Originally Posted By ssWEDguy >> Just out of curiosity, why is that stalkerish to look at someone else's photo? << I agree with you. I put my picture out there, and I don't care who sees it. However -- just suppose there was somebody on the LP discussion boards that you didn't like. (A hard thing to imagine, but I suppose it's possible!) Suppose in the discussions you get wind of their "real" name and that their picture is on the Epcot Wall of fame. You go to Epcot someday, look them up, and now you know what they look like. They next time you spot them in the park you can diss them. Yeah, yeah. A lot of speculation over something that's "very small." But then Disney doesn't want to have even small problems.
Originally Posted By danyoung >But more likely because the lawyers pointed out that strangers could look up your picture too.< I can't see any reason why there should be a legal issue here. You're not making any personal information public outside of your picture. You've agreed to have your picture posted. How odd would it be for a criminal to use the system to see what someone looks like? I just don't see any potential harm there. >The only way I would ever take half-a-minute to view the pics on the oblisks ... would be to find the pics of all the Laughingplace members.< I guess that's kind of a problem with the whole concept - would anyone want to stand there and look at pictures of people they don't know? I look at my pic (and the devil-looking kid in the pic next to mine!), and that's about it. But then there are people who stroll around the bricks and read the inscriptions, so I guess it takes all kinds . . .
Originally Posted By bobbelee9 "They next time you spot them in the park you can diss them" who cares? But if they didn't like you, is there some way they could damage/distort your picture? I'd see that as a problem.
Originally Posted By NYthrillseeker I really don't see the issue with 'privacy being invaded' at all. It's just a head shot that you volunteer to post for all to see. And like other LPer's said, it's not like people that don't know you will care. Even if it were some kind of a nudist park, and the picks showed a lot more, you VOLUNTEERED to show yourself. Therefore, there is no privacy in question. I don't see why the pictures can't be clearer.
Originally Posted By ssWEDguy >> I really don't see the issue with 'privacy being invaded' at all << >> I don't see why the pictures can't be clearer. << You may not see the reasons, but lawyers do. And lawyers are the same people that got a million dollars for someone spilling a cup of coffes on themselves when the cup didn't have a "Hot beverage" warning on it.
Originally Posted By danyoung I'm just not buying that there's any legal thing here at all. The pictures are the way they are because that's the system that Disney purchased for this process. Maybe it was cheaper than other systems, or maybe they just bought the best one they knew about. But there's simply no way that the pics were intentionally diminished for any type of legal protection.
Originally Posted By ssWEDguy >> But there's simply no way that the pics were intentionally diminished for any type of legal protection. << Fair enough. What do you base that statement on?
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost I tend to agree with danyoung on this one but only because it sounds more reasonable. Neither of you, however have stated what you based your statements on so I guess it's a draw.
Originally Posted By danyoung I'll agree with that, Goof - it's my opinion. I just can't see Disney putting together a process whereby people can get their pictures taken, etched in metal, and posted at the entryway to a park, and then going "Oh wait, there's a legal issue and we can't make the pictures look too good. Let's screw them up a bit to help us avoid law suits". It simply makes no sense to me. ssWEDguy, do you have any info to sway me to your thinking, or are you just stating your own opinion like I am?
Originally Posted By NYthrillseeker Still I have to agree with danyoung and Goof on this one, ssWED, like danyoung said above, if you have any sort of info that really proves that Disney would purposly manipulate the photos for legal reasons, I would like to hear it. It just really doesn't make any sense to me at all. Like I said before, I don't see any legal aspects of privacy invasion here. People purchase those photos with the knowledge that they will be displayed publicly. If there were legal issues, then I guess at MK they would have purposely mispelled the names on the bricks as well.
Originally Posted By ssWEDguy >> Neither of you, however have stated what you based your statements on so I guess it's a draw. << Bingo. Fair enough. And my response wasn't intended to say that you were wrong. I thought maybe you might know more. Honestly, I have asked, internally. And you get varying answers. Disney purposely plays a lot of things close to the vest even internally. You end up reading things into what is NOT said sometimes.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost >>>People purchase those photos with the knowledge that they will be displayed publicly.<<< Let's go out on a limb here and say that People purchase those photos BECAUSE they will be displayed publicly. What would be the reason for buying one otherwise?
