| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/15/2008 02:56:37 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Ivo:
Telling you what to do? Now you really are being silly. I'm too busy wiping the "foaming spittle" from the sides of my mouth. ;-) |
Your meds must've kicked in. |
That's it, no more Gameboy for you!! |
|
|
|
07/15/2008 02:59:52 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by Brad:
btw, do you like movies about gladiators?
|
Not particularly ... though this year's Gentlemen's Final at Wimbledon was quite dramatic ... ;-) |
|
|
|
07/15/2008 03:01:13 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Ivo:
Nobody mentioned the rights of one group over the other in this thread and you really should step down from your silly crusade. This is simply a discussion over different views that arise from a common place scenario such as this.
It is certainly your right to go a pet that pretty little bear cub because you are harmless animal lover but it is the right of the mama bear to tear off a chunk of your ass because she sees you as a threat. It is of no consequence of who is right and wrong, it is simply an observation of the dynamic that takes place.
It is prudent to carefully choose the "Hill you wish to die on". If you feel compelled to challenge the values of others in an effort to validate your rights, so be it. If you wish to ignore the consequence of your actions, good or bad, you are naive. |
Why do you presume to tell me what to do?
Also, what does a bear have to do with any of this? Are we discussing an incident at the zoo? Did you post this in the wrong thread? Were you reading this and got confused?
Newsflash - Bears are animals. They act according to their instincts. Unlike people, they do not have the ability to reason and act accordingly. |
Have you heard of mob mentality? Never over estimate the primal motivations of the "Mass human organism". The masses will succumb to herd mentality with little thought to what the underlying issue really is. If the media says so, then it must be that way. The media has embedded the fear we have of "our" world no different than bear has "instinctively" learned that things getting close to the cubs is a threat. TED.com
Telling you what to do? Now you really are being silly. I'm too busy wiping the "foaming spittle" from the sides of my mouth. ;-) |
So, what you're saying is that photographer, or any other 'one" should live in fear of the over-reacting paranoid parental mob who is unable to reason and control themselves because they've been conditioned to freak out like some rabid Pavlovian dog by the corporate media mind control machine?
No wonder kids grow up with no sense of responsibility for their actions. It's not their parents, it's the media brainwashing their parents. |
|
|
|
07/15/2008 03:15:11 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Ivo:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Ivo:
Nobody mentioned the rights of one group over the other in this thread and you really should step down from your silly crusade. This is simply a discussion over different views that arise from a common place scenario such as this.
It is certainly your right to go a pet that pretty little bear cub because you are harmless animal lover but it is the right of the mama bear to tear off a chunk of your ass because she sees you as a threat. It is of no consequence of who is right and wrong, it is simply an observation of the dynamic that takes place.
It is prudent to carefully choose the "Hill you wish to die on". If you feel compelled to challenge the values of others in an effort to validate your rights, so be it. If you wish to ignore the consequence of your actions, good or bad, you are naive. |
Why do you presume to tell me what to do?
Also, what does a bear have to do with any of this? Are we discussing an incident at the zoo? Did you post this in the wrong thread? Were you reading this and got confused?
Newsflash - Bears are animals. They act according to their instincts. Unlike people, they do not have the ability to reason and act accordingly. |
Have you heard of mob mentality? Never over estimate the primal motivations of the "Mass human organism". The masses will succumb to herd mentality with little thought to what the underlying issue really is. If the media says so, then it must be that way. The media has embedded the fear we have of "our" world no different than bear has "instinctively" learned that things getting close to the cubs is a threat. TED.com
Telling you what to do? Now you really are being silly. I'm too busy wiping the "foaming spittle" from the sides of my mouth. ;-) |
So, what you're saying is that photographer, or any other 'one" should live in fear of the over-reacting paranoid parental mob who is unable to reason and control themselves because they've been conditioned to freak out like some rabid Pavlovian dog by the corporate media mind control machine?
No wonder kids grow up with no sense of responsibility for their actions. It's not their parents, it's the media brainwashing their parents. |
Well .... sorta like that. Why think for yourself when you can have the media think for you??
Thats the way of the world dude!
Did I get all my spittle?? What a minute, I seem to have dropped my meds ......... dammit.....around here somewhere...... Oh, here they are! Lemme see, red pill or blue pill. hmmmm ;-) |
|
|
|
07/15/2008 03:37:17 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by Brad:
btw, do you like movies about gladiators?
|
Joey, have you ever seen a grown man naked?
I'm not sure the other person figured out where that was from, but Airplane! is a classic. |
|
|
|
07/15/2008 06:05:41 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Ivo:
Originally posted by togtog:
On a more serious note. I don't believe there is a genuine connection between photography and being a pervert, even being in a park. I would like to know where the publics fear of photography is not only stemming from but being reinforced and encouraged. |
You're not serious, are you?
Genuine connection, dare not be that blatant in definition. Implied? Most certainly! Its a form of "criminal profiling". The camera, a hard drive and the web are the sexual predator's new tools. |
Huh?
What gibberish is that? Wipe the foaming spittle from the corner of your mouth, sit down, take a deep breath and please post something that actually makes sense. |
Ivo's more than capable of sticking up for himself, but this sort of thing ticks me off. Here's Ivo's 'gibberish' once again:
"The camera, a hard drive and the web are the sexual predator's new tools."
Sexual predators use cameras. Sexual predators use hard drives. Sexual predators use the web. These are tools that sexual predators use. They've probably used cameras for quite a while, but hard drives and the web are comparatively new. The use of all three combined is a 'new' strategy.
Those are facts. There's not a lot to argue about in any of them. It doesn't mean that anyone who uses any or all of these tools is necessarily using them for of sexually predatory purposes any more than anyone who uses a cattle prod is a torturer, anyone who uses a chainsaw is a massacrer etc etc.
If you really, really don't want to learn to read, there's always the Daily Mail. |
|
|
|
07/15/2008 06:13:01 PM · #82 |
It makes me sick to read that. It's amazing how backwards it seems, we are so fearful as a society it's ridiculous. I get strange looks when I'm photographing in public, and I know it's because they're wondering if I'm a pedophile or a terrorist. What do we have to do? Get shirts that simply say "Not a Terrorist or Pedophile".
|
|
|
|
07/15/2008 06:23:46 PM · #83 |
I spent this last Sunday taking pictures of my son at the park.. There were tons of other kids around and not ONE parent even looked at me weird.. I wonder if it's a male photographer vs female photographer double standard. I certainly have no problem taking pictures of strangers out in public, especially kids.. And, they seem to flock towards my camera when they see me shooting.. I've never felt like the other parents around me are suspicious of my actions.. It's been quite the opposite.. If anything, they seem intrigued and wnat to know what kind of "deal" they can get if I do portraits for them..
I guess I'm just wondering if that had been those kids' mom & not their dad, would this have ever happened??? |
|
|
|
07/15/2008 06:51:01 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by AndyMac24:
It makes me sick to read that. It's amazing how backwards it seems, we are so fearful as a society it's ridiculous. I get strange looks when I'm photographing in public, and I know it's because they're wondering if I'm a pedophile or a terrorist. What do we have to do? Get shirts that simply say "Not a Terrorist or Pedophile". |
Yeah, it is sickening but it highlights the paranoia that buries all of us. It has crippled us and also stiffles the basic freedom of expression. As a test, it would be interesting to see whether a "painting artist" would encounter this level of scrutiny if they were painting in a playground? I know it may seem a bit far-fetched but it would possibly reveal the extent of people's intolerance for "anything" which may be construed as a breech of privacy.
We are being funneled into an existence where suspicion is the premise for all relationships. As a parent,it is incumbent upon me to vigilant with my child's environment and well being. If I am perceived as too vigilant, I will be deemed as overbearing. If I am too liberal, I will be deemed to be negligent. Society has set pretty narrow and ambiguous parameters for what is acceptable and what is not.
Next thing to come along may be a precedent setting lawsuit which will crucify the photographer who featured a candid image of someone without their consent. Why? Because there is no way of assuring the candid image you display here will not be pirated and used in a way you had never intended. Ultimately, who will be responsible for the image and damages that arise? Now, I'm not suggesting this to valid, but it is an argument, look at all the crap that goes through the legal system. This may just be the next headline in the papers. The question is whether, as a photographer, you are willing to shoulder that risk?? With children??
To me, that is like playing with fire.
I may have summarized the next movie of the week?
Oh well. Blast away!
Message edited by author 2008-07-15 18:52:08. |
|
|
|
07/15/2008 07:24:21 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by Louis:
The world is also full of perfectly rational, reasonable people free from paranoia. |
Yup, this is what I usually find. BTW this is the direct link to the Mail.
I used to photograph animals at a local lake in my area. I seldom go there anymore unless the weather is quite bad. As Louis said most people with children you run into are fairly well adjusted and don't have a problem with photography unless you really are concentrating only on their kids. I don't have a problem with this as I have no interest in photographing children. But the reason I seldom photograph at that park are the unreasonable parents. I'd setup one day with tripod, 80-400, D70 and was getting a few shots of a female fox and her kits. After about an hour a lady moves into a pic nic area right beside me, and between me and my subjects. She had four daughters about ages 2 through 11. So I retrained my rig up and noticed some Turkey Buzzards entering the area. So I started shooting them when they passed overhead. While doing this Mom approaches me and asks me not to take photos of her children. LOL So I pulled up stakes and moved about 250 yards away without even acknowledging her presence. So, about 30 minutes later I'm getting some good shots of Bluebird parents feeding their chicks... well guess what? Mom, moves her brood of humans right beside and between me and my subjects again. And.... you guessed it. She approaches me again and asks me to stop photographing her children. LOL So at this point I move one mile away from that area to try and catch more buzzards before I have to leave. Out of the corner of my eye I see a park ranger watching me. He's about 100 yards off but I recognize him as I was walking at that park six days a week at that time. So I pop the camera off the pod and take a snap of him. He starts approaching me at that point and I photograph him during his entire approach. When he gets close his comment was; "Oh, it's you." I asked him if the nice lady with the 4 girls had complained to him. He said yup, she was afraid the weird photographer with the huge camera was a pervert. He said he told her I wasn't a pervert just a weirdo who like photographing animals. LOL So I showed him my shots for the day as he really likes wildlife images. If you figured that Mom might try to surreptitiously watch the encounter, you'd be right. I noticed her, and suggested to the ranger to invite her over and chimp along with us. She came over and really liked the images. She wanted her little girls to have a look too! So, by not opening my big mouth when twice provoked, I won another convert to wildlife photography. I even emailed her some images for her to use with her kids at home. BTW Mr. Ranger was the only human on my CF card. I avoid the place now and walk nearer to home in an area that is much more dangerous to pedestrians. But I don't have to worry about seeing kids there!
Wild and sometimes rabid dogs are a problem,so along with my camera I usually carry my .380 Colt Mustang pistol. Just in case. :)
|
|
|
|
07/15/2008 07:33:11 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by kandykarml:
I guess I'm just wondering if that had been those kids' mom & not their dad, would this have ever happened??? |
You've hit the nail right on the head. Women are not normally considered a threat.
Unless.... accompanied by a man. But I think most child molesters are male. So it makes sense to profile in that way. When you hear a herd of thundering hooves, you usually don't think of zebras. Unless you're in Africa! |
|
|
|
07/15/2008 07:47:01 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by kandykarml:
I guess I'm just wondering if that had been those kids' mom & not their dad, would this have ever happened??? |
You've hit the nail right on the head. Women are not normally considered a threat.
Unless.... accompanied by a man. But I think most child molesters are male. So it makes sense to profile in that way. When you hear a herd of thundering hooves, you usually don't think of zebras. Unless you're in Africa! |
I really wonder if that is true. Florida seems known for its high degree of female teachers involved with boys, from what I recall, most teachers are not called child molesters by the news, they call it, an affair, or inappropriate contact, and if they get any jail time it is under 3 years, with therapy.
The more cases hit the news the more I wonder if it isn't like heart attacks. Not long ago it was believed women couldn't have or die from heart attacks, it was a mens disease. Most hospitals around here according to some report I read last year said most hospitals still are not trained in how to dianose or treat women with heart problems, they are just 30 years behind.
Oh and only men can be deadbeat parents...
All violence is caused by man...
Etc, etc. |
|
|
|
07/15/2008 08:07:54 PM · #88 |
Houston opened up a new Skate park about a month ago.
I decided to go downtown and take a few pics.
I walked in without the camera just to check out the place, it was really cool, really well done. But there was no one else with a camera.
I watched for a while and had a nice time, but never went back to get my camera. I felt someone might take offense to me shooting the kids doing their skating maneuvers.
It is a weird world we live in today. |
|
|
|
07/15/2008 08:39:33 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by Cam:
It is a weird world we live in today. |
Not singling you out. But you imply (as others have) that somehow people are more cautious than we ever were. Others have wondered what's wrong with people (today) and are "we" paranoid, under attack, overly suspicious....etc.
The world has changed.
We live in a world where the gossip comes from another country and not next door. Can you believe what that woman said to that man in London, England, Europe...?! A continent away in geography but not in psyche.
When I was a kid, I knew everyone on my street. I knew the faces of people in my town. My parents and young friends would point out "weird" people and entreat me to be wary of strangers. Strangers were relatively easy to identify in my little world.
Where are the strangers today? They are everywhere. I have information about an event that happened this past Sunday in England to prove it! Beware! "They" are there! They could be here! This could be the next thing to come to your city, neighborhood or town.
Let's get real. They were always here. We are them...aren't we?
Proceed as normal. Identify yourself and be honest with those you meet. Be honest with who you are. Be up-front about what you are doing and why you are doing it. There may be an inconvenience to you and maybe you'll miss the picture of the century...or not.
It must be said, there are single parents out there trying to protect their children from being abducted by an estranged parent or grandparents. There are people in witness protection programs. There are people with reasons to protect their privacy from the "media"... For all the reasons one can toss out for why, as photographers, we shouldn't be bothered there are people who can rightfully assert there reasons of why they are bothered.
So, to keep it to the Original Post, the woman who caused all the fuss might be trying to shield her child from being discovered by whomever. Maybe she can't talk to the media because her name would give them/her away. Maybe she called the guy a "perv" because she couldn't think of any other legitimate reason to seem hysterical....Or, maybe, she's just a nut case being exploited by the national rags.
Who am I to know? All I know, is I will continue to be skeptical of one-sided stories that appear to sensationalize what once upon a time would have only been known in my little town. |
|
|
|
07/15/2008 09:50:14 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by rossbilly:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
...Another time, I was driving near a prison close to where I work; the DPC challenge was "freedom" or "chains" and I figured I would take a picture of the razor wire on the brick wall. Well- About 3 cars and 6 CO's came over and radioed the call in and I thought- Man -I am in trouble" They took my license and walked away and came back and made me delete the photos and told me to get permission first. I was happy driving away from there. |
I'm sorry, but how did they make you do this? No one has any right to 'make' you delete photos, nor do they have the right to take your gear forcibly. A polite but firm "These are my images (PROPERTY!), and they will remain in my possession until a judge rules otherwise". Even if a policeman were to steal ('confiscate') your gear, they have absolutely no legal right to destroy the images.
Think about it - even if you were trespassing, you still own the copyright to the images. Its what you DO with them that matters, period.
[url=www.krages.com]Link to the Photographer's Rights[/url] |
I was on the property, near the main gate, and I guess therefore its public and I wasn't trespassing; Yet, I didn't want to push it an dget arrested, (I was wearing a suit and I am a lawyer) I just figured I would do what they say and exit smoothly, even though, now that you mention it it was a bit fascist of those bastards to make me delete the thing.
And maybe the irony of this is that you can't do anything, especially if you are a celebrity nowadays, without there being a picture, video a sound recording or all of the above. Camera phone and video phone images are so prevalent, its ridiculous.
On an anecdotal note, I sometimes take pictures for lawsuits, wear someone breaks a leg at Walmart, or takes a fall in a Marshalls, or gets run over on a crowded stree; its dangerous and requires stealth at times to get these shots. ONE time I was taking pictures of the parking lot of an all womens college, the road near the street, and some security guards hassled me a bit;
It seems that people expect a greater right to privacy than is really expectable; whats the logical result, your neighbors having sex on a lawnchair and getting mad when you shoot a video for youtube? |
|
|
|
07/15/2008 10:55:55 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
When you hear a herd of thundering hooves, you usually don't think of zebras. Unless you're in Africa! |
Or you are a first- or second-year medical student. ;-) |
|
|
|
07/15/2008 11:14:56 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by raish:
Sexual predators use cameras. Sexual predators use hard drives. Sexual predators use the web. These are tools that sexual predators use. They've probably used cameras for quite a while, but hard drives and the web are comparatively new. The use of all three combined is a 'new' strategy.
Those are facts. There's not a lot to argue about in any of them. It doesn't mean that anyone who uses any or all of these tools is necessarily using them for of sexually predatory purposes any more than anyone who uses a cattle prod is a torturer, anyone who uses a chainsaw is a massacrer etc etc.
|
If it doesn't imply that a person using those tools is a sexual predator, why post it? How does that contribute anything to the discussion? The same thing could be said for almost anybody, including, in all likelihood, you.
You might as well say, sexual predators eat food, sexual predators wear shoes, sexual predators watch Matlock. |
|
|
|
07/15/2008 11:23:35 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Originally posted by rossbilly:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
...Another time, I was driving near a prison close to where I work; the DPC challenge was "freedom" or "chains" and I figured I would take a picture of the razor wire on the brick wall. Well- About 3 cars and 6 CO's came over and radioed the call in and I thought- Man -I am in trouble" They took my license and walked away and came back and made me delete the photos and told me to get permission first. I was happy driving away from there. |
I'm sorry, but how did they make you do this? No one has any right to 'make' you delete photos, nor do they have the right to take your gear forcibly. A polite but firm "These are my images (PROPERTY!), and they will remain in my possession until a judge rules otherwise". Even if a policeman were to steal ('confiscate') your gear, they have absolutely no legal right to destroy the images.
Think about it - even if you were trespassing, you still own the copyright to the images. Its what you DO with them that matters, period.
[url=www.krages.com]Link to the Photographer's Rights[/url] |
I was on the property, near the main gate, and I guess therefore its public and I wasn't trespassing; Yet, I didn't want to push it an dget arrested, (I was wearing a suit and I am a lawyer) I just figured I would do what they say and exit smoothly, even though, now that you mention it it was a bit fascist of those bastards to make me delete the thing.
And maybe the irony of this is that you can't do anything, especially if you are a celebrity nowadays, without there being a picture, video a sound recording or all of the above. Camera phone and video phone images are so prevalent, its ridiculous.
On an anecdotal note, I sometimes take pictures for lawsuits, wear someone breaks a leg at Walmart, or takes a fall in a Marshalls, or gets run over on a crowded stree; its dangerous and requires stealth at times to get these shots. ONE time I was taking pictures of the parking lot of an all womens college, the road near the street, and some security guards hassled me a bit;
It seems that people expect a greater right to privacy than is really expectable; whats the logical result, your neighbors having sex on a lawnchair and getting mad when you shoot a video for youtube? |
When I was in school one of the students went to the Max Security prison and took a dirt road that led around behind the facility to take some pictures for her assignment. She was about 100ft from the outer fence when she picked up her camera. It was only after the police detained her that she realized how stupid she'd been. It seems two of the marksmen in the towers had her in their crosshairs. One nearly fired when she pulled her camera out of the bag, he thought it was a weapon of some sort. It was only because the other radioed "Don't Fire!" that he hesitated.
BTW, your neighbors sound a lot more interesting than mine.
Message edited by author 2008-07-15 23:24:17. |
|
|
|
07/15/2008 11:39:49 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
sexual predators watch Matlock. |
aw crap, I used to watch matlock!
Hey, am I in more danger if I ride my bike to take pictures? People might think I'm a pedalphile and a pedophile. That's the death penalty right? |
|
|
|
07/15/2008 11:42:33 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
sexual predators watch Matlock. |
aw crap, I used to watch matlock!
|
So does Grampa Simpson and ya know he's a perv |
|
|
|
07/16/2008 04:04:26 AM · #96 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by raish:
Sexual predators use cameras. Sexual predators use hard drives. Sexual predators use the web. These are tools that sexual predators use. They've probably used cameras for quite a while, but hard drives and the web are comparatively new. The use of all three combined is a 'new' strategy.
Those are facts. There's not a lot to argue about in any of them. It doesn't mean that anyone who uses any or all of these tools is necessarily using them for of sexually predatory purposes any more than anyone who uses a cattle prod is a torturer, anyone who uses a chainsaw is a massacrer etc etc.
|
If it doesn't imply that a person using those tools is a sexual predator, why post it? How does that contribute anything to the discussion? The same thing could be said for almost anybody, including, in all likelihood, you.
You might as well say, sexual predators eat food, sexual predators wear shoes, sexual predators watch Matlock. |
I suppose it's all pretty bound to get blown out of any realistic perspective when US citizens comment on the perceived morality of an article in a UK paper which will publish anything that shocks the middle class muffins in order to sell copy.
 togtog said there was no connection between perverts and photography. Ivo corrected him and pointed out that there is indeed a connection.
I don't think anyone's arguing about the over-reaction of the other parents at the scene, but it's not so unreasonable for parents at a playground to question strangers that are taking photographs. I've been called out twice for taking pictures of kids and I have no complaint about either of those occasions. Photography and the general carriage and use of a camera are essentially innocent, but they're not divine right. |
|
|
|
07/16/2008 05:20:17 AM · #97 |
Originally posted by raish:
Photography and the general carriage and use of a camera are essentially innocent, but they're not divine right. |
Perhaps in your country. |
|
|
|
07/16/2008 05:39:58 AM · #98 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by raish:
Photography and the general carriage and use of a camera are essentially innocent, but they're not divine right. |
Perhaps in your country. |
If by that you mean perhaps not in 'my country' and thus by implication that you are in possession of some sort of country in which use and carriage of photographic equipment is divine right then it's a bit meaningless for me because a) I have no country and b) neither does divinity.
Cartoons |
|
|
|
07/16/2008 07:35:34 AM · #99 |
Originally posted by goodman:
i must say i'm finding it more difficult to want to take pictures of kids, especially
ones i dont know.. these days.
i would NOT want anyone taking pics of mine. |
Making  goodman think twice about her candids is a worse crime than all the park-perverts put together could dream up. I'm just sayin'
|
|
|
|
07/16/2008 07:44:44 AM · #100 |
Originally posted by raish:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by raish:
Photography and the general carriage and use of a camera are essentially innocent, but they're not divine right. |
Perhaps in your country. |
If by that you mean perhaps not in 'my country' and thus by implication that you are in possession of some sort of country in which use and carriage of photographic equipment is divine right then it's a bit meaningless for me because a) I have no country and b) neither does divinity.
Cartoons |
Sigh...I can't explain everything to you. |
|
