gmalivuk wrote:It is possible to say that you don't mind people adding their own captions to your pictures. It's even possible specifically invite people to say what they'd do to your body with or without your consent, if that's the sort of thing you're into. At no point would you have to lay out the exact word-for-word content of an acceptable message.
Those are things that the original poster can do to say what is or isn't acceptable. The question was how someone else could inquire about what is or isn't acceptable (without in the process saying something potentially unacceptable). And implied in the issue is what the default assumptions should be if nothing is explicitly stated on the matter. Are people only allowed to say things which someone has previously declared welcome, and should keep quiet otherwise? Or only disallowed from saying things that have been explicitly declared unwelcome, and may say anything else otherwise?
When I say "rapey" I mean specifcally having to do with rape. As in, explicitly describing the person as being raped or deserving rape.
Ok thanks, that clears that up. (Although then the idea of someone making such comments with consent
seems to verge on incoherence).
But unsolicited sexual advances added to someone else's intellectual property without their consent is also a shitty thing to do, and if you can't think of any other way to hit on someone I feel bad for potential targets of your "romantic" advances.
I wonder if maybe I'm not familiar with the kind of sites you're thinking of, because you said "comments" before and now you're saying "captions", and "someone else's intellectual property". I've been picturing a scenario where someone posts something on a site, and then other people are able to post comments in response to that thing, which can turn into discussions — something like YouTube or Imgur or Reddit. A "caption" to me sounds like something only the original poster should be able to add, something that appears to be a part of the original content rather than commentary on it. What sites are you thinking of and how do they function?
Either way, if someone's intentionally posting their "intellectual property" in a place that people are able to add comments/captions/whatever to it, then "that's my intellectual property!" stops being much of a defense against anything. They're of course free to react and respond to those comments however they like, or even take down their submission from public scrutiny. But anything aside from response or withdrawal is like putting a statue in a public square and then trying to control what the people looking at it are saying about it. The sculptor may certainly feel hurt by some of the things said and may argue with other people about the things they say, and can take the statue down if they're tired of what people are saying about it, or exhibit it only in private areas where only select people whose opinions they value are able to see and discuss it. But if they put it up in the public square where everyone can see and talk about it, nobody has any obligation to curb their speech to only things that the artist would approve of.
Also I hope that that "you" you're using is a generic one and not directed at me personally.