For what it's worth...

memphis said:
Depends how they ask -- and most of the time the answer is, yes.... I'm going to post/publish your picture --
Click to expand...


All right very good, papas fritas con vermuth.

But then you too don't cry me a river about oppressive laws restricting photography in public places, nor ask for public symphaty if caught or punished.

Because your attitude is playing directly to the hands of those that for totally different reasons want to limit our freedom.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Last edited by a moderator:
memphis said:
this thread proves my earlier assertation in another thread that statistically speaking 95% of all NYC residents suffer from mental illness of one sort or another as was quoted on NPR
Click to expand...

You don't HAVE to be crazy to live there, but it sure helps. I spent 14 months in Queens and Nassau County, and when I left it felt like I was sprung from the Gray Bar Hotel...
 
Micky D said:
No?

"ATTACKED!! on Ffith Avenue!"
Click to expand...

As I said, I read the entire thread. My interpretation of the word "ATTACKED" in the title is that it was facetious. In the original post, there was a long paragraph or 2 (or 3) describing the incident. Mabelsound did not claim to have been attacked or victimized. However, the subject was apparently quite persistent at arguing her right to walk down a public street without appearing in anyone's photograph.
 
I do a lot of street shooting and this is how I handle people who get upset if they notice me shooting them. First off, I walk up to them smiling, hand them my card and explain what I am doing. I shake their hand. I engage them in conversation and I come right out and tell them that I may be posting the shot on my website. Most of the time, the folks have absolutely no problem. However, if someone asks that I please not do that, I do not post the shot or print it.

I saw the original thread and this was a bit different in that the subject became so hostile over the shot being made, demanding the film or that the shots be deleted, and so on. I would never agree to anything like that but if the person felt that strongly about it, I would do my best to assure them that I would not publish or print the shot. That is just me.

And I understand completely why the mods delted the thread, with all of the posts about the subject being a TV, a cross dresser, a TS, and so on.....
 
a lot of comments here beg the question: when you ask someone if it's okay to take their picture or accept that their silent non-objection is an implicit permission to photograph, do you then ask if it's okay to post/publish that image?
 
emraphoto said:
i have to re-iterate (from the nuked vs. of this conversation).
there is a point we are missing here... there is a growing public discomfort with photographers in the street and certainly that would include all us street photographers.
we are doing our self a great disservice by contributing to the already growing public mistrust. it would take very little at this point for public opinion to support a complete ban on photography in the streets. yes, currently the person in question had no legal ground to stand on however with events of late in the UK that legal "right" can change very, very quickly.
i would suggest having a more diplomatic approach next time. perhaps think of yourself an ambassador on our behalf. be firm and educated about your rights to do what you do, keep the photograph if you see fit but post the photograph here and publicly ridicule the subject??? hmmm, wouldn't have been my choice.
Click to expand...
self censorship is still censorship. Don't take any pictures out in public so they don't ban photographers from taking pictures in public! Makes no sense. Public opinion should be far more worried about their appearance in countless surveillance videos then grainy B&W film.
 
Gumby said:
In the USofA: Yes yo would, if you are going to use it commercially. And then you would want to ask them to sign a model release. Otherwise...
Click to expand...
I don't believe that posting an image on Flickr or here is considered commercial otherwise I would expect these sites to request proof of model release for each image. The liability would be too great.
 
i didn't say anything about NOT taking the picture.
the "be firm and educated about your rights to do what you do, keep the photograph if you see fit..." part would indicate that i am not condemning taking the photo?
all i am saying is the behavior AFTER the fact does not lend well to our "reputation".
there is a "willingness to sacrifice our liberty" and then there is a "be smart and preserve our rights".
hint - it was the latter i was getting at.
 
mich8261 said:
self censorship is still censorship. Don't take any pictures out in public so they don't ban photographers from taking pictures in public! Makes no sense. Public opinion should be far more worried about their appearance in countless surveillance videos then grainy B&W film.
Click to expand...

no, do take the pictures but if someone protests, make it into a win/win situation in a civilized manner, inform them of your why you're taking pictures, your intentions, try to spin it so everyone is happy....

I think thats what he was saying.
 
Micky D said:
No?

"ATTACKED!! on Ffith Avenue!"
Click to expand...

ruben said:
Q: When did you claim to be the victim ?
A: At the title of your thread.
Click to expand...

Guys, with all due respect, that was a joke, and I think you all know it. I wasn't victimized in any way. I took a picture, and I got yelled at, and perhaps I deserved it. But nobody was victimized or "attacked" by anybody. Rather, two people annoyed each other, and at least one of them left laughing. The tone and details of my original post made this very clear.

I also want to reiterate that the deletion of the photo and post does not seem to me to be any kind of stifling of free speech. It's the bartender's party and if it gets uncivil, he can tell us to go home.

Gumby said:
It really wasn't that good of a picture anyway... it was quite ordinary for "street" if you ask me... a person walking down the street. (No offense intended.)
Click to expand...

Please recall that I didn't say I thought it was any good. Indeed, I made a point of saying that it wasn't.
 
nextreme said:
no, do take the pictures but if someone protests, make it into a win/win situation in a civilized manner, inform them of your why you're taking pictures, your intentions, try to spin it so everyone is happy....

I think thats what he was saying.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with that, but I have to confess that if confronted as mabelsound says he was, then I may not be as cooperative. Childish perhaps. I have always found that I get better results when I am polite. I expect others to be respectful toward me. That's all.
 
mich8261 said:
I don't believe that posting an image on Flickr or here is considered commercial otherwise I would expect these sites to request proof of model release for each image. The liability would be too great.
Click to expand...

Not so everywhere though.

http://www.montrealmirror.com/2005/080405/news1.html
(Not sure if the above still holds true.)

From the article: even if you were to e-mail the picture to a few friends, or put it on a little-frequented Web site.

That photographer made a documentary about it:

http://www.gilbertduclos.com/docu_new2.html

You can watch it here (en français)
http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=-8055791195744484552

Boy, we got it rough over here....

Cheers
 
I see your point now. The pitfalls of delayed communication (email, posts, etc.)

emraphoto said:
i didn't say anything about NOT taking the picture.
the "be firm and educated about your rights to do what you do, keep the photograph if you see fit..." part would indicate that i am not condemning taking the photo?
all i am saying is the behavior AFTER the fact does not lend well to our "reputation".
there is a "willingness to sacrifice our liberty" and then there is a "be smart and preserve our rights".
hint - it was the latter i was getting at.
Click to expand...
 
mich8261 said:
I don't believe that posting an image on Flickr or here is considered commercial...
Click to expand...

I agree. It is my understanding that posting on the web in a discussion forum is not commercial. It is also my understanding that posting on the web does not meet the formal definition of "publishing" or "being published", but that philosophy is probably better discussed in a separate thread. While I'm at it, though, I don't think that pointing out that the subject appeared to be "non-female" constitutes "public ridicule" either. But who cares what I think.
 
Gumby said:
I agree. It is my understanding that posting on the web in a discussion forum is not commercial. It is also my understanding that posting on the web does not meet the formal definition of "publishing" or "being published", but that philosophy is probably better discussed in a separate thread. While I'm at it, though, I don't think that pointing out that the subject appeared to be "non-female" constitutes "public ridicule" either. But who cares what I think.
Click to expand...


I do! :D

You and everyone else on this forum as a matter of fact ... perhaps I need to get out more! :p
 
That's where "Attacked!" thread had gone!
Well, I can always watch some Monty Python episode for substitute.
Maybe after all RFF owners did recognize member of Magnum in that photo, though to me it looked more like cross-dressed Woody Allen.
I believe there is no privacy in the public. But law can state opposite...
 
Gumby said:
It is also my understanding that posting on the web does not meet the formal definition of "publishing" or "being published", but that philosophy is probably better discussed in a separate thread.
Click to expand...
Publish means to make widely known or to make publicly known. By posting on this forum or anywhere on the web makes it widely and publicly known.
 
sjw617 said:
Publish means to make widely known or to make publicly known. By posting on this forum or anywhere on the web makes it widely and publicly known.
Click to expand...

Yes, the first sentence you wrote is an accurate ,but the broadest possible, definition which is not applicable in many (if not MOST) situations. Whether it is or isn't applicable with regard to postings to this (or any other) on-line forum or other entities on the WWW seems to still being tested. The Berne Convention and Universal Copyright Code does not accept the broadest definition but imposes further definitional clauses that are much more restrictive. Under the US Code of Federal Regulations postings to the WWW would be a public display, not necessarily "publication". It is a complex topic, partly because of the fleeting nature of postings to the web and forums like this (and all others).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom