Thai law and Internet.

by **jorg** » February 2, 2010, 11:39 am

Not knowing anything about the legal issue, but I understand you wrote the owners of this bar (two farang ladies) only one time? How long ago you send the e-mail? Maybe it is time to send a reminder, and stating there you are exploring the possibility for legal action. Not threatening, just explaining to them your reason for this, maybe then they are willing to remove the pictures. Also look if you can find alternate e-mail addresses or a phone number to call them. I cannot imagine they will make a big problem about a few pictures.

by **SanukJoe** » February 2, 2010, 12:22 pm

maaka wrote:or as you say pay for new photos..but then why should he have to pay..
It's the sanuk way, OP wants the photos taken out, supply them with new photos and OP got what he wants.
I could do it (the photos) with my digital camera and send them to the bar owners email, easy, just I don't live in Phuket.

I would expect a bar, or any other organisation that was using photos for promotion, to either hire girls to do that job of posing for the pic, actors if you like, or the bar owner to have some sort of contract between him and his staff in order to be allowed to show your face.
You're not serious on this one are you? Any employee of any firm should appear on photos of the staff of that firm. When one employee leaves the firm he/she cannot expect that the pic with all staff be removed.

If I was the bar owner I would put under the photos the date they were taken, like photo taken in 2005, no way anyone can do anything about it as it is true, not defaming, insulting or anyway intolerant.

Therefor my advise to offer new photos, nice for the bar (fresh photos) and resulting in removal of the old photos that upset OP and his wife. Result 100%, costs not a lot :-k

Joe

by **maaka** » February 2, 2010, 1:47 pm

I have no problems if a date was under the photo, but I am not sure that is the case here..and yes I would still hold onto my opinion regarding hiring actors , or having some kind of contract..and why cannot a person expect to have pic removed after they have left the firm?..isnt it sort of false advertising to show a woman as there, when she hasnt been there for 3 yrs..like you say it is simple enought to take some new snaps, so why doesnt the bar owner do that..this is not like some sort of high school year book, its advertising a place with a past employee's face shown..,,

anyway nice debate, and I am sure between your approach Joe, and mine, and others too mentioned here, things will hopefully be resolved.

I am one of those people who come from a small community, where you ask if you want to use a persons words, or picture on anything old or new. What may seem a small thing to some people, means a heck of alot to the likes of me, and people like Metalic, the OP...

once again I will write a wee disclaimer to say, anything I write on this site is only my mere opinion, and is not to be taken as legal advice or otherwise..

by **BobHelm** » February 2, 2010, 2:07 pm

maaka wrote:not sure what OP means, and will try and track down some caselaw Bob, even though I am sure it is hard to find, its all defamation stuff, like Stratton Oakmont Inc v Prodigy Services Co. 1995..which is not really relevant..

OP stands for Original Poster, sorry maaka... :oops:

Your first post on this thread certainly (to me) seemed to indicate that there was some sort of legal recourse to the situation that the Original Poster outlined. I still do not believe that is the case. I fully accept that altering an image to mislead or making an inaccurate claim about it could give someone a legal case.
I see that you have backed away from the court approach & suggested other 'strong arm' tactics instead.
Personally I do not believe these will be any more successful than the courts & could end up being a serious escalation with no possibility of a solution that metalic will in any way see as acceptable.
metalic can, obviously, take any advice he cares to but, I would suggest, a selection of a non-confrontational approach is 100% more likely to get an acceptable result than taking a "hard line".
I know from my own personal experiences that if someone starts a sentence with..
I have a problem, can you help, please
They are far more likely to get my help than if they start it with..
I know my rights & you will do what I say now
Especially if I also realise that 'their rights' are non-existant or flimsy...

by **parrot** » February 2, 2010, 5:12 pm

Try this argument: the people on stage at miss-ladyboy-international-2010-udon-thani-t16377.html obviously knew their photo was being taken. I'll guess though that no one pulled them aside and said, "we're publishing your photo on the internet". Now let's say in a few years, one of those lovlies has a change of heart and prefers to be know by his birth gender.....let's say he's running for a political office and finds his chances of winning lessened if anyone sees those photos. The photos have long been published on the internet, perhaps emailed any number of times, and probably printed for historical records for the city of Udon.
The mere fact that the person was photographed on the stage of a transvestite contest doesn't prove that the person was a transvestite, just as the photo of the girl in the bar doesn't infer any extracurricular activities on her part. Just as the lovlies at enter-the-dragon-bar-t5084-90.html or
http://www.google.co.th/imgres?imgurl=h ... CA8Q9QEwAw are associated with a local bar, but beyond that, you'd have to use your imagination for any extra-curricular activities.

Certainly, it'd be a nice gesture on the part of the two owners to remove the offending photo, but I'd be surprised if there's any legal requirement to do so. If there were, I'm sure a person like Michael Phelps would love to have all those bong photos removed as well.

by **maaka** » February 3, 2010, 1:32 am

thanks Bob , no I didnt so much as back away from the court approach , but just suggested that there were cheaper ways. I was also alittle reluctant to offer any further opinions of a legally begally nature because other members raised questions in that regard..I do not believe sitting outside a bar with a sign is strong arm tactics, but a passive approach, cetainly non aggressive..

anyway from what I can gather as of 2007 thailands Internet law was almost non existant. There was a Cyber Crimes Bill before the parliament in 2007, but where that went I do not know. It seems that a person must use criminal law to put a case regarding crimes committed over Thailands internet...I believe Siam Legal of Bangkok deal with Internet Law, perhaps Metalic can enquire there should he have no success via other means, and seek to push on with his cause..

I would be interest in a comment from our Issan Lawyers on this issue.

by **maaka** » February 4, 2010, 2:34 am

Parrot your argument is ok to a point, however its not the fact the Mrs Metalic ( OP's wife) worked in a bar and had her photo taken, that is the issue, its about this bar continuing to show her on their internet webpage as still working for that bar. However, the fact is that she has since moved on in life over the last 3yrs, she has married a farang, her status in society has been elevated, she is now a respected married woman, but these photos of her are still advertising her as working in a bar, when she doesnt, and this is now an affront to her personal dignity, and to her husband. It continues to label her as a bargirl, and Bargirls are seen by many as a lower class of woman shall I say, however Mrs Metalic is no longer a bargirl, and is now a respected married woman. Thats where I see the nexus of this matter.

Under english law ' Battery ' is described as ' an affront to ones personal dignity ' , but whether there is a similar in thai law that is a question for a thai lawyer.

by **SanukJoe** » February 4, 2010, 12:31 pm

Maaka, a photo is always history, whether it is taken yesterday or 3 years ago.
You state that the photo suggests that Mrs. OP still works for that bar... does it say so or is it your colorful imagination?
I mean a photo says only that those people on it were in that bar at a certain time in history and unless Mrs. OP behaves like a bar girl one could not say she is, or? I went several times with my wife to a bar and still she is not a bar girl. So a photo of a woman in a bar (in a normal pose) does not suggest she is working there as a bar girl.

Again I state that if the bar owner puts the date of the photo under it there is nothing to do about it and therefor I suggested already to supply new photos to the bar and take the old ones out. Easy and simple!

Joe

by **parrot** » February 4, 2010, 2:14 pm

A lawyer I'm not, but a bettin' man I am. Beer and burger - decision against the girl/her husband.

by **BobHelm** » February 4, 2010, 2:32 pm

You will not get any argument from me parrot, I reckon your bet is safe.
As far as I can see there is absolutely no intention to deceive involved in the posting of the picture.
Publishing a picture without any caption on the internet is NOT illegal.
Yeap, it might be nice if the pictures were removed, amended or clearly marked as being "old" photos, but the poster nor webmaster are under any legal obligation to do so.
Hence an appeal to "better nature" or alternative "soft" approach is the only way this will be resolved to the satisfaction of metalic.

by **metalic** » February 4, 2010, 3:18 pm

Joe ,of course a photo is a history, but mine photos is my history.
The promblem is not about what kind of work was emloyed wife those time. The promblem is that we dont accept
they have uploaded our pictures on their web site.
Our photos are not on main page . They have a gallery page too and they have put there photos of customers, friends and staff. There are two WFs photos as a staff member and four me with her as customers ,all in normal pose and they have dated them.
In my country (Europe) if you put someones pictures on your web site without he or her accept on this , its criminal.
By my point of view, the crime starts from the moment you know already that he or her is not accepted on this.
It seems to me rape of his personality

by **Astana** » February 4, 2010, 5:29 pm

metalic wrote:Joe ,of course a photo is a history, but mine photos is my history.
The promblem is not about what kind of work was emloyed wife those time. The promblem is that we dont accept
they have uploaded our pictures on their web site.
Our photos are not on main page . They have a gallery page too and they have put there photos of customers, friends and staff. There are two WFs photos as a staff member and four me with her as customers ,all in normal pose and they have dated them.
In my country (Europe) if you put someones pictures on your web site without he or her accept on this , its criminal.
By my point of view, the crime starts from the moment you know already that he or her is not accepted on this.
It seems to me rape of his personality

Metalic you are now moving into the area of copyright, where most countries adhere to the Berne copyright convention. Copyright law is mostly civil law and usually not criminal law. Consequently if you felt that the website had violated copyright in some form you could possibly sue but this is often difficult due to which side and set of evidence the judge, tribunal etc. etc. accepts or believes more, though the rules vary based on the type of infringement. In civil cases you can even be made to testify against your own interests. Unless you have deep pockets and are intent on pushing forward to resolve what might be seen as an emotive and personal issue it is more likely that you would lose due to a fair use argument, wherein you were in a public, licensed premise where the owner or their agent can take photograph's Ad finitum of the bar, staff and patrons without infringing on copyright laws.

by **maaka** » February 5, 2010, 8:43 am

yes Joe I have a colorful imagination, and I was speaking fiquratively, as I didnt have much to go on except the OP, which said his wife worked there 3 yrs ago, and they were still showing pics of her, and that Metalic was deeply concerned over it. Turns out more has now come to light as to what is the center of his concerns are.

Furthermore, I dont really care whether I am right and you are wrong, or vicea versa, and that goes for Parrot, Bob and Astana. Indeed, your opinion /ideas have considerable merit, and I respect that. Indeed, I am sure there are guys here with law degrees, and whats more Bob and Lee own / operate a website with staff in Thailand, and so are far more up with the play than I ever will be.

However, I will always throw in my ideas and opinions here, in a hope that somewhere in amongst my / our ramblings, that Metalic will pickup on an idea, a sentence, a contact name, a new way of looking at this matter, that will see him take a path that leads to a final solution, and an outcome, that he and his wife are content with.

My people have a saying when translated says, ' from communication comes knowledge, and from knowledge comes enlightenment, and from enlightenment comes understanding, and from understanding comes life everlasting "

we discuss things openly as a family. good viewpoints and bad are put across, everyone has their say, and a decision is arrive at. my family is one of many belonging to a subtribe. here each family elder discuss matters and air thier views good or bad, and reach a decision for the good of the subtribe. Our subtribe is one of three belonging to a tribe, where again matters affecting the whole tribe is discussed openly without recrimination, and a decision is arrived at for the good of the whole tribe, but really stems right back to each family member..

so whether or not I am right or wrong here, is of no moment to me. It is from the dissussion itself that hopefully Metalic find a way forward. I have given my opinion here not to say I am right, or that I am some sort of know all, but to give Metalic as many different viewpoints/options/ideas as possible, that will help him find a pathway that leds to a settlement that suits HIM. If he ends up taking your advice and reaches a happy outcome, I will be just as happy for him. Should he choose a legal course then I have thrown in afew curved balls from out field, that may or may not apply to his situation..

its hard to judge a person on these ruddy computers, but I hope that helps everyone understand where I am coming from. In addition, I feel for Metalic also because we as a people have a personal dignity, we call it Mana, which goes to our very core, and to step on someone elses Mana, to use things without his/ her permission, has in the past started actual wars between our tribes..

by **SanukJoe** » February 5, 2010, 11:26 am

metalic wrote:Joe ,of course a photo is a history, but mine photos is my history.

YOUR photo's are only photo's taken by YOU. The bar owner took photo's on which you appear, that doesn't make it YOUR photo, it is THEIR photo and they have the copyright so they can put it on THEIR website.

The promblem is not about what kind of work was emloyed wife those time. The promblem is that we dont accept
they have uploaded our pictures on their web site.
Our photos are not on main page . They have a gallery page too and they have put there photos of customers, friends and staff. There are two WFs photos as a staff member and four me with her as customers ,all in normal pose and they have dated them.

There you go, nothing legally can be done.

In my country (Europe) if you put someones pictures on your web site without he or her accept on this , its criminal.
By my point of view, the crime starts from the moment you know already that he or her is not accepted on this.
It seems to me rape of his personality

As I stated before a photo is history and the fact that they are dated makes clear from what period of time the photo's date. Any legal attempt to stop it will be useless.

Don't make it too complicated, you are upset so is your wife, I fully understand that. You asked in your original post if there is a Thai legal way to take the photo's off the website.
The answer is: NO legal way as there is no illegal act done.

Think of Paparazzi, they take photo's of celebrities in whatever place or position and believe me, they will not ask for permission to publish the photo's in newspapers, magazines, websites.

Cool down and go the soft way, this is Thailand, the soft way works, the hard way does not.

Joe

by **metalic** » April 25, 2010, 2:47 pm

"Cool down and go the soft way, this is Thailand, the soft way works, the hard way does not."

I think you are exactly right Joe!I will follow your way.
Thanks all for your answer!

Thai law and Internet.

Re: Thai law and Internet.

Re: Thai law and Internet.

Re: Thai law and Internet.

Re: Thai law and Internet.

Re: Thai law and Internet.

Re: Thai law and Internet.

Re: Thai law and Internet.

Re: Thai law and Internet.

Re: Thai law and Internet.

Re: Thai law and Internet.

Re: Thai law and Internet.

Re: Thai law and Internet.

Re: Thai law and Internet.

Re: Thai law and Internet.

Re: Thai law and Internet.

Who is online