The Ethics of "Project Harpoon"

[Petromir]

Stuff like this technically falls under the "Parody" clause of "Fair Use".

As such, when you upload your images to websites such as Facebook or whatever, you enter into a contract with these organizations which outlines what your images may or may not be used for. These rights have to abide by copy right laws, and one of those laws is the right to "Fair Use".

Now, it could be argued that it is not "Fair use" is not being followed if the photos are used maliciously, but, instead it seems they're being used to mock a movement or organization rather than individuals.

So, to surmise, photos you upload to Facebook aren't owned by you, regardless of how personal you feel about them, and people technically have a right to use them for stuff. Be careful what you upload. However, by all accounts, no site is required to host the content, so, it being removed isn't really censorship, though it is a little bit of a double standard.

Oh, no no, no, no!

People might act like that's true, but it's blatantly false.

To begin with, copyright is innate. So anything a person makes is copyrighted by default.
Secondly, the Terms of Service for Facebook (and pretty much any similar site) don't negate your ownership. That is complete and utter paranoid and or delusional nonsense.

What these sites do, is effectively to give them a non-exclusive perpetual right to use your work any way they see fit.

Note it gives facebook that right (in this example) not every random stranger and person that happens to see your stuff.

So, Facebook can legally use your stuff in any way they like. (advertising, promotion, whatever). But they don't own anything.
But other people cannot. That's copyright violation, even if it isn't practical to enforce.

You do. That's reality. By definition of how the laws work, I own this forum post I'm making as well.
You can almost guarantee that Defy media has it in their TOS that by agreeing to use these forums, I give them the right to do whatever they like with what I post here.
That doesn't mean they own it.
Just means I can't complain if they do whatever they like to it.
Your right to mess with it (quote bits of it, and so on) aren't because I no longer own it, but because it falls within the rights I've granted Defy Media by posting it here.

That's the legal reality.
Can I enforce that in any meaningful sense? No. Of course not. (nor do I see any point in doing so)
But it's still true.

Fair use is an entirely different matter, and shouldn't be confused with anything else.

Fair use says you may be allowed to use my copyrighted stuff even though I haven't given you permission of any kind to do so.(remember that me posting on facebook or here is me giving implicit permission for Facebook or the Escapist permission to use my stuff. Doesn't give them ownership of it, just permission to use it.)

What is considered fair use varies. (and it's not a universally accepted concept; Not all countries have such a provision, and given that the internet spans the entire planet, something that's 'fair use' in one place can still be violating copyright in another).

But regardless of if fair use applies, or if what you're doing is indirectly covered by some prior agreement a person makes with an organisation like facebook, what is definitely not the case, is that a person loses ownership of their work simply by putting it on a site such as facebook (or youtube. Or here. Or whatever).

Sure, you can't practically expect that to be respected on the internet, but it is really, really annoying that people are so used to it they don't even realise the original creator still owns the copyright regardless.

Granting someone rights to use something is not the same as granting them ownership.

People get used to weird stuff and think that's the way the rules work. But it isn't.

Maybe it should be, but then, why is it acceptable for a big company to sue you for putting their TV show on youtube, but if someone copies your picture off facebook without permission you should just 'get over it, you don't own it anymore! If you didn't want people copying it, don't put it online!'

Because, that is clearly stupid. Either copyright means something, or it doesn't, and we desperately need to decide which. Because when it's something that only has meaning if you're some big company with lots of lawyers, then it becomes a great way for said corporations to be incredibly abusive.

But that's a side issue to what's happening here.
Which is that some people apparently believe things which simply aren't true.

Does it happen online? Yes.
Does it happen a lot, in fact? Yes.

But that doesn't automatically make it OK.

Copyright gains much of its meaning where money is being made. If I take a broadcast and stream it somewhere where I get sub money or ad revenue, i'm in the wrong. If I take a photo and put it somewhere where I can't earn anything form it, I'm okay. Same with someone's image. I can take your photo all I want from a public place and use it for a portfolio or display it in a show. If I want to sell it to a stock agency or use it for an advertisement, however, I will need your consent.

Money has something to do with what you can do, but mostly in what the penalties will actually be, and how much effort is put into enforcement. Presenting a photo gained from anywhere in a show or portfolio without attribution is defiantly a breach of copyright, (though both would usually also be connected to being used to earn money), and given portfolios tend to be used to gain work by showing off previous edging towards false advertising or even fraud.

To begin with, copyright is innate. So anything a person makes is copyrighted by default.
Secondly, the Terms of Service for Facebook (and pretty much any similar site) don't negate your ownership. That is complete and utter paranoid and or delusional nonsense.

This is incorrect. A number of years ago my friends were involved in a "scandal" (to use the term loosely), and the national media used photos taken from their Facebook and put them on the front page. They were unable to legally act upon this despite A) Having taken the photos themselves and B) Being the subjects of the photos.

Photos publicly put on Facebook are public property.

Nope, you are confusing the right to use a photo for certain purposes (in this case news so a fair use/public interest) with ownership of said photo. There are plenty of limits on what you can do with someone else's photos taken off facebook, and they are defiantly not public property, though there are ways to use them without permission such as fair use or public interest. The only relevance facebook has is in the legalities is showing that those claiming fair use/public interest/etc had a legal way to obtain them.

 

[Dizchu]

It disturbs me that one of the defenses for Project Harpoon is that they're "doing these women a favour" by photoshopping them. Anyone who uses this argument obviously doesn't know what a favour is.

Imagine you woke up one morning and someone had performed rhinoplasty on you. And you know what? It actually doesn't look bad. But you didn't want it, and you certainly didn't give anyone permission to operate on you while you were asleep. Was the rhinoplasty a "favour"?

What if you were distracted in a library for a few minutes, leaving your laptop turned on, unattended? If I used it, performed a malware scan and a defrag, cleaned up your folders a bit, would that have been a favour or an extremely fucking creepy thing to do?

You know, it would have been great if these guys offered to photoshop these women. But they didn't.

 

[K12]

Seriously, would anybody actually defend this as an ok thing to do (apart from the reactionary "it's my right to act like a complete c*nt because free speech" thing that a baffling number of people think is worth saying)

The reason that fat-shaming is bad isn't just because it's mean and smug, it's because it doesn't work (in terms of forcing fat people to lose weight) it only succeeds in making fat people miserable. I get that this is probably trolling by the way.

The idea that putting a picture of yourself online means you deserve anything that gets done to that image is ridiculous. Why not extend that to going out in public? Or opening your curtains?

 

[runic knight]

Ethically, was this an acceptable thing to do? Well, not sure what sort of ethical codes 4chan of all places actually adhere to, but pretty sure this is acceptable there. Does seem to be using activists though, so I guess covered for parody. Legally, covered by fair use. Morally, sort of a dick move. Purpose, likely harms more than helps.

Overall, a pointless thing, sort of a dick move, but not really unethical from a site like 4chan itself.

 

[Lightknight]

The project's Facebook and Instagram pages were taken down after numerous reports, and as usual they've cried censorship. While the original set of images, as well as similar fat-advocacy campaigns are tasteless and insulting, I believe "Project Harpoon" have fought fire with napalm here. I don't even believe that fat-shaming is the issue, but rather an invasion of people's privacy. As much as "Project Harpoon" claim to want to advocate "healthiness", they were clearly seeking to provoke.

When an anti-SJW page I followed posted about it, I expressed my thoughts about the invasion of privacy. The responses I got were... troubling. I was called an SJW and a shill of course, but what bothered me was how privacy wasn't an issue with anyone. In fact, I was told that "if you don't want your photos edited, don't post your photos on the internet". Actually, the responses to many news articles about the page expressed a complete lack of concern for privacy.

Except there is no invasion of privacy. Posting a fatted up picture of someone isn't invading their privacy. Photoshopping someone isn't an invasion of privacy. How are you defining privacy here? Do you believe that people have a right not to be known? Seems like these people already made public comments so that's not a concern. Was their personal property invaded somehow or did someone just edit publicly available photos? In which case those photos were already public and these are merely alternate versions of them. This is a really far reach on your part and others' parts unless something major was left out that would constitute a real "invasion of privacy".

It's no more an "invasion" than calling someone a meanie pants is. It was wrong to have them censored. People have a right to make political statements even if they're offensive and we're being a censorious society when we abuse the rules to silence opponents. I don't care which side abuses the system in this way, the individuals who do this are bullies. Likely people who think they're fighting for a good cause and some are, but bullies are bullies by their actions, not their intentions.

What's hilarious is that these people are also calling their actions offensive here. They are literally doing the opposite of what they originally set out to do. Had the individuals just laughed it off and called these people morons because it isn't offensive to be fat then they'd have accomplished their goals. Instead they exposed a double standard. They find it gross while demanding others to be OK with it. Sad, really. They're playing into the stereotype of individuals just out to champion social causes online that they don't really believe in themselves.

snip

Ah, is ee. Thanks.

I wouldn't describe this as impossible though. I've seen people lose a silly amount of weight, and the results were absolute changes in looks. I think you underestimate how much of a person is really chub and how little is bones.

I think it depends on the person. The picture you posted shows one example of how someone with a small bone structure can be obese, but that doesn't mean all obese people have a small bone structure.

I think if you can feel your ribs, but not see them, you're in the healthy body range regardless of objective size. Though don't quote me on that.

A 400 lb person can still feel their ribs. I think you've pulled this metric out of literally nowhere.

 

[Areloch]

So could someone clarify for me: were the images put on private pages, and someone took them and used them? Or were they posted up on a public page, and taken and used?

While their focus was on photoshopping professional plus-sized models, they also stalked people's Tumblr and Facebook accounts for images to manipulate.

Out of curiosity, would it be okay to digitally manipulate and redistribute someone's artwork without their permission? People seem to be more than willing to throw the rights of photographers out the window but does it apply to drawn art too?

If so, what's the point of public domain photos? Why search for stock photos when you can use pretty much anything anyone has taken a picture of? Why not use images found on Google and claim them as your own? I don't get why personal photos suddenly become fair game?

What definition of 'stalking' are you using? I'm 100% certain that going through someone's online album for a picture to use does NOT constitute as stalking if they're not doing it SPECIFICALLY for that person.

Dick move, possibly, but not stalking.

But that does answer my original question - it sounds like all the pictures used were posted to the public internet, and none of them were stolen or procured from private accounts.

Which means that, while a dick move, there is nothing inherently wrong or illegal about using their images for photoshops and parody/criticism works. No different from using a celebrity or politician's picture for the same.

As for your question: manipulating the work for the sake of parody or criticism would fall under fair use. Given that, ostensibly, they did this whole thing to mock the original photoshops of videogame and anime characters, this would fall under fair use as well as a parody and criticism.

The point of public domain photos and stock photos, is if you plan to utilize those images in commercial works. I doubt anyone involved in this was trying to make any money, but were mocking the aforementioned videogame and anime character photoshops, for free, non-commercially. If they had tried to charge money for the photoshopped images, then that would make it likely to flounder on any fair use claims, as that gets hazier.

In short, the whole thing is definitely a dick move, but it's not stalking, it's not harassment, and it's not illegal. I'd probably even question it being unethical, if only just.

Honestly, I see this entire thing as the equivalent of someone standing next to some overweight people in public and them shouting "Man, what a bunch of fatties! They should lose some weight, right guys?". It'd undeniably be humiliating, and it'd be a gigantic dick move, but if they didn't constantly pursue them and keep doing it, there's nothing illegal here. It's just someone acting childish.

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

Well the argument "don't post your photos online if you want privacy" is kinda a solid arguement. Once you're out there online it's not that easy to keep it entirely private for all. There's concern for privacy, then there's the reality of privacy on the internet.

Also fuck fat advocacy, if a bunch of lazy fucks want to take pride in their overweight joy then be my guest. But don't start hating and then warping images of people who put the effort in to take care of their bodies because you're a lazy ****.

This is one of my favourite posts ever... Spoke exactly what I was thinking.

Hell... it's not hard to put facebook security settings on your photos, and only accept friend requests from people you trust. If you put yourself at risk by paying lipservice to security measures, and expecting others to work hard to protect you when you can't be assed, then it is fair game for others to use you to make their point.

It strikes me as the same as people who moan at police response times when they are burgled (due to budget stretches and higher priority tasking) when they were the dipshit who went out leaving their lights on and windows open... People who expect the police/government/anyone really to do stuff that it is well within their ability and remit to do themselves.

Also... yeah. You wanna be larger, fine... but what is humilliating about someone taking your photo that is already open to the public and editing it to make you look healthier? Hell... if someone did it to me I would print it and take it with me to the Gym as a reminder of what I am working towards every time I go. A new personal goal so I can continue knowing that I am helping my body remain healthy and lowering my chances of having problems. You know, and not expecting doctors to do it for me.

Recently I read an article about a girl in the UK who is addicted to sunbeds, and uses them every day, multiple times a day. She is putting herself at huge risk due to the UV damage she is probably experiencing. Her attitude: 'Skin cancer is curable; so if I get it I will just be cured [by the NHS... which we taxpayers pay for] then carry on with the beds.' Everyone would agree this is a disgusting attitude, and she should ammend her behaviour.

So... now we have overweight people who knowingly are increasing their chance of illness and problems, but can't be bothered to fix it. They are also costing my tax money on being helped at various points, or are setting themselves up to need it in the future, but they don'tcare. They seek to blame everyone but themselves for the condition they put themselves in, then cry off when they are criticised. +1 if they are also claiming benefits because they can't work due to their size. As a tax payer I am literally paying for them to remain in their condition as they don't do what everyone else does to help themselves, and I am expected to feel bad for thinking they should have a reality check and change? What?

So did they have the right to help themselves to pics of fat people already posted in a public place? Yes.
Was it a valid response to the equally obtuse, badly thought through, lack of self-respect fat acceptance campaign? Yes.

 

[Jux]

Stuff like this technically falls under the "Parody" clause of "Fair Use".

As such, when you upload your images to websites such as Facebook or whatever, you enter into a contract with these organizations which outlines what your images may or may not be used for. These rights have to abide by copy right laws, and one of those laws is the right to "Fair Use".

Now, it could be argued that it is not "Fair use" is not being followed if the photos are used maliciously, but, instead it seems they're being used to mock a movement or organization rather than individuals.

So, to surmise, photos you upload to Facebook aren't owned by you, regardless of how personal you feel about them, and people technically have a right to use them for stuff. Be careful what you upload. However, by all accounts, no site is required to host the content, so, it being removed isn't really censorship, though it is a little bit of a double standard.

Oh, no no, no, no!

People might act like that's true, but it's blatantly false.

To begin with, copyright is innate. So anything a person makes is copyrighted by default.
Secondly, the Terms of Service for Facebook (and pretty much any similar site) don't negate your ownership. That is complete and utter paranoid and or delusional nonsense.

What these sites do, is effectively to give them a non-exclusive perpetual right to use your work any way they see fit.

Note it gives facebook that right (in this example) not every random stranger and person that happens to see your stuff.

So, Facebook can legally use your stuff in any way they like. (advertising, promotion, whatever). But they don't own anything.
But other people cannot. That's copyright violation, even if it isn't practical to enforce.

You do. That's reality. By definition of how the laws work, I own this forum post I'm making as well.
You can almost guarantee that Defy media has it in their TOS that by agreeing to use these forums, I give them the right to do whatever they like with what I post here.
That doesn't mean they own it.
Just means I can't complain if they do whatever they like to it.
Your right to mess with it (quote bits of it, and so on) aren't because I no longer own it, but because it falls within the rights I've granted Defy Media by posting it here.

That's the legal reality.
Can I enforce that in any meaningful sense? No. Of course not. (nor do I see any point in doing so)
But it's still true.

Fair use is an entirely different matter, and shouldn't be confused with anything else.

Fair use says you may be allowed to use my copyrighted stuff even though I haven't given you permission of any kind to do so.(remember that me posting on facebook or here is me giving implicit permission for Facebook or the Escapist permission to use my stuff. Doesn't give them ownership of it, just permission to use it.)

What is considered fair use varies. (and it's not a universally accepted concept; Not all countries have such a provision, and given that the internet spans the entire planet, something that's 'fair use' in one place can still be violating copyright in another).

But regardless of if fair use applies, or if what you're doing is indirectly covered by some prior agreement a person makes with an organisation like facebook, what is definitely not the case, is that a person loses ownership of their work simply by putting it on a site such as facebook (or youtube. Or here. Or whatever).

Sure, you can't practically expect that to be respected on the internet, but it is really, really annoying that people are so used to it they don't even realise the original creator still owns the copyright regardless.

Granting someone rights to use something is not the same as granting them ownership.

People get used to weird stuff and think that's the way the rules work. But it isn't.

Maybe it should be, but then, why is it acceptable for a big company to sue you for putting their TV show on youtube, but if someone copies your picture off facebook without permission you should just 'get over it, you don't own it anymore! If you didn't want people copying it, don't put it online!'

Because, that is clearly stupid. Either copyright means something, or it doesn't, and we desperately need to decide which. Because when it's something that only has meaning if you're some big company with lots of lawyers, then it becomes a great way for said corporations to be incredibly abusive.

But that's a side issue to what's happening here.
Which is that some people apparently believe things which simply aren't true.

Does it happen online? Yes.
Does it happen a lot, in fact? Yes.

But that doesn't automatically make it OK.

In addition, they might be running afoul of publicity and privacy rights. http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/rights-of-publicity-and-privacy.html

The gist of the privacy right is that you get to control information about you. At its heart is what Louis Brandeis (with coauthor Samuel Warren) summed up, way back in 1890 before he was a Supreme Court Justice, as "the right to be left alone." (I?m paraphrasing there.) The right to privacy is invaded by:

unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another (for example, photographing someone through the window of their house, unbeknownst to them); or
appropriation of another?s name or likeness; or
unreasonable publicity given to another?s private life; or
publicity that unreasonably places another in a false light before the public.

Bold mine.

 

[Jux]

to be put it in simpler terms, would you pose naked in your window? Not any window mind you, but, the second floor window on the side of your house. Is it private? Sure.... Can someone see you doing this and take pictures? Why yes they can.

That's also illegal btw in most places. Here's a general guideline for photography rules.

http://www.bypeople.com/photographers-rights-and-release-forms/

 

[JustAnotherAardvark]

If they took pictures of models and altered them that would be one thing

I don't see why. Sure, people do it all the time, but I don't see why this is different. If anything, someone who's a model would have a stronger reason to be upset, as it's their livelihood.

but taking the pictures of random people and altering them is just a huge dick move to me.

I wasn't disagreeing or justifying the behavior with a 'it will just happen anyways' argument, just sharing how shocked (and disappointed) I was to find lots of pics of me online, unbeknownst to me (but knownst to someone).

I don't see it as harassment but I do consider it a shitty thing to do.

Yarp.

 

[Smooth Operator]

There are privacy concerns for sure, and I absolutely condone you kick the shit out of anyone who puts your pictures on public display of a global scale.
Oh you did that? Well then you just threw away about 90% of those privacy rights.

Making a mockery of these people and using their likeness without permission however is on the edge of legality, depending on the region you could very well have a solid case for legal prosecution. So no it isn't right, you can do it but your ass can also end up paying for it.

 

[spartan231490]

If you post an image to the internet voluntarily, you have no right to cry about privacy.

As for "project harpoon" it sounds funny as fuck and I wish I'd seen it before the pages got tore down, but I'm not sure what, if anything, they actually expected to accomplish.

And if you let your name or any personal details get on the internet, you have no right to cry when people use that information to get your phone number, address, email and dox you. It's great that you think that mocking people for being fat is hilarious though.

nice hyperbole, but there's a difference between what you share on the open internet and what you put in a protected server. Yeah, if people are putting their SSN on facebook they don't get to complain about identity theft either. Also, I'm allowed to mock people for being fat, I am fat. From this point of supreme authority, I can say with absolute confidence it is funny.

 

[Olas]

I think if you can feel your ribs, but not see them, you're in the healthy body range regardless of objective size. Though don't quote me on that.

A 400 lb person can still feel their ribs. I think you've pulled this metric out of literally nowhere.

I pulled it out of common sense and personal experience, hence "don't quote me on that". I definitely can't feel my ribs right now, and I don't weigh anywhere close to 400 pounds, so I have trouble believing this unless the person in question is some sort of giant.

Edit: I'm also 6'3" so I doubt my height explains it either.

 

[Lightknight]

I think if you can feel your ribs, but not see them, you're in the healthy body range regardless of objective size. Though don't quote me on that.

A 400 lb person can still feel their ribs. I think you've pulled this metric out of literally nowhere.

I pulled it out of common sense and personal experience, hence "don't quote me on that". I definitely can't feel my ribs right now, and I don't weigh anywhere close to 400 pounds, so I have trouble believing this unless the person in question is some sort of giant.

My family is very naturally muscular. I mean, my forearm muscle is so massive when I flex it that I'm frequently asked to show it off at group events. Not even joking and aside from wrestling in school I've never particularly worked it out other than generic weight lifting in exercise.

Anyways, throw in our natural musculature with bad eating habits and you get the members of our family that are both very muscular and obese. Ta da.

Can still feel their ribs.

 

[Fallow]

If you post an image to the internet voluntarily, you have no right to cry about privacy.

As for "project harpoon" it sounds funny as fuck and I wish I'd seen it before the pages got tore down, but I'm not sure what, if anything, they actually expected to accomplish.

You can still find it on /b/.

for OP:

They put their images on the internet, that's all there is to it. If you don't want your images seen or used, don't put them on the internet.

Second, victim blaming?
You always have the right to not be assaulted. Drinking doesn't change that. There is no right to put your stuff in the public domain and demand noone use it. There is no Facebook law that lets you put your stuff on there 'because everyone else is doing it' and be exempt from the availability of the stuff you put on there. (Also, there is no right to not be offended, especially when you seek out the offending material.)

If you don't want people to look at or use your stuff, don't put it on the internet.

Also, if you check /b/ it's pretty plainly stated that Project Harpoon is purely for poops and giggles. It's a douche move, but not any worse than what the fativists are doing when they widen normal/attractive people. The only problem I see is that non-extremists got targeted.

 

[Jux]

As for my opinion on this beyond the very questionable legality, I find the project to be mean spirited and the kind of behavior one might expect from a middle school bully. Yea, being overweight carries health risks (which everyone knows at this point). So does drug use, drinking, smoking, eating disorders that make one underweight, and depression. What is it specifically about being on the heavier side makes one a socially acceptable target for ridicule? And let's not pretend this is about doing a public service and trying to help people, fuck that noise. 4chan is a boil on the taint of the internet.

One can still be body positive and work towards healthier living at the same time, the two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Tsaba]

to be put it in simpler terms, would you pose naked in your window? Not any window mind you, but, the second floor window on the side of your house. Is it private? Sure.... Can someone see you doing this and take pictures? Why yes they can.

That's also illegal btw in most places. Here's a general guideline for photography rules.

http://www.bypeople.com/photographers-rights-and-release-forms/

who said anything about legal?

EDIT:

My point is, you should plan for what can go wrong, will go wrong. Most people will pity you when life fails you. However, you brought it to some degree on yourself.

 

[Jux]

to be put it in simpler terms, would you pose naked in your window? Not any window mind you, but, the second floor window on the side of your house. Is it private? Sure.... Can someone see you doing this and take pictures? Why yes they can.

That's also illegal btw in most places. Here's a general guideline for photography rules.

http://www.bypeople.com/photographers-rights-and-release-forms/

who said anything about legal?

EDIT:
My point is, you should plan for what can go wrong, will go wrong. Most people will pity you when life fails you. However, you brought it to some degree on yourself.

So the guy that got hit walking across the street brought it on himself because a car sped through a red light? I mean sure, running red lights is illegal and everything, but he kinda had it coming you know? Not planning for that car speeding through the light and just deciding not to walk in the first place.

This is about as victim blamey as you can get.

No one is Batman, you can't plan for every unlikely contingency, and there is no reasonable expectation that fat people should just keep their pictures off the internet if they don't want to be made fun of for their weight. oy...

edit: judging by a lot of responses in this thread, pity for 'when life fails you' doesn't seem to extend to the overweight.