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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 26, 2009, 9:23 PM   #121
Senior Member
 
Ordo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: BsAs
Posts: 3,452
Default

Obviously you didn't learn the lesson, Chato.
Your MY is still in capitals.
Ordo is offline  
Old Sep 26, 2009, 9:28 PM   #122
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
Perhaps if you drew some clothes on him, he wouldn't have objected to you showing it to your mother.
I believe, that despite my Mother praise, the question is academic.

This little incident is as fresh today as it was 57 years ago. And if my memory of this is accurate, it never occured to me that I was disrespecting his rights. Nor did he explain why I was disrespecting his rights.

I took the image home because, at the time, I felt that his rights, whatever they were, were trivial compared to my rights. Why was his image sacred? I did not think this was a serious question at that time. And things apparently have not changed.

I believe I am a man with an open mind. Which is why, over and over again, I plaintively ask for a reason. I ask for a version of some law, any law, that can be applied to that situation, and the discussion on this thread.

I'm sure you've noticed that not only is this question never answered, it's totally ignored. As if to say those who Should be answering it, know full well that they cannot. Bynx has already stated Twice that this thread is going around in circles - Which is to say, that he's afraid of even giving this a shot, an attempt - But no, nothing...

57 years ago, I recieved no answer. And times have not changed. I am still not getting any answer. All that I get, is, "If you take a picture of me and post it on the net, I'll beat you to a pulp. If you take a picture of my kid, I wont even wait to find out anything, I'll beat you to a pulp."

Presumably, if THEY get beaten to a pulp, they will admit they are wrong? Such are the answers to questions that humanity has tried to solve ever since the concept of law was given birth?

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Sep 26, 2009, 9:41 PM   #123
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,229
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chato View Post

You have no right to stop me taking pictures because the concept offends you, anymore than you have the right to stop a speaker, whom you are forced to listen to because of where you are in public.

Thanks for your coherent and thoughtful post. But in all sincerety and no offense intended, I don't believe you have understood the nature of my reasoning.

Dave
If I believe, and convince an attorney, that your speech, or photographs damage me, I can bring a civil suit. Are you insured against such an event, or prepared to defend against it? Consider the possible costs well, before you answer that.
I don't think I have said I want new laws passed against photography of any kind. Laws, however, seem to get made in spite of my wishes.
I have been over much of this same ground in debates over gun control vs Second Amendment rights, and no matter how convincing freedom advocates are, new laws restricting those rights have been passed. Camera enthusiasts do not (as yet) have an organization such as the NRA to defend them, so if the political tide turns against candid photography, you could find yourself looking at criminal charges instead of civil suits, if you take the wrong photo at the wrong time. Prepared to defend yourself in that case?
Here, in Vermont, we, as yet have almost no gun laws, and that is, in my opinion, due mostly to the fact that we mostly understand that abuses lead to restrictions, and comport ourselves accordingly.

brian
VTphotog is offline  
Old Sep 26, 2009, 9:46 PM   #124
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,571
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chato View Post
... I ask for a version of some law, any law, that can be applied to that situation, and the discussion on this thread.

I'm sure you've noticed that not only is this question never answered, it's totally ignored. ...
Not so. You've received your answer. There isn't one. There is no law.

If someone asks you not to take their picture, or asks you not to post it on the internet, you have a moral obligation as a member of civilized society to submit to their wishes, but there is no legal justification for the request.
__________________
  • 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, 9:50 PM   #125
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,229
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chato View Post
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
So, in essence, you are telling us you have learned nothing since you were five years old.

brian
VTphotog is offline  
Old Sep 26, 2009, 9:57 PM   #126
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VTphotog View Post
If I believe, and convince an attorney, that your speech, or photographs damage me, I can bring a civil suit. Are you insured against such an event, or prepared to defend against it? Consider the possible costs well, before you answer that.
No offense Brian, but this is MY POINT.

People who are harmed by my posting of an image, just as people who are slandered by speech, do indeed have legal recourse. In the thirty pictures I've posted, would you care to link to ONE of them that remotely leaves me open to a civil suit?


Quote:
Originally Posted by VTphotog View Post
I don't think I have said I want new laws passed against photography of any kind. Laws, however, seem to get made in spite of my wishes.
I have been over much of this same ground in debates over gun control vs Second Amendment rights, and no matter how convincing freedom advocates are, new laws restricting those rights have been passed. Camera enthusiasts do not (as yet) have an organization such as the NRA to defend them, so if the political tide turns against candid photography, you could find yourself looking at criminal charges instead of civil suits, if you take the wrong photo at the wrong time. Prepared to defend yourself in that case?
Here, in Vermont, we, as yet have almost no gun laws, and that is, in my opinion, due mostly to the fact that we mostly understand that abuses lead to restrictions, and comport ourselves accordingly.

brian
As it happens, I happen to be BOTH a member of the NRA AND the ACLU. Go figure. But, despite my support of the Second Amendment, the question of a camera as a dangerous weapon has never occured to me. Street Photography has been a respected form of art before either you or I were born.

Now all of a sudden, it's an invasion of privacy. A disrespect for the individual. a crime that has not yet been criminalised. If our population because of fantasy fears, decides to turn the country into a police state - So be it. I will resist, as I resist all threats to my liberty. And resisting threats to freedom, are not accomplished by joining the crowd clamoring for protection from imaginary threats.

The RIGHT to choose between hot dogs and burgers on the Fourth of July is not a freedom I am concerned with.

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Sep 26, 2009, 10:01 PM   #127
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VTphotog View Post
So, in essence, you are telling us you have learned nothing since you were five years old.

brian
No Brian, in the 57 years that this question has existed for me, no one has come up with a conclusion that differs in any manner from my five year old chums answer - "It's my picture, and I don't want you to show it to anyone."

On the other hand, you insist on providing me with the equivalent of, "You are stealing the souls of thousands, for shame."

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Sep 27, 2009, 9:32 AM   #128
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Also Brian,
If you think there aren't organizations that would jump on board to help a journalist out when someone were trying to sue them for what is in their constitutional right to do, you are mistaken. And you don't need a press pass to be a jouirnalist. Photography and journalist organizations would jump on such a suit as an attack against rights protected by the Constitution. Are YOU prepared for the countersuit by such organizations? I can assure you photojournalists and members of the press take such things VERY seriously. People have, according to the Supreme Court a constitutional right to take and publish photographs of individuals in public and do not need their permission. So I would be careful you can prove a real claim of damage before filing a frivolous lawsuit. And, like it or not, there is no difference between printing in the nespaper and displaying on the internet. It's all the same. I respect the fact you would like it to be different. But I'm also glad the laws don't work the way you wish they did. Again, I would certainly respect an individual who did not want their photo published on the web. But I do NOT want a law restricting the rights of a photographer from doing so. I do NOT want laws that legislate morality or respect. And, as a freelance photographer, I would certainly NEVER want a law that restricts my ability to publish a news-worthy photo. Otherwise none of those Pulitzer Prize winning photos would have been published. You can't restrict Chato's rights without restricting the journalist's rights - because every individual is a journalist.
NOTE: I know Brian you stated you don't want a law - but others have stated they do. THis last is more for them than you.
JohnG is offline  
Old Sep 27, 2009, 9:48 AM   #129
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,571
Default

We all know what the law is (in the US), and no one has come forward to say what they think the law should be. All that's left is to rehash the moral and ethical issues. Is that what we're doing?
__________________
  • 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 27, 2009, 11:06 AM   #130
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
We all know what the law is (in the US), and no one has come forward to say what they think the law should be. All that's left is to rehash the moral and ethical issues. Is that what we're doing?
Brian has said point blank that he wants no new law. Others have said, that they Do want new laws. If they wish to discuss this issues any further from a legalistic point of view, then they should either spit it out, or drop the entire question of criminality.

And that indeed leaves us with only the moral issues.

I have posted links to various photography articles discussing projects which have won aclaim, as documenting life in these United States. Both of these projects were set up to snap photos automatically; in one case of subway riders, in another of passerbyes in Times Square. In both cases these projects were turned into books. Now are these people moral criminals and their books useless pieces of perversion? A gigantic swindle to cover up a mere case of Peeping Tomism?

The moral issue would seem to be based on the idea that there exists an inseparable unity with our image. They are in fact, one and the same. About one out of six of my subjects know that their images would be posted. These are people I know, could hold conversations with. I did Not ask them for permission, because in my moral universe, there is no identity of the person and the image. Nor am I as a photographer trying to slander or hurt these people by distorting what the lens says.

To my way of thinking, if I snipped the words of Bynx and pasted them together to have him say, "Photographers...should be beaten to a pulp," it would be a violation of my morality, and could be demonstrated to be slander. In much the same way, it is possible to take an image out of context. Bynx, does not own his words, once they are spoken or printed, or posted on this site. What he owns, is the right not to be depicted by me or anyone else, falsely. He owns the right to protect his person (not his words, not his image) from lies.

That I would not post on the internet if asked, is besides the point. In the case of most of my subjects, it is simply not practical. Nor do I need the permission of a public speaker to quote their words. What Bynx has said on this thread and elsewhere, is now in the public domain, and I can post his words anywhere I want to - And his moral and legal redress is to sue me, if I misquote him.

Whether an image or his words, I have the power to lie about Bynx, and that is my moral question.
The moral issues that others are having are simply not part of the way I look at the question.

Dave

Last edited by Chato; Sep 27, 2009 at 12:31 PM. Reason: typo
Chato 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 12:02 PM.