Courts awarded several people who sued that they were photographed without consent and now companies are stepping up.
This notice can still be contested. Consent can only be given by verbal or written agreement. The notice merely serves to otherwise reduce the number of people who will attempt to sue.
They are trying to counter any lawsuits when they publish your photos online or use you for “marketing”…this is akin to that “Parking at owners Risk”.
How does one enter a premise?
a lot of clubs do this. Wanapenda kuchukua picha then post it on their socials for marketing. Even if you didn’t consent. I’ve had several people forward pictures to me of me I didn’t know existed online.
Consent can only be given by verbal or written agreement.
I beg to differ. By entering the premises is proof you have consented.
Its like diving into a swimming pool . You must get wet
Through a door hehehe or roof
No way!
Yep, same logic when you press “enter” when told by Zoom “recording in progress” press enter or leave
SMH! No.
If someone was standing infront of the sign and his counterparty didn’t see it, yet entered the premise, did he give consent? How, pray do tell, does one give consent to something that is unknown to them?
Signage doesn’t explicitly mean the owners of the premises are absolved of negligence. Just because they warned you, doesn’t mean they are off the hook. Otherwise, bungee jumping guys and any other form of risky activity wouldn’t need you to sign a waiver, a simple sign would be enough? Right? That’s what you mean?
It is the way
Why do cigarettes have those ugly warning pictures on their packets?
The management eg of bars don’t use photos captured whilst outside their premises.
Cigarettes are pure poison
USA wants data. We are slaves
And so is mchele in beer guka
To deter smoking