Re: Flickr and alt

On Aug 19, 2008, at 5:44 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

> On Aug 19, 2008, at 2:06 AM, Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd) wrote:
>> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>> Flickr is one of many public sites featuring user-generated  
>>> content that is mostly shared with friends and family, but which  
>>> is mostly visible to the general public. In terms of our moral  
>>> sensibilities about accessibility, it is more like a public  
>>> bulletin board where anyone can put up a poster, than like the  
>>> professional signage in a store or school.
>> I do not use Flickr, but I do use Picasaweb, which I believe
>> is analogous.  On Picasaweb, albums can be public or private.
>> Would those who seek to differentiate between public and
>> private facilities in terms of accessibility therefore
>> accept that a /public/ album is /public/, and must therefore
>> meet all legal accessibility requirements ?
> It's not individuals who seek to differentiate, but also the law. My  
> best understanding is that US law on this includes two factors:
> 1) The facility in question is a public accommodation. This is a  
> legal term of art, and doesn't just mean "open / visible to the  
> public". For instance, posting a sign in my yard does not constitute  
> a public accommodation, even if it is visible to the general public.  
> But an apartment building could be, even if you have to live there  
> to be in the building at all.

To correct myself, besides public accommodations, workplaces are also  
subject to various Americans with Disabilities Act requirements, but I  
don't think that affects the substance of my point.

> 2) The responsible party is an institution such as a government or a  
> large business - small businesses and individuals are excepted.
> The way I see it, an individual posting a public photo on Flickr is  
> neither creating a public accommodation, nor acting as an  
> institution, in most cases. Nor is Flickr responsible, because they  
> are just providing a public forum, in the same way that a grocery  
> store might provide a public bulletin board.
> I believe in this case, the law is properly aligned with the correct  
> ethical result, which is that it ought not be mandatory for many  
> private individuals to incur extra cost in money or time for the  
> sake of accessibility, but it is mandatory for big businesses or  
> governments.
> Regards,
> Maciej

Received on Wednesday, 20 August 2008 00:54:11 UTC