Hi,

I work with someone who has repeatledly taken photographs of me at company
get-togethers and at my job. I have asked him to stop but to not avail.
(Taking photos btw is not his job!)While he takes photos of others, he seems
to glean such enjoyment from taking photos of me because he knows how much I
hate them!. Last week he sent my pictures in a company email, along with
some others. The pictures are not graphic, yet, I feel slightly compromised
because I don't really think I'm being seen in my best light (this may seem
like a small thing -but for personal reasons I have some "issues" with being
photographed).

Is their any legal recourse? Does he have to have prior written consent to
post my pictures or take them? I feel that if I have something to threaten
him with he might lay off. I can't really threaten him with harrassment
because some times I'm not even aware he is photographing me.

Am I posting this message in the right forum?

Michelle

"Michelle" <nospam@nospamnospam@.com> wrote in message
news:3f00fc93_9@news.athenanews.com...

Michelle, he LIKES YOU ... but, I get your point ... if you're comfortable
with it, at a convenient time have another private chat and tell him you're
serious about it; you really don't want to be photographed and if you have
to take it to another level, you will ... try to keep it friendly,
diplomatic and FIRM ...

if your company has an HR dept/person they'll probably help you with this if
you need it ... on doubt there's some law on this but I suspect you're
better off handling it informally if possible


I work with someone who has repeatledly taken photographs of me at company get-togethers and at my job. I have asked him to stop but to not avail. (Taking photos btw is not his job!)While he takes photos of others, he
seems to glean such enjoyment from taking photos of me because he knows how much
I hate them!. Last week he sent my pictures in a company email, along with some others. The pictures are not graphic, yet, I feel slightly
compromised because I don't really think I'm being seen in my best light (this may
seem like a small thing -but for personal reasons I have some "issues" with
being photographed). Is their any legal recourse? Does he have to have prior written consent to post my pictures or take them? I feel that if I have something to threaten him with he might lay off. I can't really threaten him with harrassment because some times I'm not even aware he is photographing me. Am I posting this message in the right forum? Michelle

There is only one problem with reporting him to my supervisor. He IS my
supervisor and one of the owners of this midsize but lucrative company I
work for. Any more suggestions? :)


"Richard" <anom@anom> wrote in message
news:bdr8uh02m1b@enews4.newsguy.com... "Michelle" <nospam@nospamnospam@.com> wrote in message news:3f00fc93_9@news.athenanews.com... Hi, I work with someone who has repeatledly taken photographs of me at
company get-togethers and at my job. I have asked him to stop but to not avail. (Taking photos btw is not his job!)While he takes photos of others, he seems to glean such enjoyment from taking photos of me because he knows how
much I hate them!. Last week he sent my pictures in a company email, along with some others. The pictures are not graphic, yet, I feel slightly compromised because I don't really think I'm being seen in my best light (this may seem like a small thing -but for personal reasons I have some "issues" with being photographed). Is their any legal recourse? Does he have to have prior written consent
to post my pictures or take them? I feel that if I have something to
threaten him with he might lay off. I can't really threaten him with harrassment because some times I'm not even aware he is photographing me. Am I posting this message in the right forum? Michelle If he's so busy taking photos he's not doing his job. Take the matter up with a supervisor. If the supervisor won't do anything about it, take it up the ladder of command. Sounds kind of like "jimmy olsen" from the superman movie.

"Michelle" <nospam@nospamnospam@.com> wrote in message
news:3f017c9e$1_7@news.athenanews.com... There is only one problem with reporting him to my supervisor. He IS my supervisor and one of the owners of this midsize but lucrative company I work for. Any more suggestions? :)

I showed up on footage of the local Fox 6pm news. The erstwhile filming
showed me doing my job which really did not have any particular relevance to
the story covered. I was going to make a stink about saying my "privacy"
had been violated, but the protest would have just drawn more attention to
myself. I've wondered myself about the photographed's rights; but as this
thread demonstrated, you, at work, are on someone else' property.

Sometimes Michelle, the best advice is to let things slide, make it like
your practically not there. Other times you could stick your tongue out,
hold up your middle finger, and/or turn and drop trou whenever your
ubervisor picks up the camera. Better yet, you could pay off your mortgage,
telecommute, stop paying taxes, and buy large amounts of weapons.

Do you have a nice day, though.

On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 08:18:38 -0400, "Michelle"
<nospam@nospamnospam@.com> wrote:
There is only one problem with reporting him to my supervisor. He IS mysupervisor and one of the owners of this midsize but lucrative company Iwork for. Any more suggestions? :)

When he is taking pictures of you, say if a very loud voice (so that
everyone in the office can hear), "Why do you take pictures of me when
I have asked you to stop? It makes me angry. Is that what you want?
Have you no manners?" (Or similar phrases.)

He might be embarrased by the confrontation and leave you alone. Or
he might fire you. Or he might ignore you and keep taking pictures.


**Dan Evans
**I post information, not advice.

"Michelle" <nospam@nospamnospam@.com> wrote:
There is only one problem with reporting him to my supervisor. He IS mysupervisor and one of the owners of this midsize but lucrative company Iwork for. Any more suggestions? :)

Oh brother. The "co-worker" turns into the "boss". What's your next
revelation Michelle... that your job description is model?

Look, You might consider talking to a lawyer who works in
employment law before doing anything else. Since you have already
approached your boss without changing anything, it could be too risky
to write him a note and request he stop photographing you and that he
not distribute photographs of you without your permission and send a
copy to his boss. You might end up doing that, but a lawyer will
explain your options, and you can think about it and decide what is
best for you.

-Merlin

"Merlin" <mag@camelot.org> wrote in message
news:3f0912a1.2751837@news.sf.sbcglobal.net... "Michelle" <nospam@nospamnospam@.com> wrote:There is only one problem with reporting him to my supervisor. He IS mysupervisor and one of the owners of this midsize but lucrative company Iwork for. Any more suggestions? :) Oh brother. The "co-worker" turns into the "boss". What's your next revelation Michelle... that your job description is model? Look, You might consider talking to a lawyer who works in employment law before doing anything else. Since you have already approached your boss without changing anything, it could be too risky to write him a note and request he stop photographing you and that he not distribute photographs of you without your permission and send a copy to his boss. You might end up doing that, but a lawyer will explain your options, and you can think about it and decide what is best for you.

You could get your own camera and start following him around.
A good shot or two of him sitting on the toilet or with a goofy
expression on his face would look great on the bulletin board.
Of course, you'd be job hunting the next day.
So, you have a choice. Grin and bear it. Or start job hunting.
-Merlin

Sue

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 06:43:07 GMT Merlin <mag@camelot.org> whittled these words: "Michelle" <nospam@nospamnospam@.com> wrote:
There is only one problem with reporting him to my supervisor. He IS mysupervisor and one of the owners of this midsize but lucrative company Iwork for. Any more suggestions? :)
Oh brother. The "co-worker" turns into the "boss". What's your next revelation Michelle... that your job description is model?

Michelle NEVER used the term "co-worker". And she explained the concern
about her harrasser laying her off in her original post. If you are going
to berate someone for their language check the original post and use IT to
quote your words of concern. That way you don't put words in their mouth.

TOTE@dog-play.com wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 06:43:07 GMT Merlin <mag@camelot.org> whittled these words: "Michelle" <nospam@nospamnospam@.com> wrote:There is only one problem with reporting him to my supervisor. He IS mysupervisor and one of the owners of this midsize but lucrative company Iwork for. Any more suggestions? :) Oh brother. The "co-worker" turns into the "boss". What's your next revelation Michelle... that your job description is model?Michelle NEVER used the term "co-worker". And she explained the concernabout her harrasser laying her off in her original post. If you are goingto berate someone for their language check the original post and use IT toquote your words of concern. That way you don't put words in their mouth.

Oh, put a sock in it ya old biddy. She escallates an annoying but
easily remedied co-worker problem into a substantially more
serious problem by being coy about a critical fact. I just started
to imagine the boss is a photographer and she is his model
as the next shoe dropping.

I'm sorry if you think I hurt her feelers in my response.
But this is usenet, and there are limited ways of expressing things,
limited time, and lots of trolls. The post was to misc.legal and
she was asking for ideas for remedying the uncomfortable work
situation. If she wants ideas about how to feel better about
living with the situation I'll send her to you in
sister.support.boohoohoo instead of suggesting she talk
to an employment lawyer who can, if they have a
'sophisticated' touch, smoooooooth this little matter out
in what us Californians call a "New York nanosecond".

BUT... its not something the person should try to handle
themselves, if they would like a better chance of
keeping their job.

My own idea is that her "supervisor" should cease these
camera activities ex post facto IMMEDIAMOUS! before someone
kicks him hard right square in the nits, figuratively speaking,
and sends him out looking for a new job, which he will never find.
But hey, what do I know, I'm just a lowly magician and she should
discuss her situation in private with a lawyer. An initial
consultation does not cost much, will provide valuable information,
and she can discuss the lawyer fees for help and DOES NOT have
to hire the lawyer if she doesn't like them or for any reason at
all. So hey, what's wrong with that advice?

-Merlin

In responce to the post:
On 7 Jul 2003 14:18:27 GMT, TOTE@dog-play.com stated...and I replied:
On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 06:43:07 GMT Merlin <mag@camelot.org> whittled these words: "Michelle" <nospam@nospamnospam@.com> wrote:There is only one problem with reporting him to my supervisor. He IS mysupervisor and one of the owners of this midsize but lucrative company Iwork for. Any more suggestions? :) Oh brother. The "co-worker" turns into the "boss". What's your next revelation Michelle... that your job description is model?Michelle NEVER used the term "co-worker". And she explained the concernabout her harrasser laying her off in her original post. If you are goingto berate someone for their language check the original post and use IT toquote your words of concern. That way you don't put words in their mouth.

Excuse me?!?! She may not have used the term "co-worker", but she did
say "I work with someone". Which implies a co-worker.

As well, she did NOT say anything about her harrasser "laying her
off". What she said was, "I feel that if I have something to threaten
him with he might lay off". BIG difference.

Remember me Diane? I'm the one you told to be concise. You need to
follow your own advice lady..."That way you don't put words in their
(other peoples) mouth" and "...check the original post and use IT to
quote your words"

Shell
-
http://drshell.home.mindspring.com/
Into computers since 1972.
WARNING! Information and e-mail addresses contained herein, are for personal use only. By entering this site, you agree that you will use this data only for lawful purposes and that, under no circumstances will you use this data to: allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission of mass unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations via direct mail, electronic mail, or by telephone. Violators will be dealt with accordingly.
-

mag@camelot.org (Merlin) wrote in message news:<3f0a0b68.28884241@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>... TOTE@dog-play.com wrote:On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 06:43:07 GMT Merlin <mag@camelot.org> whittled these words: "Michelle" <nospam@nospamnospam@.com> wrote:>There is only one problem with reporting him to my supervisor. He IS my>supervisor and one of the owners of this midsize but lucrative company I>work for. Any more suggestions? :)> Oh brother. The "co-worker" turns into the "boss". What's your next revelation Michelle... that your job description is model?Michelle NEVER used the term "co-worker". And she explained the concernabout her harrasser laying her off in her original post. If you are goingto berate someone for their language check the original post and use IT toquote your words of concern. That way you don't put words in their mouth. Oh, put a sock in it ya old biddy. She escallates an annoying but easily remedied co-worker problem into a substantially more serious problem by being coy about a critical fact. I just started to imagine the boss is a photographer and she is his model as the next shoe dropping. I'm sorry if you think I hurt her feelers in my response. But this is usenet, and there are limited ways of expressing things, limited time, and lots of trolls. The post was to misc.legal and she was asking for ideas for remedying the uncomfortable work situation. If she wants ideas about how to feel better about living with the situation I'll send her to you in sister.support.boohoohoo instead of suggesting she talk to an employment lawyer who can, if they have a 'sophisticated' touch, smoooooooth this little matter out in what us Californians call a "New York nanosecond". BUT... its not something the person should try to handle themselves, if they would like a better chance of keeping their job. My own idea is that her "supervisor" should cease these camera activities ex post facto IMMEDIAMOUS! before someone kicks him hard right square in the nits, figuratively speaking, and sends him out looking for a new job, which he will never find. But hey, what do I know, I'm just a lowly magician and she should discuss her situation in private with a lawyer. An initial consultation does not cost much, will provide valuable information, and she can discuss the lawyer fees for help and DOES NOT have to hire the lawyer if she doesn't like them or for any reason at all. So hey, what's wrong with that advice? -Merlin

Everyone here should understand that Merlin is NOT a lawyer . . . just
a wannabe, as has been discovered from previous posts. He does seem
to have some kind of worship complex though.

As for your problem Michelle, it is certainly delicate and, in the
end, any victory you claim could be Pyrrhic. That's why conferring
with a competent employment law lawyer would be a reasonable, and
confidential, step to take. I don't advocate turning to lawyers
lightly, but in this case it seems prudent and justified.

FoggyTown

In article <3f0a0b68.28884241@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
Merlin <mag@camelot.org> wrote: I'm sorry if you think I hurt her feelers in my response. But this is usenet, and there are limited ways of expressing things, limited time, and lots of trolls. The post was to misc.legal and she was asking for ideas for remedying the uncomfortable work situation. If she wants ideas about how to feel better about living with the situation I'll send her to you in sister.support.boohoohoo instead of suggesting she talk to an employment lawyer who can, if they have a 'sophisticated' touch, smoooooooth this little matter out in what us Californians call a "New York nanosecond".

I think they call that "megalomania by proxy."

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:48:43 GMT Shell <___computerNOSPAMconsultant@mindspring.com___> whittled these words:

Remember me Diane? I'm the one you told to be concise.

Please quote the words where I told you to be concise.

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:48:43 GMT Shell <___computerNOSPAMconsultant@mindspring.com___> whittled these words: As well, she did NOT say anything about her harrasser "laying her off". What she said was, "I feel that if I have something to threaten him with he might lay off". BIG difference.

You are correct on this one. I should have quoted it because when I read
it I read into it a word that isn't there. "me"
Remember me Diane? I'm the one you told to be concise.

Actually I suggested precision.
You need to follow your own advice lady..."That way you don't put words in their (other peoples) mouth" and "...check the original post and use IT to quote your words"

Yes. That is correct. Quoting does help avoid misreading and it is what
I should have done. Now you understand why.

Diane Blackman