Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

slayez06 OP t1_iucsagq wrote

Reply to comment by wclevel47nice in My cousin works for Gibson and just built a custom guitar for Elton John by slayez06

then they should get nda's. Seriously people miss understand privacy laws all the time..Hell there are people who think musk bought twitter just to ban the guy tracking his plane...because there was 0 legal recourse for that.gif

−5

NeverPlayF6 t1_iucvedt wrote

Ah yes... the "free speech means I can say whatever I want with no consequences" defense.

0 legal recourse does not mean "free from consequences."

4

slayez06 OP t1_iue74wu wrote

free speech means you don't go to jail and speech and privacy laws are two totally separate things.

1

NeverPlayF6 t1_iuf143p wrote

Swing! And a miss! You were so close, too.

It's a shame Reddit doesn't have crayon fonts...

OK. Here we go. Just because there is no NDA does not mean that OP can post these pictures completely free from consequences.

Let's say that Elton John sees his name attached to a fairly crappy looking guitar. And then he says "hey, Gibson, why are your people posting all of these pics of my guitar? And why does it look like shit?"

And then the Gibson exec sends out an email to all the managers asking, "why are people posting pics of partially finished guitars that look like shit, and claiming that Elton John is actually paying for this crap? Find out who did it and fire them. They should know better."

And then OP is fired. Consequences for actions... no NDA in sight.

I have seen several people fired for posting pictures of stuff at work.

Much like free speech doesn't mean I can tell my boss to "eat a dick" without expecting to get written up/fired... not having an NDA does not give people the freedom to post pictures of things at work and not suffer consequences. All it means is that Elton John can't sue for breach of contract or recover losses from posting the pictures.

1

slayez06 OP t1_iufd3ws wrote

Nobody said free speech and it wouldn't be a free speech issue I would be a privacy issue and that is where you were so close too. Also self proclaimed Montana lawyers have piped in as well and said it's not a right to work state and more like a union. The worst that could happen is policy change and training.

Also I don't think it looks like shit because I know exactly what was done to it and what was lacking still.. dam thing will be perfect by the time it's finished.

1

NeverPlayF6 t1_iuftcu1 wrote

I didn't say it looked like shit. I was giving a hypothetical based on what people might think.

And no- if there is a company policy against posting pictures or if posting the pictures brings severe consequences to the company, then there will absolutely be consequences for the poster. I've worked for union companies. Theybalways have a catch-all policy for "don't do stupid things." If you fuck up so bad that you cause serious problems, then it can absolutely cause problems.

Unless explicit permission has been given, then posting pictures like this is a horrible idea. No matter how many "but if... but iffs..." you come up with, the question is legitimate and it absolutely does not fall to "tHeRe ISn'T aN nDA!!1!1!!"

Maybe the company does allow this. Then fantastic. But that info wasn't provided. So, unquestionably, there is a concern about posting these pictures.

1