Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 26, 2009, 6:14 PM   #111
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,646
Default

This thing keeps getting off track. Going off in tangents not really related to the subject of this thread. Its about the POSTING of the pictures and NOT the taking of them so much. AFTER you have taken your sly candid shot, then whats wrong with approaching that person, even showing them the result and asking if you can then use that pic or pics for publication? You dont need a signed document, just the persons verbal ok would be good enough. Its only between the photographer and the subject so now the photographer can post that pic knowing its ok with the subject. Without that ok I dont think the pic should be allowed to be published. It seems there is no law to prevent it, so when this kind of thing continues, I personally hope it will cause a law to be written to prevent exactly that situation. By the way "Light reflects off of you into my eye or my lens. That is entirely passive on your part. That light does not belong to you. You are not the source of that light. The only control you have over it is along the lines of where you choose to part your hair." What are you talking about tcav? Try to keep on topic. Who is talking about light beams and cameras? Its about pixels and ink.
Bynx is offline  
Old Sep 26, 2009, 6:32 PM   #112
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Once again, if I can see it, I'm free to photograph it. It might be discourteous and disrespectful of me to post it on-line, but I have the right to do so (within the limits of the fair use policy of the image hosting service.) Trying to justify the restriction of my right to take a photograph, and to do with it as I see fit, is unjust. The idea that someone should be able to prohibit the use of their image that I have captured denies the nature of light. You can only control how light reflects off of you; once it does so, you can't control how it's used.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline  
Old Sep 26, 2009, 6:46 PM   #113
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,646
Default

When people look at a picture of someone, who else besides you thinks "Oh, what interesting light beams". Light beams analogy is, at best silly. Its obvious you cant stop people from taking pictures of other people, and who would want to? For that candid shot would be lost, as Craig put it, if we had to ask first then shoot. But when it comes to using that image the person (subject) of that image should have some say whether it gets published. I call it being a respectful decent human being. I photographed a house in my neighborhood. Before I did I asked the owner's permission, even though I was shooting it from the sidewalk across the street. I got his ok and even his ok to enter that pic in a photo contest. Had he said he didnt want it shot or made public I would have been pissed off and probably would have come back later and shot it anyway for my own pleasure, but I wouldnt have entered it or published it in any way. Legal or not, a law on the books or not, there is such a thing as right and wrong. Would I be right in shooting his house after being told no? Well Im in agreement with everyone here that I should be free to shoot anything I want. But I would certainly respect his wishes to keep it private.

Last edited by Bynx; Sep 26, 2009 at 6:49 PM.
Bynx is offline  
Old Sep 26, 2009, 6:55 PM   #114
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,646
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
Once again, if I can see it, I'm free to photograph it. It might be discourteous and disrespectful of me to post it on-line, but I have the right to do so (within the limits of the fair use policy of the image hosting service.) Trying to justify the restriction of my right to take a photograph, and to do with it as I see fit, is unjust. The idea that someone should be able to prohibit the use of their image that I have captured denies the nature of light. You can only control how light reflects off of you; once it does so, you can't control how it's used.
This is really silly. And silly is as bad as Im allowed to say. Im not allowed to say stupid because saying this is stupid might get me in trouble. So I will just say this is silly. Youre telling me its ok to have your camera and take pics of the movie in theatres because you arent shooting the movie, you are shooting the light beams which are free for everyone. Its ok to shoot hundred dollar bills because you arent shooting the money you are only shooting light beams. Ok in the first instance you are on private property in the theatre, but in the second instance there is a law that says you are not allowed to photograph money, but according to your -- silly thinking, youre not shooting money but light beams. The courts will disagree I think.
Bynx is offline  
Old Sep 26, 2009, 7:41 PM   #115
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bynx View Post
This is really silly. And silly is as bad as Im allowed to say. Im not allowed to say stupid because saying this is stupid might get me in trouble. So I will just say this is silly. Youre telling me its ok to have your camera and take pics of the movie in theatres because you arent shooting the movie, you are shooting the light beams which are free for everyone. Its ok to shoot hundred dollar bills because you arent shooting the money you are only shooting light beams. Ok in the first instance you are on private property in the theatre, but in the second instance there is a law that says you are not allowed to photograph money, but according to your -- silly thinking, youre not shooting money but light beams. The courts will disagree I think.
There are existing limitations to the use of your image. What you are saying is that all those pictures taken by the press, or all those images in which people are clearly recognisable, should be banned - You can't have it any other way Bynx. You can't ban a recognisable image because theoretically, the person wasn't the subject, or it was done by the press.

There are limitations on speech - As a Supreme Court Judge point out, you are not allowed to scream, "fire" in a crowed theatre. You and others have yet to even BEGIN to point out how any law OR morality will not affect the examples I've just given.

Now street photography is one of the oldest forms of photographic art. The claim that this is something new flies in the face of history. As I said to you on another post, I got over a hundred thousand hits by posting:

"Street photography" +"books"

Despite the claims of people like Ordo and yourself, these new attacks on photography have nothing to do with technology. What is new about books of street photography? Nothing at all. Yet you DEMAND that society, after almost a hundred years of their being in existance suddenly call this an invasion of privacy. Suddenly, the photographer is being blamed for attacks on photography, as if to say that this rich legacy doesn't exist.

Look, this question is being treated as a new problem. A problem that didn't exist in the Good Old Days. This is simply not true.

Do you REALLY want to criminalise Bresson? We make accomodations to reality, such as prohibiting calling fire in a theatre, AND we limit the use of people images if those images cause harm.

Again, as I asked Ordo, and you've been asked - You really have to give us your proposed law, or all your arguments amount to your name calling of TCAV in lieu if saying anything.

The reason this discussion is going around in circles, is quite simply your refusal and the refusal of others to simply spit it out and tell us how you want the law to read! You cannot simply say, (pardon the quotes) "That I make up the law on the spot. If I feel like stopping you I will. If I don't feel like stopping you I wont. To hell with the law, what I want IS the law. Might makes right, and I will beat you to a pulp if you give the wrong answer."

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Sep 26, 2009, 7:48 PM   #116
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bynx View Post
... Well Im in agreement with everyone here that I should be free to shoot anything I want. But I would certainly respect his wishes to keep it private.
I'm pleased to note that we agree.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline  
Old Sep 26, 2009, 7:52 PM   #117
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bynx View Post
This is really silly. And silly is as bad as Im allowed to say. Im not allowed to say stupid because saying this is stupid might get me in trouble. So I will just say this is silly. Youre telling me its ok to have your camera and take pics of the movie in theatres because you arent shooting the movie, you are shooting the light beams which are free for everyone. Its ok to shoot hundred dollar bills because you arent shooting the money you are only shooting light beams. Ok in the first instance you are on private property in the theatre, but in the second instance there is a law that says you are not allowed to photograph money, but according to your -- silly thinking, youre not shooting money but light beams. The courts will disagree I think.
No. The movie is already copyrighted.

No. The $100 bill is already a protected work.

No. What's silly is extrapolating something someone said into something they didn't say.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.

Last edited by TCav; Sep 26, 2009 at 7:57 PM.
TCav is offline  
Old Sep 26, 2009, 8:16 PM   #118
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,646
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
No. The movie is already copyrighted.

No. The $100 bill is already a protected work.

No. What's silly is extrapolating something someone said into something they didn't say.
Not at all. You are talking light beams here, not copyrighted movies or protected works like money or people but their light beams. Thats why I thought it was silly.
Bynx is offline  
Old Sep 26, 2009, 8:24 PM   #119
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
No. The movie is already copyrighted.

No. The $100 bill is already a protected work.

No. What's silly is extrapolating something someone said into something they didn't say.
When I was five years old and experienced in the ways of Kindergarten, I made a portrait of a little friend. If was a superb likeness, assuming you can decipher stick figures. When I told my friend that I was going to show it to my mother, he started to wail and cry. "That's my picture" he said, "you can't show it to anyone."

But I disagreed, and my Mother praised my artistic attempts (which by the way, after 57 years have not gotten any better). Perhaps if he had actually given me a coherent reason WHY I shouldn't have taken MY picture to show my Mother, I would have respected his "rights." But he didn't and he couldn't beat me up, because I was stronger then him.

And thus the origin of this thread.

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Sep 26, 2009, 9:10 PM   #120
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Perhaps if you drew some clothes on him, he wouldn't have objected to you showing it to your mother.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline  
 
Closed Thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:38 PM.