WTF Gpwa

**lenny** · 19 September 2011, 9:29 pm

I opened the September 2011 Issue of GPWA Times today (not that i subscribe but someone gave it to me) and I would like to thank you for the photo you posted of me (without permission). With everything going on in the US Market your lack of tack and awareness speaks volumes. Wish you all the best in your business model.

I'm very disappointed to say the least and if there is legal action to be had you will hear from my lawyers. Please never include photos of me, forum user names, or my name in your future publication without prior written concent.

But just goes to show you have no thoughts and dont give a f*** about anything but your website or magazine..Very disappointed but not surprised

**Anthony-Coral** · 19 September 2011, 11:03 pm

Hey Lenny, is being an affiliate in the US for online gaming that much of a legal grey area?

**lenny** · 20 September 2011, 12:14 am

No being an affiliate and online gambler in the USA is 100% legal. lol

You know you try to lay low, and not let anyone know what you do. Really upset about this. As wasn't even asked to take pic let alone have it published. Might have felt differently if i was asked, but next conference i go to will be taking pics of everyone and everything and will publish my own conference "memories"

**CoopersPick** · 20 September 2011, 12:40 am

well this certainly seems awkard. I am sure they meant no harm by it.

AK · 20 September 2011, 1:54 am

All I can say is I know for a certainty Stephen Corfman would never do anything unethical.. I trust that guy with my social security number, Literally....
On the other hand I know Lenny pretty well and is also a very solid webmaster along with being a great person in general. I hope GPWA down the road considers getting consent from webmaster prior to publishing names/images again. I'm positive no harm was meant by it but it did indeed cause harm to Lenny as he is obviously uncomfortable with it.

**vinism** · 20 September 2011, 9:03 am

Just wanted to let everyone know that we are very careful about publishing images in the GPWA Times magazine. Generally speaking, we use three types of photos/images. We purchase images from an agency. We ask interview subjects or authors for photos. And we use photos taken at conferences, which we consider public events. When it comes to identifying people in the magazine, we try to be very careful -- especially with Americans. We never identify American webmasters/affiliates by their full name unless we have permission to do so. In this case, we followed our policy and did not identify Lenny by his full name either.

If we don't have names, we will sometimes substitute GPWA screen names. It is never our goal to "out" someone. And we regret that in this instance, this is what has happened. We will examine our policy again to see if we can keep something like this from happening in the future.

**FictionNet** · 20 September 2011, 9:08 am

I haven´t seen the latest mag yet so I haven´t seen the pic. If it was taken at a conference then I don´t think there´s any room for complaint - you don´t go to a conference where we all know loads of pics are taken and published if you want your face hiding away. But as I said, I haven´t seen the pic so I don´t know if this is the case - it may be a private pic with a sheep

Perhaps a private PM to Michael would´ve been a better approach? Just my €0.02

**vinism** · 20 September 2011, 9:13 am

I'm sorry I wasn't clear about this in my earlier post. This picture was taken at a conference.

Originally Posted by FictionNet

I haven´t seen the latest mag yet so I haven´t seen the pic. If it was taken at a conference then I don´t think there´s any room for complaint - you don´t go to a conference where we all know loads of pics are taken and published if you want your face hiding away. But as I said, I haven´t seen the pic so I don´t know if this is the case - it may be a private pic with a sheep

Perhaps a private PM to Michael would´ve been a better approach? Just my €0.02

**Renee** · 21 September 2011, 12:23 am

I would never have known it was you if you didn't point it out - I had to sit there looking through the photos for 10 mins to realise which photo you were talking about. The photo isn't even front on and you can only see a quarter of your face from the side. I think you've drawn more attention to yourself by making this thread.

I have to agree with FictionNet though. There have been some pretty shocking photos of myself published that I wish were not, but regardless of the issue, if you're going to a conference where you know photos are taken and published, there isn't any room for complaint.

**mojo** · 21 September 2011, 3:11 am

Originally Posted by Renee

I would never have known it was you if you didn't point it out - I had to sit there looking through the photos for 10 mins to realise which photo you were talking about. The photo isn't even front on and you can only see a quarter of your face from the side. I think you've drawn more attention to yourself by making this thread.

I have to agree with FictionNet though. There have been some pretty shocking photos of myself published that I wish were not, but regardless of the issue, if you're going to a conference where you know photos are taken and published, there isn't any room for complaint.

I don't think it's that simple. Or very nice for that matter. Where does it say that anyone is allowed to publish anything and everything that happens at an event? We are in the gambling business. What happens here stays here comes to mind. lol. It kind of makes the publisher look a little sketchy. You will avoid that person with the camera, maybe break it ala Sean Penn. LOL

If you attend a conference or any public venue, yes, you can be photographed. Most photos are edited and confirmed before publishing. That's why we see digital blackouts on things. There may be a logo removed or a persons face digitalized. Vin could probably educate us more about that.

I would think that the photographer would greet it's subject and say something like, hey, I'm from the GPWA and would like to include you in this edition. The subject would have the right to refuse.

That didn't happen here. Lenny is miffed and rightfully so. Because you sign up and become a member here does not mean that anything goes. The posts here are owned by gpwa so live with it. Photos however and using usernames in a magizine are not part of the deal. If this person wasn't a member here, the GPWA would not have his name, or his username. I feel the poster here has every right to be upset.

Not to say that GPWA meant any harm at all. They did not. I hope this is a learning experience for the GPWA to get permission before printing members photos. It's something that can't be taken back.

I once saw a photo, maybe on Calvin Ayre, of a popular Affiliate Manager sprawled out, face down, spread eagle on the street shitfaced drunk. Talk about shocking.

But hey, if you conference attendees are ok with all of the decadence we've seen in photos published online over the years in the online gambling world, who am I to say?

I support lenny and understand his frustration.

**Renee** · 21 September 2011, 3:19 am

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law

This is wikipedia, so it's questionable, but this might interest you. I have purposely highlighted a part in red.

United States

Local, state, and national laws may exist pertaining to photographing or videotaping. Laws that are present may vary from one jurisdiction to the next, and may be stricter in some places and more lenient in others, so it is important to know the laws present in one's location. Typical laws in the United States are as follows:

[edit] Public property
It is generally legal to photograph or videotape anything and anyone on any public property, with some exceptions made for certain portions of military installations that have national security sensitivity.[38]

Photographing or videotaping a tourist attraction, whether publicly or privately owned, is generally considered legal, unless explicitly prohibited by posted signs.

[edit] Private property
Photography may be prohibited or restricted within an area of property by the property owner.[38] At the same time, a property owner generally cannot restrict the photographing of the property by individuals who are not located within the bounds of the property.[38]

Photography on private property that is generally open to the public (e.g., a shopping mall) is usually permitted unless explicitly prohibited by posted signs. Even if no such signs are posted, the property owner or agent can ask a person to stop photographing, and if the person refuses to do so, the owner or can ask the person to leave the property. In some jurisdictions, a person who refuses to leave can be arrested for criminal trespass, and many jurisdictions recognize the common-law right to use reasonable force to remove a trespasser; a person who forcibly resists a lawful removal may be liable for battery, assault, or both.[39]

Entry onto other private property usually requires permission from the property owner.

Some jurisdictions have laws regarding filming while in a hospital or health care facility. Where permitted, such filming may be useful in gathering evidence in cases of abuse, neglect, or malpractice.

[edit] Privacy issues

Further information: Privacy laws of the United States

Members of the public have virtually no privacy rights when they are in public places. Basically, anyone can be photographed without consent except when they have secluded themselves in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms, medical facilities, or inside a private residence. This legal standard applies regardless of the age, sex, or other attributes of the individual.[citation needed]

Photographing private property from within the public domain is legal, with the exception of an area that is generally regarded as private, such as a bedroom, bathroom, or hotel room.[38] In some states, there is no definition of "private," in which case there is a general expectation of privacy. Should the subjects not attempt to conceal their private affairs, their actions immediately become public to a photographer using an average lens or video camera.

Many places have laws prohibiting photographing private areas under a person's clothing without that person's permission. This also applies to any filming of another within a public restroom or locker room. Some jurisdictions have completely banned the use of a camera phone within a restroom or locker room in order to prevent this. It is expected that all 50 states will eventually have laws pertaining to surreptitiously filming a person's genitalia. The United States enacted the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004 to punish those who intentionally capture an individual's private areas without consent, when the person knew the subject had an expectation of privacy.[40]
Additionally, state laws have been passed addressing the issue as well.[41]

[edit] Commercial photographyIn certain locations, such as California State Parks, commercial photography requires a permit and sometimes proof of insurance.[42][43] In places such as the city of Hermosa Beach in California, commercial photography on both public property and private property is subject to permit regulations and possibly also insurance requirements.[44]

At the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park, commercial photography requires a permit under certain circumstances.[45] For photography that involves the advertising of a commercial product or service, or photography that involves sets or props or models, a permit is required.[45] In addition, if the photography has aspects that may be disruptive to others, such as additional equipment or a significant number of personnel or the use of public areas for more than four hours, it is necessary to obtain a permit.[45] If a photographer or related personnel need to access an area during a time when the area is normally closed, or if access to a restricted area is involved, the photography requires a permit.[45] For commercial portrait photographers, there is a streamlined process for photography permits.[45] In the case of National Park system units, commercial filming and/or audio recording requires a permit and liability insurance.[46] Still photography that uses models or props for the purpose of commercial advertising requires a permit and proof of insurance.[46][47]

If a photograph shows private property in such a manner that a viewer of the photograph can identify the owner of the property, the ASMP (American Society of Media Photographers, Inc.) recommends that a property release should be used if the photograph is to be used for advertising and/or commercial purposes.[48] According to the ASMP, a property release may be a requirement in such a situation.[48]

[edit] Other issuesPhotographing accident scenes and law enforcement activities is usually legal.[38] At the same time, one must not hinder the operations of law enforcement, medical, emergency, or security personnel by filming.

Any filming with the intent of doing unlawful harm against a subject may be a violation of the law in itself.

**mojo** · 21 September 2011, 3:47 am

Members of the public have virtually no privacy rights when they are in public places. Basically, anyone can be photographed without consent except when they have secluded themselves in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms, medical facilities, or inside a private residence. This legal standard applies regardless of the age, sex, or other attributes of the individual.[citation needed]

Thanks Renee. Good to know. Technically and legally I suppose that applies.

It's funny to me, we are the gambling industry. What is the capital of gambling? Vegas. What is their motto? What happens here stays here.

Maybe that applies to online gambling, but only when it suits us? Lenny probably doesn't have a leg to stand on legally, who knows. Neither would anyone in Vegas. But what about trust? Would anyone who was just trying to be low key go back to Vegas if they saw their pic in some magazine? Course not. Discretion is the key. Personally, I am really tired of the constant pictures of people drunk and then they scream about professionalism.

Reading this, will someone post my chats? Or my emails? I read wiki, those are up for grabs to. Where is the line?

It's funny how we have absolutly no boundry's on some things. But we demand boundry's if we question things.

It's not about you Renee,. Just venting again. Thanks for listening.

**mojo** · 21 September 2011, 4:18 am

Forgot to add above, I completely support lenny's right to not be in the magazine. No matter what the definition is, please be more sensitive.

Regardless of my ranting, not every member wants to be in the magazine. I know the GPWA would absolutly respect that had they known. It was a mistake.

AK · 21 September 2011, 4:33 am

Originally Posted by Renee

I would never have known it was you if you didn't point it out - I had to sit there looking through the photos for 10 mins to realise which photo you were talking about. The photo isn't even front on and you can only see a quarter of your face from the side. I think you've drawn more attention to yourself by making this thread.

I have to agree with FictionNet though. There have been some pretty shocking photos of myself published that I wish were not, but regardless of the issue, if you're going to a conference where you know photos are taken and published, there isn't any room for complaint.

Renee, Can I grope your tits ? What I thought was a men's only magazine has turned into my favorite porn mag. Keep up the great work.

signed

ak

**mojo** · 21 September 2011, 4:40 am

Originally Posted by AK

Renee, Can I grope your tits ? What I thought was a men's only magazine has turned into my favorite porn mag. Keep up the great work.

signed

ak

I will grope your membership since you think you can talk to a woman like that here.

AK · 21 September 2011, 5:02 am

Originally Posted by mojo

I will grope your membership since you think you can talk to a woman like that here.

"nu uh my truck is bigger , no i got a bigger truck , nu uh my girlfriend is bigger "

**mojo** · 21 September 2011, 5:08 am

Back on track. With respect to lenny.

Looking forward to Vin explaining and educating us on the protocols of photos in magazines.

**MichaelCorfman** · 21 September 2011, 6:31 am

Vin posted a reply after discussing the situation here yesterday. We both thought it was appropriate for him to respond given that he is the managing editor for the magazine and so is the person most directly involved in oversight in matters like this. However, I'd also like to respond as well.

First of all, Lenny, you made the following request in your post:

Originally Posted by lenny

Please never include photos of me, forum user names, or my name in your future publication without prior written concent.

I'd like to start by stating that you can be sure we will never knowingly publish a photograph that includes you again. I say knowingly because there could be cases where we might not know. For example, in a photograph of a large number of people in a public setting it is not possible to identify everyone in a picture.

From a journalistic point of view we do want to cover and provide a flavor of industry events. But we certainly don't want to upset folks as is the case with Lenny here. Up until now I think we've done a good job on that front.

I also think it is appropriate to point out that we don't take all of the photos we publish ourselves. While I was at the event Lenny attended, I didn't take many pictures myself. So our editorial team asked others if they had photos that could be published in the magazine in our coverage about the event. The photo in question and the names of the individuals in the photo were provided to us for our use in the magazine. However, because we have never felt it appropriate to identify webmasters to others outside the industry, we have never published full names or identified where a webmaster lives without explicit permission. That was the case with the photo that included Lenny. So he was identified simply as "Lenny S." without any further information being provided in the interest of preserving general anonymity outside of folks who already knew him.

In an earlier post in this thread Mojo made the following comment:

Originally Posted by mojo

If this person wasn't a member here, the GPWA would not have his name, or his username.

This is not actually correct. When the editorial team put together the magazine they had no knowledge of whether or not Lenny was a GPWA member, they did not know his GPWA username, and they did not know who he was based on his participation here.

I would like to be clear that I'm not happy that what transpired upset a member here.

Michael

**vinism** · 21 September 2011, 7:00 am

Mojo,

The protocol surrounding photos is pretty well established in media circles. Here were the standards we used at USA TODAY and CNN, which I've brought over to the GPWA.

1. Photos in public places and industry events don't require the permission of anyone. The moment a person enters that environment, they can be photographed. That means if you're walking down the street, or in a public park, or in a conference setting, there is no inherent right to privacy.

2. Publications and photographers generally don't ask the permission of anyone being photographed or videotaped in this sort of setting. It becomes too burdensome on the process.

3. No reputable news organization would blur out someone's face in a photo unless there was a compelling reason -- like the mob was looking for them, or it was protecting the identity of someone who faced real danger from the publication of the photo. Generally speaking though, that's not a concern that rises up in photos taken in a public settings.

4. If people don't want to be photographed, photographers generally respect that. The only exception is when public officials are attempting to prevent photography in clearly public spaces. Then photographers tend to put up a stink.

5. When a photo is published, publications try to identify people in the picture. But they almost never go back and ask for permission to run the picture.

Originally Posted by mojo

Back on track. With respect to lenny.

Looking forward to Vin explaining and educating us on the protocols of photos in magazines.

**robertmedl** · 21 September 2011, 9:19 am

A few things.

First, photos in public places and industry events don't require the permission of anyone to publish. Period. Isn't this common knowledge? If not, it certainly should be from anyone that is so concerned about their privacy.

Originally Posted by lenny

... and if there is legal action to be had you will hear from my lawyers.

You lost all credibility here, pal. Anyone who claims legal action from their "lawyers" (plural, no less -- as if you have a team waiting by!) is full of it. People that have a team of lawyers (or even one) simply act and sue -- they don't threaten.

Originally Posted by lenny

But just goes to show you have no thoughts and dont give a f*** about anything but your website or magazine..Very disappointed but not surprised

You're totally out of line with this comment. It's simply ridiculous to make this claim as evidenced by the GPWA's long-running site and magazine. If your statement were true, webmasters would abandon the GPWA in a heartbeat, never to return. Get a clue. And cancel your GPWA membership.

Originally Posted by lenny

...tack...

Finally, it's 'tact'. Have your lawyers get you a dictionary.

Thread: WTF Gpwa

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

WTF Gpwa

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to lenny For This Useful Post:

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MichaelCorfman For This Useful Post:

The Following User Says Thank You to vinism For This Useful Post:

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions