There are ton of pictures on the internet in general distribution or public domain trade and use.
There are also some that are shared with the idea that they are going to be only viewed by the one given too.
There are some meant for a limited audience that are now public domain.
Where does the line get drawn for general distirbution pictures and Malicious intent to damage.
This would be a good question for the Democrats to chime in on as they have a much better understanding of "Shades of Grey/gray"
My view:
All pictured shared of a personal nature, i.e- my picture to a gal that sort of think should naturally be assumed private and not to be sread unless otherwise specified.
A picture posted by the owner in a public domain by the owner to me is assumed it is shareable.
Anything other than above I believe is malicious intent to damage. such as a gal posting my picture i sent to her privately in her local grocery store
There are also some that are shared with the idea that they are going to be only viewed by the one given too.
There are some meant for a limited audience that are now public domain.
Where does the line get drawn for general distirbution pictures and Malicious intent to damage.
This would be a good question for the Democrats to chime in on as they have a much better understanding of "Shades of Grey/gray"
My view:
All pictured shared of a personal nature, i.e- my picture to a gal that sort of think should naturally be assumed private and not to be sread unless otherwise specified.
A picture posted by the owner in a public domain by the owner to me is assumed it is shareable.
Anything other than above I believe is malicious intent to damage. such as a gal posting my picture i sent to her privately in her local grocery store
