| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/28/2012 10:21:46 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by PW321:
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by PW321:
If you take a 'candid' shot of me in the street and publish my image without my permission TRUST ME I will sue you for infringement of my rights.
Just think how the face of 'journalism' would change if the press had to pay to use your image, which quite frankly I think they should. My image belongs to me. It is uniquely identifiably MINE and if you are going to use it to make money then pay me for it. You can't just take any other unique work I produce and use it without permission, and my image is the ultimate unique 'work'. There is not one single other person on the planet that looks exactly like me. |
in order to sue you need to prove some sort of loss or hardship. good luck. a simple request for take down should suffice.
when you are in public you have no privacy so if everyone could see you, how can you sue if
everyone can now can see you? |
As a victim of misuse of a camera when I was a child (draw your own conclusions I won't go into more detail than that) I take any use of a camera to take photos of me without my direct and expressly given permission very seriously. |
as pointed out by  Venser and mike_311, the law is not on your side. your image may be used without your permission editorially; if you disagree with the usage, you may try to make a civil case for slander or libel, but that's about it.
you definitely can control commercial usage, for both mass-produced items or advertisements, but you might not be so lucky if someone uses your image to produce one-off (or limited run) pieces of art. |
|
|
|
12/28/2012 03:51:37 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
(In the US) only the publisher of the photo requires a model release for advertising, the photographer doesn't have to have one.
now if you hired a photographer they cant just show your picture everywhere, they need your permission and its usually given in the contract you sign).
so, i could take your picture all day long (if you didn't pay me to) on the street and there is pretty much nothing you can do so long as i dont slander you in anyway when i show it.
not to be a smart ass, but that's the way it is. i realize you may be sensitive to having your picture taken and honestly if you convey that to the person taking it i'm confidant most people would respect your wishes, but just remember there isn't anything you can do about it, so being nice is probably the best course of action for you. |
I hear what you are saying however I have noticed that there is a level of aggressive protection of the "right" of the photographer to take photos which tends to ignore or stomp all over the rights of the person being photographed. We live in a world where the rights of the individual to do sonething are ever increasingly upheld over the rights of a person who would prefer you not to. We also live in a world where the right to privacy is increasingly being eroded as well. I'm very protective of.ky right not to have my rights infringed. |
|
|
|
12/28/2012 03:54:00 PM · #28 |
| sorry about the typos I can't type properly on my mobile and can't see the edit button!! |
|
|
|
12/28/2012 04:40:08 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by PW321:
I hear what you are saying however I have noticed that there is a level of aggressive protection of the "right" of the photographer to take photos which tends to ignore or stomp all over the rights of the person being photographed. We live in a world where the rights of the individual to do sonething are ever increasingly upheld over the rights of a person who would prefer you not to. We also live in a world where the right to privacy is increasingly being eroded as well. I'm very protective of.ky right not to have my rights infringed. |
That's cool and all, but none of rights are being infringed upon if I take your photo in while your in public.
What rights are being stomped all over? None. |
|
|
|
12/28/2012 04:57:20 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by PW321:
I hear what you are saying however I have noticed that there is a level of aggressive protection of the "right" of the photographer to take photos which tends to ignore or stomp all over the rights of the person being photographed. We live in a world where the rights of the individual to do sonething are ever increasingly upheld over the rights of a person who would prefer you not to. We also live in a world where the right to privacy is increasingly being eroded as well. I'm very protective of.ky right not to have my rights infringed. |
That's cool and all, but none of rights are being infringed upon if I take your photo in while your in public.
What rights are being stomped all over? None. |
thanks for illustrating my point perfectly. Being in "public" does not ipso facto deprive deprive me of my right to privacy and my right to choose whether I want to be photographed or not. It does not give you the right supercede my right not.to have some stranger take my picture and do who knows what with it and especially not publish it on the web. And I will defend those rights ferociously whether you recognise them or not. |
|
|
|
12/28/2012 05:58:42 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by PW321:
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by PW321:
I hear what you are saying however I have noticed that there is a level of aggressive protection of the "right" of the photographer to take photos which tends to ignore or stomp all over the rights of the person being photographed. We live in a world where the rights of the individual to do sonething are ever increasingly upheld over the rights of a person who would prefer you not to. We also live in a world where the right to privacy is increasingly being eroded as well. I'm very protective of.ky right not to have my rights infringed. |
That's cool and all, but none of rights are being infringed upon if I take your photo in while your in public.
What rights are being stomped all over? None. |
thanks for illustrating my point perfectly. Being in "public" does not ipso facto deprive deprive me of my right to privacy and my right to choose whether I want to be photographed or not. It does not give you the right supercede my right not.to have some stranger take my picture and do who knows what with it and especially not publish it on the web. And I will defend those rights ferociously whether you recognise them or not. |
Maybe you are talking at cross purposes by your definition of "right". If you mean in a legal sense (ie. "my legal rights"), then you are wrong. Being in public DOES deprive you of your right to privacy by definition. But, if you mean in a philosophical sense (like the "right to life, liberty, etc.) then that's an argument open to discussion. Perhaps our society is quick to stomp on those rights in the name of other interests.
Anyway, takehome..."legal rights" = you got no leg to stand on no matter how much you assert you possess those rights. |
|
|
|
12/28/2012 07:05:05 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by PW321:
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by PW321:
I hear what you are saying however I have noticed that there is a level of aggressive protection of the "right" of the photographer to take photos which tends to ignore or stomp all over the rights of the person being photographed. We live in a world where the rights of the individual to do sonething are ever increasingly upheld over the rights of a person who would prefer you not to. We also live in a world where the right to privacy is increasingly being eroded as well. I'm very protective of.ky right not to have my rights infringed. |
That's cool and all, but none of rights are being infringed upon if I take your photo in while your in public.
What rights are being stomped all over? None. |
thanks for illustrating my point perfectly. Being in "public" does not ipso facto deprive deprive me of my right to privacy and my right to choose whether I want to be photographed or not. It does not give you the right supercede my right not.to have some stranger take my picture and do who knows what with it and especially not publish it on the web. And I will defend those rights ferociously whether you recognise them or not. |
Maybe you are talking at cross purposes by your definition of "right". If you mean in a legal sense (ie. "my legal rights"), then you are wrong. Being in public DOES deprive you of your right to privacy by definition. But, if you mean in a philosophical sense (like the "right to life, liberty, etc.) then that's an argument open to discussion. Perhaps our society is quick to stomp on those rights in the name of other interests.
Anyway, takehome..."legal rights" = you got no leg to stand on no matter how much you assert you possess those rights. |
Actually I do have a reasonable right to privacy and I certainly have the right to prevent you posting a recognisable image of me on the internet (data protection act specifically covers this). You also do not have the right to profit from my image in any way without my consent and you can not take a picture that harasses, defames, libels, or otherwise causes me harm. The only REAL circumstance I have no right to privacy is if you are an accredited press photographer and I'm in the middle of an event that the public has a "right to know about" and even then you still can't just photograph anything and publish it because there are the victim's right to privacy to be considered as well.
And I can assure you that I can make an extremely good case for mental distress if you try to ignore my request to not photograph me or delete my photo if you have already taken it. I would also make an extremely strong case for harm if you do go ahead and post my recognisable image on the internet because by doing so you have placed me in harm's way of any one using the net who wanted to do anything with that photo. There is no control over where an image ends up once it's on the net. Anyone who posts pictures of themselves on the net is asking for trouble. Pictures get used by certain social networking sites for all kinds of things including porn. (Cite one housewife in Singapore as the most recent example of this) Photos of kids get taken and used in places you don't want to know about. (Cite photo of kids fishing that was posted in an online competition forum much like this one that was photoshopped and put on several porn sites) I can go on and on listing examples of how posting photos online is definitively without doubt putting me in harm's way. Especially when I can prove that no other photos of me exist online except yours. So yeah ... if you want to try ... go ahead ... but I think I will win in the end.
Message edited by author 2012-12-28 19:17:35. |
|
|
|
12/28/2012 08:01:32 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by PW321:
Photos of kids get taken and used in places you don't want to know about. (Cite photo of kids fishing that was posted in an online competition forum much like this one that was photoshopped and put on several porn sites) |
I sincerely hope that if you are aware of such things you are reporting it to the proper authorities. |
|
|
|
12/28/2012 08:18:27 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by PW321:
Actually I do have a reasonable right to privacy and I certainly have the right to prevent you posting a recognisable image of me on the internet (data protection act specifically covers this). You also do not have the right to profit from my image in any way without my consent and you can not take a picture that harasses, defames, libels, or otherwise causes me harm. The only REAL circumstance I have no right to privacy is if you are an accredited press photographer and I'm in the middle of an event that the public has a "right to know about" and even then you still can't just photograph anything and publish it because there are the victim's right to privacy to be considered as well.
And I can assure you that I can make an extremely good case for mental distress if you try to ignore my request to not photograph me or delete my photo if you have already taken it. I would also make an extremely strong case for harm if you do go ahead and post my recognisable image on the internet because by doing so you have placed me in harm's way of any one using the net who wanted to do anything with that photo. There is no control over where an image ends up once it's on the net. Anyone who posts pictures of themselves on the net is asking for trouble. Pictures get used by certain social networking sites for all kinds of things including porn. (Cite one housewife in Singapore as the most recent example of this) Photos of kids get taken and used in places you don't want to know about. (Cite photo of kids fishing that was posted in an online competition forum much like this one that was photoshopped and put on several porn sites) I can go on and on listing examples of how posting photos online is definitively without doubt putting me in harm's way. Especially when I can prove that no other photos of me exist online except yours. So yeah ... if you want to try ... go ahead ... but I think I will win in the end. |
Well, I don't even know what country you live in, but good luck with that. I know enough about photography and the law to know you are wrong in much of what you say at least in the US. Data protection act? You'll have to quote me the pertinent section. I call BS. |
|
|
|
12/28/2012 08:23:31 PM · #35 |
| There are video cameras secretly recording you all over for the purpose of watching what you are doing. Who cares about a candid shot for the purpose of art? |
|
|
|
12/28/2012 08:44:11 PM · #36 |
I'm assuming now we're talking about the UK because we brought up the Data Communication Act. This is a statement in an article about Google's Street View...
"In a statement the Information Commissioner's Office said an outright ban on Street View would be "disproportionate to the relatively small risk of privacy detriment".
David Evans, senior data protection practice manager said: "Watch the TV news any day this week and you will see people walking past reporters in the street. In the same way, there is no law against anyone taking pictures of people in the street as long as the person using the camera is not harassing people." |
|
|
|
12/28/2012 08:47:43 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by PW321:
Actually I do have a reasonable right to privacy and I certainly have the right to prevent you posting a recognisable image of me on the internet (data protection act specifically covers this). You also do not have the right to profit from my image in any way without my consent and you can not take a picture that harasses, defames, libels, or otherwise causes me harm. The only REAL circumstance I have no right to privacy is if you are an accredited press photographer and I'm in the middle of an event that the public has a "right to know about" and even then you still can't just photograph anything and publish it because there are the victim's right to privacy to be considered as well.
And I can assure you that I can make an extremely good case for mental distress if you try to ignore my request to not photograph me or delete my photo if you have already taken it. I would also make an extremely strong case for harm if you do go ahead and post my recognisable image on the internet because by doing so you have placed me in harm's way of any one using the net who wanted to do anything with that photo. There is no control over where an image ends up once it's on the net. Anyone who posts pictures of themselves on the net is asking for trouble. Pictures get used by certain social networking sites for all kinds of things including porn. (Cite one housewife in Singapore as the most recent example of this) Photos of kids get taken and used in places you don't want to know about. (Cite photo of kids fishing that was posted in an online competition forum much like this one that was photoshopped and put on several porn sites) I can go on and on listing examples of how posting photos online is definitively without doubt putting me in harm's way. Especially when I can prove that no other photos of me exist online except yours. So yeah ... if you want to try ... go ahead ... but I think I will win in the end. |
Well, I don't even know what country you live in, but good luck with that. I know enough about photography and the law to know you are wrong in much of what you say at least in the US. Data protection act? You'll have to quote me the pertinent section. I call BS. |
In Ontario, what Achoo said.
If you're in public, there's nothing you can do to stop me. Skip mentioned above that I could even sell your photo and you're still shit out of luck. You may think otherwise, but that doesn't make it true.
You're still in the wrong regardless of what you wrote in the entire second paragraph. The law, at least in Ontario, is not on your side. Come to Ontario, I'll be more than happy to shot you and fight that battle. I've done it once already (public play company), I'll do it again.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2012 08:58:42 PM · #38 |
Data protection isn't likely to help you if you are in a public place.
Data protection stuff
Message edited by author 2012-12-28 21:14:31. |
|
|
|
12/28/2012 10:33:32 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by PW321:
Anyone who posts pictures of themselves on the net is asking for trouble. Pictures get used by certain social networking sites for all kinds of things including porn. (Cite one housewife in Singapore as the most recent example of this) Photos of kids get taken and used in places you don't want to know about. (Cite photo of kids fishing that was posted in an online competition forum much like this one that was photoshopped and put on several porn sites) |
I have often heard this fear voiced, and am puzzled by it. Of course I may just be living in ignorant bliss, but this web site is loaded with images of children (including mine) and you tell us we are likely to have them turned into porn? I can't imagine. Of course the web is a sea of porn, and I know there are dark corners that I will never venture into, but I would think that the producers of this stuff have real live children to torture and exploit. I can't imagine why they would go to the effort to paste my child's face on their victim's bodies.
You write the word "Cite", short for citation I assume, and allude to events that you do not link to nor provide and specific reference that one could use to do research with. I do not doubt your fear, only it's basis. if you have actual citations for these events, could you post them? I know enough to know if I Google "housewife Singapore porn" my results are unlikely to get me anything useful. |
|
|
|
12/28/2012 11:04:32 PM · #40 |
Right. Because all know you'll get better results with "milf" rather than "housewife"...
|
|
|
|
12/28/2012 11:08:09 PM · #41 |
Googling "Singapore housewife porn" listed this link on the first page Link...
Carry on... |
|
|
|
12/28/2012 11:15:09 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by The_Tourist:
Googling "Singapore housewife porn" listed this link on the first page Link... |
So I understand that posting even faintly sexual imagery could be stolen and reposted for the titillation of audiences you did not intend it for, but how is this an example of the dangers of allowing yourself to be photographed on the street?
Message edited by author 2012-12-28 23:16:30. |
|
|
|
12/28/2012 11:16:28 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by PW321:
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by PW321:
I hear what you are saying however I have noticed that there is a level of aggressive protection of the "right" of the photographer to take photos which tends to ignore or stomp all over the rights of the person being photographed. We live in a world where the rights of the individual to do sonething are ever increasingly upheld over the rights of a person who would prefer you not to. We also live in a world where the right to privacy is increasingly being eroded as well. I'm very protective of.ky right not to have my rights infringed. |
That's cool and all, but none of rights are being infringed upon if I take your photo in while your in public.
What rights are being stomped all over? None. |
thanks for illustrating my point perfectly. Being in "public" does not ipso facto deprive deprive me of my right to privacy and my right to choose whether I want to be photographed or not. It does not give you the right supercede my right not.to have some stranger take my picture and do who knows what with it and especially not publish it on the web. And I will defend those rights ferociously whether you recognise them or not. |
Yes it does. That's why it's called public. You don't have any expectation of privacy in public. The concepts are antithetical to each other.
If you don't want your picture taken in a public area, do not go into public areas.
Your feelings on the matter don't change reality. |
|
|
|
12/29/2012 03:28:29 AM · #44 |
I don't really want to argue this issue with a bunch of people who have a vested in interest in proving me wrong. All I'm saying is that even though I am a photographer myself I am also an individual with rights. And no matter what you think I DO have rights! It would benefit the entire photographic community if instead of defending your right to take intrusive photos that you all learned to be aware that those "candid" shots you are taking secretively in the street, hiding your camera, using a tilting view finder to hide the fact that you are taking photo, may not be welcomed by the person you are photographing and that they may not be too happy with you sticking their face all over the internet, where again, no matter what you think, art or not, you are putting their image at risk.
And yes I do think it's past time that this was put to the test in court. You don't have a right to put some one in harm's way with your stolen 'candid' picture.
Certainly you can't take pictures where a person can have a reasonable right to privacy even if they are in public. You can't take pictures where the person perceives you as harassing them. And you can't manipulate a picture after the fact to show something false or use a picture in such a way that creates a false impression. There are in fact lots of legally upheld things you may not do ... so if you have the attitude that because you have a camera and are in public you have a right to do whatever you are very wrong and I would strongly suggest you read up on the subject from a legal (not a photographer's perspective).
Message edited by author 2012-12-29 03:28:49. |
|
|
|
12/29/2012 04:53:07 AM · #45 |
Just because you have the perception that you are being harrased does not fulfill the offence, the photographer would have to be pursuing a course of conduct on more than one occasion for the offence to be complete.
Street candids don't usually involve the tog coming back on multiple occasions. |
|
|
|
12/29/2012 06:01:47 AM · #46 |
this thread is titled "ethics of street photography" now I would think that giving proper consideration to how people feel about being photographed and how you should react when they object is part of the ethics and yet all I'm hearing is just how little regard there is.
And people wonder why certain kinds of photographers are regarded as lower life forms and there is a growing backlash against people taking photos of just about anything.
Next time you walk around hiding your camera in public because you jolly well know people aren't keen on being photographed and standing on your "right" to do as you please just remember you are contributing to the negative opinion that will eventually result in various restrictions being imposed.
Your choice really - continue as a collective group to show little or no respect for people or start to change before the change is imposed upon you. |
|
|
|
12/29/2012 07:51:02 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by PW321:
Next time you walk around hiding your camera in public because you jolly well know people aren't keen on being photographed and standing on your "right" to do as you please just remember you are contributing to the negative opinion that will eventually result in various restrictions being imposed. |
I don't hide my camera. I stand right next to them and have the camera up to my face when I shoot. There's no deception going on.
If people aren't keen on being photographed, they probably shouldn't walk down any major intersection (at least in Toronto), go into any stores, avoid malls, or simply leave their house. Almost everywhere you go, you're on CCTV. Hopefully you have the same outrage over this atrocity as you do when I'm out doing street photography taking your photo. |
|
|
|
12/29/2012 07:51:12 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by PW321:
this thread is titled "ethics of street photography" now I would think that giving proper consideration to how people feel about being photographed and how you should react when they object is part of the ethics and yet all I'm hearing is just how little regard there is.
And people wonder why certain kinds of photographers are regarded as lower life forms and there is a growing backlash against people taking photos of just about anything.
Next time you walk around hiding your camera in public because you jolly well know people aren't keen on being photographed and standing on your "right" to do as you please just remember you are contributing to the negative opinion that will eventually result in various restrictions being imposed.
Your choice really - continue as a collective group to show little or no respect for people or start to change before the change is imposed upon you. |
I don't know what experiences you've had, but street photography is not about hiding and skulking around grabbing up skirt and downblouse pictures. That kind of thing is illegal in many places anyway. We are not pornographers or perverts, and you don't have the right to tell us that we are wrong because you had a bad experience.
I was molested as a child by a babysitter's son, but I don't go around saying that babysitting is wrong, or that all babysitting will result in molestation. It's a matter of statistics, and unfortunately, you seem to have come out on the losing end. |
|
|
|
12/29/2012 08:07:45 AM · #49 |
Just like every other situation where we are in contact with our fellow man, we have to use respect and tact, once you've been shooting on the street for a while you get the feel for when or when not to take a photo. I often use a 35mm lens which means I have to get in close to get a decent shot and I haven't had any major issues as of yet. People give off energy, it's our job to tell who wouldn't mind being photographed and who would, sometimes we get it wrong and then it's our job to swallow our pride and smile our way out of the situation, no need for an aggressive confrontation.
|
|
|
|
12/29/2012 09:03:10 AM · #50 |
 Pw321 have you ever taken a photo of a stranger on the street and posted it online? |
|
