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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 25, 2009, 1:53 PM   #61
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rinniethehun View Post
And Chato said...

“Do I also post the time and the location, along with the date?”

EXIF data shows me the time and date. Any building, object (e.g., well known fishing pier) can establish a location.

“This can be an example of causing "harm." Photographer beware”

Why? This is a totally innocent picture...I am capturing chivalry in 2009 - a man holding a car door open for a woman. What is wrong with that?

“These are very, very hard up pedophiles if they have to travel to see one child. Surely they can abduct a neighbors kid?”

They are attracted to the child from the picture that was posted. If you think pedophiles don’t travel to find their victims you’re a fool. They prefer to travel across state lines to locate their victims - much less chance of being positively identified. I hope you don’t have any young children.

“If you follow me around to take pictures, at some point, since I'm not a public figure, you will find yourself in jail for harrasment - Existing Law.”

Please post a link to that law - I’d like to see it. Is that a federal law? State law? NYC law? How does my taking pictures of you differ from you taking pictures of others?

“You've dodged the issue by claiming that people only get photographed in mob or crowd scenes.”

When did I claim that?

“Moreover if you Choose to do things in PUBLIC which you are ashamed of, why are you complaining at all?”

I don’t do things in public which I am ashamed of, and I’m not complaining. Where are you digging this crap up from?

“I would like to challenge all those who oppose the taking of these pictures to briefly write a law that in some way would stop me from my photography, and at the same time allow ANY photography that included a recognisable person.”

Why don’t you go back and read my post again...what did I say in the second sentence? I don’t recall ANYONE saying that you or anyone else can’t take pictures. The point of this entire thread was the POSTING of these pictures - not TAKING the pictures. POSTING STREET PHOTOGRAPHY -- GOOD OR BAD?

The Hun

You have made a number of mistaken statements.

If you aggresivelly follow me around, with or without a camera, you are guilty of the crime of "Harrasment." Every State in the Union has such laws.

If you believe pedophiles need a photograph to select victims, you should notifiy the the authorities to ban newspapers and television stations; both of which routinely highlight the activities of children in schools, parks and playgrounds. You should also aggresively patrol the net, since such images are (rightfully) all over. You should also ask the authorities to mandate that all children wear burkhas until their mid forties. That you feel that a handful of sick people should be the determining factor in the way you live, you have the right to demand such laws from your legislature.

You wrote:

“You've dodged the issue by claiming that people only get photographed in mob or crowd scenes.”

"When did I claim that?"

If you're NOT claiming it, than what are you complaining about? The press has the right to include bystanders, but the average person does not?

You once again bring up the question of the mini-skirted lady. Please. I've already answered that question.

You are have now reached the point where every photograph of a person can potentially result in kidnapping, death or rape. The newspapers, televisions stations have now become defacto serial killers, and abettors of pedophiles. Henri Cartier-Bresson was one of the most evil men who ever lived.

Essentially, you are raising statistical issues that tell people to hide in basements during a thunderstorm. You never know when lighting will strike. Cars are all defacto death traps. Life's only goal is to survive as long as possible, photographers are all potential demons, and criminals, who live only to abet crimes. Children should be allowed out of doors, only on Sunday trips to church, and even then surrounded by belligerent adults.

All of this, and I doubt if you have even examined the photographs I've posted.

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Sep 25, 2009, 2:06 PM   #62
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bynx View Post
Interesting shots of NYC from the earthcam. But I didnt see anyone being singled out. The camera is there and its walker beware if you walk in front of it or not. I guess the cameras were installed to keep down high crime rate. In response to rjseeney, while you might not mind you or your wife or children's picture put on the internet what about those who would mind and dont have a say in it. And Im talking about the picture being taken by some guy with a camera walking through your neighborhood. Nowadays almost everyone has a camera on them in one form or another. Its pretty sad to then expect a short walk to get milk will end up on the internet. Talk about losing or giving something up. I love photography but Ive never considered taking any individuals photo to post on the internet without their input. And JohnG. Having looked at your examples I dont know your point. They are nothing like what Im talking about. By the way that napalmed vietnamese girl is grown up now and lives a couple blocks from me. That photo of her didnt do her any harm at all. In fact after world wide sympathy for her it opened the back door to instant entry into this country. Show me some examples of people just posting pics of individuals minding their own business who have been posted without their permission. And Im not talking about some newsworthy event. Just people minding their own business.
Better tell the Daily News to pull this image...

alg_walking_tour.jpg (JPEG Image, 450x299 pixels)

Each day, newspapers print images such as the above. Immoral?

Dave

Last edited by Chato; Sep 25, 2009 at 2:06 PM. Reason: added thought
Chato is offline  
Old Sep 25, 2009, 2:11 PM   #63
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bynx View Post
And JohnG. Having looked at your examples I dont know your point. They are nothing like what Im talking about. By the way that napalmed vietnamese girl is grown up now and lives a couple blocks from me. That photo of her didnt do her any harm at all. In fact after world wide sympathy for her it opened the back door to instant entry into this country.
OK, first look at my photos again. How is this photo not singling someone out?

Doesn't get more singled out than that does it?
Here are children - very visible and very identifyable:


Cant see how you think I single individuals out less than Chato did.

Quote:
Show me some examples of people just posting pics of individuals minding their own business who have been posted without their permission. And Im not talking about some newsworthy event. Just people minding their own business.
Again - look at the two photos above - people minding their own business. But, now we come to an interesting part of your statement - "And Im not talking about some newsworthy event". So, it's morally wrong and a violation of some person's rights to post photos without their consent if it's NOT newsworthy. But if it's newsworthy then there's no problem?
JohnG is offline  
Old Sep 25, 2009, 2:12 PM   #64
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bynx View Post
In response to rjseeney, while you might not mind you or your wife or children's picture put on the internet what about those who would mind and dont have a say in it. And Im talking about the picture being taken by some guy with a camera walking through your neighborhood. Nowadays almost everyone has a camera on them in one form or another. Its pretty sad to then expect a short walk to get milk will end up on the internet. Talk about losing or giving something up.
I am occasionally the guy walking my neighborhood with a camera. That doesn't make me or anyone else a bad guy. Should I not be able to carry my camera?? In regards to my trip for milk ending up on the internet, so what? What exactly would I be losing or giving up. If someone finds my trips to the store interesting, more power to them. If only I were that important

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bynx View Post
Show me some examples of people just posting pics of individuals minding their own business who have been posted without their permission. And I'm not talking about some newsworthy event. Just people minding their own business.
Show me examples where someone was harmed, or how the posted examples are potentially harmful. If one is just about minding his/her business, then he/she has nothing to worry about. Most of my every moves are documented anyway. Every store I walk in has video, there are redlight cameras at stoplights in my city, etc. As Jim has shown, many of these are publicly accessible.

I just don't see how this is such a major problem. I think laws preventing this would create more issues, and severely limit how and where we could use our cameras. That's what I have a problem with.
rjseeney is offline  
Old Sep 25, 2009, 2:16 PM   #65
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,641
Default

That example is on the extreme outside edge. While it does show a fairly close up view of a small group of people and doesnt explain why we are looking at them, there are a couple who are plainly identifiable and I wonder if there was some input on their part concerning the printing of the picture. Just because a newpaper prints it doesnt mean its right. And Im not talking about legal right. Im talking about right.
Bynx is offline  
Old Sep 25, 2009, 2:25 PM   #66
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
By the way that napalmed vietnamese girl is grown up now and lives a couple blocks from me. That photo of her didnt do her any harm at all.
I forgot to address the most important part of Bynx's post. And I would argue the photos Chato has posted and the photos I posted have not been shown to have harmed anyone in them either. So by your own logic, it's OK for the girl from Vietnam because the photo caused her no harm - therefore if these other photos caused no harm, there's no problem with them either. Or did I miss something in your statement?
JohnG is offline  
Old Sep 25, 2009, 2:26 PM   #67
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,641
Default

JohnG, that picture of the kids would be illegal if you shot them in Canada and posted them on the net. People under 18 cannot be arbitrarily photographed without someones consent.

rjseeney, hello, hello, tap tap hello can you hear me now? You said "I just don't see how this is such a major problem. I think laws preventing this would create more issues, and severely limit how and where we could use our cameras. That's what I have a problem with."
I have a problem with this too. Its not your camera use Im against. Its the instant posting on the internet. As rinnie said previously with your pics paper your walls with them. But as for posting them on the net or printing them in a book, get permission first.
Bynx is offline  
Old Sep 25, 2009, 2:34 PM   #68
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
I forgot to address the most important part of Bynx's post. And I would argue the photos Chato has posted and the photos I posted have not been shown to have harmed anyone in them either. So by your own logic, it's OK for the girl from Vietnam because the photo caused her no harm - therefore if these other photos caused no harm, there's no problem with them either. Or did I miss something in your statement?
Did you miss something?? Did you miss something?? Just the whole point.

The thead was called Posting Street Photography -- Good or Bad? I was hoping to see a good number of people respond with their views one way or the other. For the most part they are mute. You have your views and I have mine. Lets leave it like that and get on with taking pictures. This thread has run out of originality and is just going in circles. Each side not listening or understanding the other side at all. Nothing at this point is going to be gained by continuing this. Chato will continue to take his pics and posting them, and you will continue letting him. So lets move on.
Bynx is offline  
Old Sep 25, 2009, 2:36 PM   #69
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bynx View Post
JohnG, that picture of the kids would be illegal if you shot them in Canada and posted them on the net. People under 18 cannot be arbitrarily photographed without someones consent.
I see. But the man carrying the bananas is OK? So now, it's only immoral and a violation of some rights IF it's children and IF it's Canada?

First you said
Quote:
And JohnG. Having looked at your examples I dont know your point. They are nothing like what Im talking about.
I assumed you meant you didn't have a problem with them. Now when I re-post 2 images you have a problem with one of them but not the other?

ANd, of course, you've still avoided answering the question regarding the newsworthy vs. not question.

Bynx, the problem I'm having here is your stance seems to be very unclear. One photo showing a man carrying bananas may or may not be OK by you. One photo showing a child (vietnamese girl) is OK because it did her no harm but another (Mumbai children) is bad and if it were taken in Canada it would be illegal. But the napalm victim would be OK to take a photo of in Canada?

You seem very inconsistent here Bynx. So please explain why a photo of 3 girls is bad and you thought it necessary to point out that in Canada I'd be jailed for taking andn posting it but another photo of a nude child is OK. And we still don't know whether posting a photo of a guy carrying bananas is immoral and a violation of his rights or if its ok because it was in the group of photos you said were nothing like the types of photos you were talking about. So, please help me understand when it's OK to publish a photo of an individual without their consent and when it isn't
JohnG is offline  
Old Sep 25, 2009, 2:44 PM   #70
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,641
Default

You can throw at me all the pics you want. Ive said earlier this isnt a hard and fast thing. There are lots of instances where it is ok. As for the guy with the bananas, did you ask him if you could post it. Do you know for a fact he will be ok with it? If you didnt and dont then you shouldnt have. What right do you have to do it? Just because you have a picture of him? Ok so no cop is going to knock on your door for doing it. But that still doesnt make it right. If some guy with a camera points it at me then asks me if its ok for him to post it, Id probably say "Knock yourself out". I wouldnt care. If he shot my kids and said he was going to post it, I dont think he would get far with a camera in operating condition. I hope you can see a difference here. If you cant then please stop this.
Bynx 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 3:40 PM.