one.

61 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Is It Copyright Infringement On Fashion Design To Post Photos From A Fashion Show Online?

from the certainly-hope-not dept

For many years, we've discussed how the fashion industry is a great example of an industry that is more innovative, more prolific and more dynamic due to the lack of intellectual property protection. In fact studies have repeatedly shown that it's the very lack of copyright over clothing designs that has made the overall industry so successful. It encourages continued innovation and adaptation, while the fact that there are knockoffs actually helps to increase the value of original authentic designs, while permeating design concepts throughout the fashion world.

However, that hasn't stopped designers from trying to gain copyright advantages over clothing designs, and one ongoing case suggests how ridiculous this concept could be. An online publication is being sued by two French fashion designers, not for creating knockoff clothing, but for daring to post photos online of the fashion designers clothing lines, which they demonstrated at a fashion show. The website sent its own photographers to the show (so it's not a case of them reposting someone else's photos). A French court sided with the designers (French design protectionism shows up again...), and now the case has moved to the US to see if the designers can collect.

The fact that the case has gotten as far as it has is pretty ridiculous. It's nearly impossible to see how posting photos you took yourself at a fashion show could violate someone else's copyright on clothing, but that's what we get in this world where too many people consider copyright something that provides full and total ownership of a concept, rather than a limited monopoly solely for the incentive to create. While the case right now hinges around the traditional four factors test for fair use, you have to wonder why we've never established a simpler test for copyright cases: if the creator knew the infringing action would occur, would they not have created the "content" in the first place? In this case, that seems laughable...

40 Comments | Leave a Comment..

20% Of Teens Send Sexually Explicit Photos Of Themselves?

from the really? dept

Sure, we've seen all sorts of moral panic-type reports about kids not thinking so much about the consequences of what content they reveal about themselves online, but it still strikes me as a bit unlikely that one in five teens reports sending sexually explicit photos of themselves to others using either mobile phones or online tools. Perhaps it depends on the definition of "sexually explicit."

This brings up another issue that was raised recently at the privacy discussion I attended recently. After someone pointed out that the younger generation is just used to being more open, a question was raised: is this a generational issue or a maturational issue? In other words, is the younger generation really just used to being more open about things, or is it that they haven't matured enough to recognize the potential impact of what they're doing -- and, as they age, will be more reasonable. I'm not sure anyone really knows the answer to that just yet.

17 Comments | Leave a Comment..

In Trying To Capture The Moment, Do We Risk Missing It Altogether?

from the watch-the-moment,-not-the-screen-of-your-camera dept

Earlier this year, in writing about a musician complaining about fans with mobile phones in the audience, we noted that he seemed to be overreacting, but did raise some interesting points about whether people get so focused on documenting an event that they miss experiencing it. Now a columnist at the Toronto Globe & Mail, Ivor Tossell, makes a similar point in worrying about the effort he goes through to capture "events" like beautiful sunsets, when he's not even sure what to do with the photos afterwards. While much of the column focuses on the question of whether or not these digital momentos will last at all, an equally reasonable question is how many special moments are "lost" in the effort of trying to capture them with recording equipment.

34 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Google's Latest Silly Privacy Problem

from the oh-no!-someone-saw-me-outside! dept

Well now that Google's dealt with one ridiculous privacy complaint, it appears it has another to deal with. As Google is preparing to launch its "Street View" offerings in Europe (which let people see photos of the streets they search for on Google Maps), some privacy groups are complaining how its a violation of people's privacy. Apparently the fact that they were photographed out in public hasn't occurred to the privacy group. Even more to the point, as Google has pointed out in response, despite the fact that anyone caught in these photographs was in public, it's recently rolled out a system to automatically blur faces of people who end up in the Street View photos. Overall, the whole complaint seems to be much ado about nothing from privacy advocates who have much more important things to focus on.

25 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Everyone Panic: Teens Are Sending Each Other Naked Photos On Camera Phones

from the really? dept

When I first read this article from the Associated Press about this new teen fad of teenagers using camera phones to send each other naked photos of themselves, I'll admit that I reacted exactly as the article's authors probably intended -- wondering what the hell kids are up to these days. However, is this really that surprising or shocking? At that age, kids do all sorts of stupid things, and if you hand them tools like camera phones that make it so easy, it's no surprise that some kids, somewhere will do things like pass around naked photos of each other (which, by the way, opens them up to charges of child pornography). Hell, kids have been "playing doctor" for ages, and it didn't necessarily warrant a writeup in the Associated Press.

And, while the article does list out multiple such cases, there's no indication how widespread this really is. Yes, there are some kids out there who do stupid, impulsive things (especially when it involves members of the opposite sex that they're interested in), and hopefully people realize these are just isolated incidents. But, somehow, I get the feeling we'll soon be hearing people suggesting that this is a "common occurrence" rather than just a few isolated incidents. So, really, the story here is that there are some kids out there that don't have the best judgment, and sometimes a small number of those kids do stupid things. It just so happens that, these days, those stupid things can involve being naked on the internet.

87 Comments | Leave a Comment..