Should I go lighter on the blur?

1253mi-PGO1253mi-PGO Posts: 49 ✭✭
edited October 2021 in Nomination Improvement

Should I lighten the blur to make it stand out less?


I submitted this community notice board (in Japan) but it was rejected for having faces on the posters. (Doh! I took the photo and submitted on the spot so no blur.) Then took photos, blurred the notices and resubmitted but got rejected for watermarked or blurry photo.


Post edited by 1253mi-PGO on

Comments

  • 1253mi-PGO1253mi-PGO Posts: 49 ✭✭

    The original was also dinged because some reviewers couldn't find it in a very old street view. The supporting photo showed enough to prove location could be verified on street view. So I guess it was a combination of mistaken reviewers.

  • flatmatt-PGOflatmatt-PGO Posts: 2,084 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I'm in agreement with @Theisman-ING. You should not edit your photos like this. However, anyone who rejected the original, unedited photo for having faces in it was not reviewing correctly.

  • Jeroenix-INGJeroenix-ING Posts: 414 ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 2021

    I'm not sure about accepting something with photographed faces in it, it would depend on the situation. I always figure: those people in the picture didn't ask to be included in any game or any other source other than that notice board (and even that could be debatable). If I submit a photo with a person standing next to it, I would expect it to be rejected as well, so what's different if it's a photograph? Person recognizable in both cases.

    Suppose there's a missing-person-photo of a child on that board, and they would later turn up after a terrible experience.. I wouldn't want my picture spread around like that around the world. I don't agree with the statement that these reviewers were incorrect in their rejection.


    It would be a better solution to temporary cover the face before taking the picture (with a post-it note for example). You won't need to blur, and there won't be any reason to reject it based on privacy concerns.


    *Edit: I've looked over the GDPR/AVG laws, and this clearly states that you need the permission of the person in photographs in public spaces (which is what the persons in the noticeboards SHOULD have been asked to give). From what I understand, is that Japan's APPI law aligns with EU/US laws concerning this. I think that putting recognisable faces in the game through Wayfarer breaks this law, and thus breaks Niantic's TOS. I think the reviewers acted correctly on rejecting this.

  • 1253mi-PGO1253mi-PGO Posts: 49 ✭✭

    Keep in mind that Wayspots are local. The photo won't go any further than it can be seen on screen in game so... maybe 1km if people are tapping to see what's there. Notice boards always have the possibility of posters with photos on them. The difference is that people in the posters would have signed contracts and been compensated for the use of their likeness. People standing in the area would be treated differently in that situation.

    When it was rejected I thought, oh... maybe they were right but now I've gone back to it's fine.

  • Jeroenix-INGJeroenix-ING Posts: 414 ✭✭✭✭

    @1253mi-PGO

    No, Wayspots are in NO way "local". Online, they can be showcased, debated in forums, reviewed by anyone, internationally featured in Ingress as some record-setting portal, and don't forget the "gift" system present in Pokemon Go and Wizards Unite. Those photo's will literally be all over the world. Let alone the fact that the photo's are in a database that can be used for ANY future project Niantic still has to come up with. Niantic can not go after the legal rights of every one of those photos, but needs to stop legal issues in the acceptance process to cover this, and with the rejection reason "Face" they have, plus their guidelines contains the text: "Ineligible photo: Photo includes [..] personally identifiable information such as codenames, personal names or initials, or addresses; copyrighted material or watermarks, including screenshots of someone else’s photo". I'd say a photograph of a face is a pretty identifiable piece of information.

    If a reviewer sees a picture of a picture with a clearly recognizable person on it, the action should be 'reject' with reason 'photo quality -> face'.

    And since you can't blur without severe quality loss, I really would just cover up the photo's, it should be fine then. Just remove it when you're done eh? :)

  • Jeroenix-INGJeroenix-ING Posts: 414 ✭✭✭✭

    A journalist can't just snap a picture of someone (OR their already taken picture) either and run a story without all kinds of checks and consequences. And it even matters to the law how far the picture would reach, what its use is, PLUS a freedom of press law that might even supersede GDPR. Even (or -especially-) journalistic branches absolutely have to comply with GDPR. You can't compare their legal issues with Wayfarer's, if only because of that freedom of press law.

    We live in a world where people have successfully sued their own mother (GDPR violations) for posting pics of their grandchildren on Facebook even though the photo's were exempt due to being "purely personal or household processing of data". The judge said "it cannot be ruled out that placed photos may be distributed and may end up in the hands of third parties".

    Precedents have already been set. That's why Niantic kept it short and simple, and put in their guidelines "Ineligible photo: Photo includes [..] personally identifiable information" and that is sound legal thinking that covers all their bases: it doesn't say WHAT identifiable information, from who, if it's a picture of a picture, if it's "local" or not, what consent -might- have been given.. it just says 'NO'.

    The essence of this thread is not a debate on GDPR or possible lawsuits towards Niantic, it's about improving nomination. And I stand by my opinion that a submitter is WAY better off avoiding any kind of photograph of citizens' faces in their nomination picture, even those already put up in public, lest you get a 'Photograph -> Face' rejection.

    GDPR can be annoyingly strict with a lot of caveats, aspects, exemptions and exceptions, and there are loads of violations if you look. But it's generally a good thing for citizens. It prevents people who "wish not to have their visage seen or recorded in public" from having to "hide their face or avoid public places altogether".

Sign In or Register to comment.