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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 25, 2009, 1:48 PM   #71
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bynx View Post
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. .
And I guess this is where I'm confused. Because there is no hard line between 'street photography' and 'journalism' and you're stating some times it's OK and others it's not but there should be a law that punishes people that fall into the "its not OK" category, I'm looking for you to provide the guidance. If we should indeed inact a law - how should that law determine when it's OK and when it isn't? We can't have a judge call you for every case. So there has to be some type of guideline that can be articulated. What is that guideline?
JohnG is offline  
Old Sep 25, 2009, 1:53 PM   #72
Senior Member
 
Ordo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: BsAs
Posts: 3,452
Default

This is for me more an ethical attitude than a moral or legal one:
  • I donít take direct picks of people without his/her permission.
  • I donít accept anybody to shot a pick of me without my permission.
I recall two close experiences:
  • I found a wonderful native very old woman and asked her permission to shot a portrait. She said no. I went away.
  • Some stupid guy began to shot picks of me in a shop in Beijing (just for being Western I guess). I faced the guy and forced him to erase all of my picks.
Lurking over there and shooting picks of people without them knowing it, is unacceptable to me, donít matter what the law says. Itís not that the laws define and limit my ethical behavior; rather I act from my inner convictions and they tell me not to invade basic privacy rights.
Ordo is offline  
Old Sep 25, 2009, 1:54 PM   #73
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bynx View Post
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.
Dont you find this slighly hypocritcal. Do you realize this is potentially a felony crime? You advocate a law be enacted to protect some perceived right but you have no issue stating in public you'd willfully ignore laws dealing with assault, grand theft and/or destruction of property? You wish to be taken seriously but several times you threaten violence if something occurs that you don't like? By your logic, if you tell a photographer to not take a picture he should be OK with assaulting you - he doesn't like the fact you're trying to violate his rights so violence is an acceptable course of action. Or is violence only OK when it's you perpetrating it based upon your sense of values - but it would be wrong if the photographer resorted to violence becuse of his values. Or is it that violence is OK when anyone feels they have been slighted?
JohnG is offline  
Old Sep 25, 2009, 1:58 PM   #74
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bynx View Post
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.
Before you resort to insulting my intelligence, maybe you should ask my permission before posting your opinion concerning such opinion publicly on the web. I understand you don't have a problem with how I use my camera. My point is by outlawing what I may or may not post or publish is the first step in preventing the use of my camera. Really, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. You also failed to answer my other question...What exactly am i losing by having my trip to the store documented?? How does this hurt or affect me??

It seems strange, earlier in this thread you were bemoaning the lack of response to this topic:

Quote:
120 people look at this thread and no one has a thing to say for or against. Absolutely pathetic.
Now you've had many people weigh in, mostly of the opposite opinion, and you've taken to insulting those people, and failing to provide anything other than conjecture, possibilities, and your opinion...no specifics...you even said:

I
Quote:
ve said I dont know why I feel its so wrong what you are doing and your attitude towards doing it but I do
Ultimately, your failure to provide specifics, or facts of how any of what was posted is harmful, or wrong, really doesn't do much for your credibility.
The internet has certainly changed the way we live, and has given us instant access to information and different ways to communicate. Truthfully, though, these types of images have been published and displayed throughout time in other mediums, whether it be painting, television, or books. What has changed, is how quickly we can access this info.

Last edited by rjseeney; Sep 25, 2009 at 2:01 PM.
rjseeney is offline  
Old Sep 25, 2009, 2:03 PM   #75
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,585
Default

Here is where we differ. Youre of the opinion that having a camera and a computer and a link to the internet you can do whatever you want no matter what. Im saying that you should have some discretion in who you post. Use some brains and have some consideration for someone other than your own egotistical being. While you might have a moment of glory posting that photo of a frumpy housewife walking down the street. Getting some people on the internet to say "Great photo". Nice job, great this, wonderful that. Maybe that housewife doesnt want her picture there. But then she doesnt have any rights, no say. You want a guideline. How about common sense? Those particular pics posted by Chato are unimportant, uninteresting and boring at best (to me), but not so to the people in the pictures. If they all said ok post my pic, I dont have a problem with that. But there were pics taken from behind bushes and from the interior of cars. People who, while minding their own business are being secretly photographed and posted on the internet. The more I think of the arrogance of that act makes me need to take another couple blood pressure pills.
Bynx is offline  
Old Sep 25, 2009, 2:04 PM   #76
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
Dont you find this slighly hypocritcal. Do you realize this is potentially a felony crime? You advocate a law be enacted to protect some perceived right but you have no issue stating in public you'd willfully ignore laws dealing with assault, grand theft and/or destruction of property? You wish to be taken seriously but several times you threaten violence if something occurs that you don't like? By your logic, if you tell a photographer to not take a picture he should be OK with assaulting you - he doesn't like the fact you're trying to violate his rights so violence is an acceptable course of action. Or is violence only OK when it's you perpetrating it based upon your sense of values - but it would be wrong if the photographer resorted to violence becuse of his values. Or is it that violence is OK when anyone feels they have been slighted?
Good point!! Bynx, you should be careful about who you'd threaten...I'm sure there are many photographers who wouldn't take you threatening to do damage to their camera lightly.
rjseeney is offline  
Old Sep 25, 2009, 2:05 PM   #77
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Ordo,
Your position is very clear. I understand and can respect your position regarding your actions when you are behind the camera. Let me ask some questions though:

1) Assume the photographer refused to delete the images. What do you feel is within your rights to do?

2) Please review the links to the 3 pulitzer photos. For the sake of argument assume perfmission was not obtained. Is it still OK to have published them? If so, why? If so, why not?
JohnG is offline  
Old Sep 25, 2009, 2:07 PM   #78
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bynx View Post
...Use some brains and have some consideration for someone other than your own egotistical being...
Come on guys. I'm getting really tired of pointing this out. Please keep personal comments, innuendo, etc. out of the discussions here.

Debating an issue is fine. Making personal comments towards other posters because you disagree with their opinion on a subject is not fine here.
JimC is offline  
Old Sep 25, 2009, 2:11 PM   #79
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bynx View Post
Use some brains and have some consideration for someone other than your own egotistical being. While you might have a moment of glory posting that photo of a frumpy housewife walking down the street. Getting some people on the internet to say "Great photo". Nice job, great this, wonderful that. Maybe that housewife doesnt want her picture there. But then she doesnt have any rights, no say. You want a guideline. How about common sense? Those particular pics posted by Chato are unimportant, uninteresting and boring at best (to me), but not so to the people in the pictures. If they all said ok post my pic, I dont have a problem with that. But there were pics taken from behind bushes and from the interior of cars. People who, while minding their own business are being secretly photographed and posted on the internet. The more I think of the arrogance of that act makes me need to take another couple blood pressure pills.
But who determines what is common sense?? I agree the pictures aren't great in my opinion either (see we do agree on something), but I just don't see how any of this is harmful. Everyone has their own opinion of what is and isn't art. I don't find the act all that arrogant, and these people are in public places and have been seen by perhaps hundreds of people throughout their travels every day. The images only capture that moment in time. And truthfully...so what??
rjseeney is offline  
Old Sep 25, 2009, 2:13 PM   #80
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,585
Default

You also failed to answer my other question...What exactly am i losing by having my trip to the store documented?? How does this hurt or affect me??

I can answer that easily. Probably in no way at all. You said it is ok and thats fine. But you cant really believe that you speak for everyone. That everyone is ok with it. How arrogant is that?

Good point!! Bynx, you should be careful about who you'd threaten...I'm sure there are many photographers who wouldn't take you threatening to do damage to their camera lightly.

Also this is what I would say, just go ahead, point your camera at my kids and tell me that your going to post it on the internet, when?

Finally in your last post you say And truthfully...so what? Absolutely right. In most cases it doesnt matter at all. But what of those who just dont want their faces plastered all over the internet. Why dont they have a say in that? We shouldnt be treated like we are tables or trees or some other inanimate object without a voice.

Last edited by Bynx; Sep 25, 2009 at 2:16 PM.
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 7:58 AM.