Rules
Terms of Use

Topic Options
#441870 - Tue Sep 30 2008 01:51 PM 'People' photos
tellywellies Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Sat Apr 13 2002
Posts: 5415
Loc: South of England
Quote:

That shot of the policemen could have been in the "People in Uniform" thread, if ever we were to have one! But I think TW nixed it.



'Hunks in Uniforms' was the suggestion. True I thought it not right for the forums. I have to say that I'm not especially keen on people being being the main subject of photos in general, perhaps especially those in uniform. I notice the faces of Police are sometimes electronically blurred in TV reports for security reasons.

The photo threads are more about objects and places ...and these are mostly what are shown. I prefer that personally and think such photos 'safe'. Nonetheless, I realise I may be the overcautious type. That's why I responded to members' wishes to show 'people' photos by suggesting the 'Family, Friends and Me' thread. I thought this a good idea because it meant Photo-a-Day would stay more dedicated to it's original purpose of displaying objects and places of interest. It wasn't that I particularly thought it a good idea to make oneself, family and friends available for viewing on the Internet. However, we're all grown-up people and make our choices. I appreciate that some members want to show such photos and feel comfortable about it.

Something I do worry about with 'close-up' photos is that the subjects may not realise they will end up being shown on the Internet where the World can see them. Unidentifiable people in the background can't be avoided sometimes but they are coincidental to the main subject at least. However, if members of the public or the Services are the actual subjects of photos, perhaps confirmation could be given in the forum (or by PM) that those in the photos have been asked if they mind being shown on the Internet ..or can I just assume that they have been asked? Without consent, showing the photos probably isn't the thing to do.
_________________________
Error: Keyboard not attached. Press any key to continue..

Top
#441871 - Wed Oct 01 2008 08:14 AM Re: 'People' photos
picqero Offline
Multiloquent

Registered: Tue Dec 28 2004
Posts: 2813
Loc: Hertfordshire<br>England UK
I was opposed to the 'hunks' theme suggestion, just as I would be to a 'babes' or similar theme. However I see no problem in showing images of people who are clearly posing for a photograph.
I sometimes show photos of fellow re-enactors, particularly of the English Civil War period, but you would be hard pressed to recognise these same people in their everyday clothes and environment. I've also posted images of sailing friends, street musicians, etc, but as there was no personal information given, I can't see any problem, and such images merely depicted scenarios I'd seen!
Maybe the 'Family, friends and me' thread should be amended simply to a 'People' thread, with definite guidelines, such as confirmation that these people have agreed to be photographed. If they're obviously posing for the photograph, they must have agreed, though in the case of children I feel these must be strictly confined to close family members.

Top
#441872 - Wed Oct 01 2008 10:56 AM Re: 'People' photos
sue943 Offline
Administrator

Registered: Sun Dec 19 1999
Posts: 37341
Loc: Jersey
Channel Islands    
I cannot see any problems with posting photos of people such as those you mention Angus, they are 'dressed up' and are expecting to have their photographs taken. I think Martin is referring to people who have no reason to think that they might have been the principle subject of a photograph.
_________________________
Many a child has been spoiled because you can't spank a Grandma!

Top
#441873 - Wed Oct 01 2008 11:15 AM Re: 'People' photos
tellywellies Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Sat Apr 13 2002
Posts: 5415
Loc: South of England
Quote:

Maybe the 'Family, friends and me' thread should be amended simply to a 'People' thread, with definite guidelines, such as confirmation that these people have agreed to be photographed. If they're obviously posing for the photograph, they must have agreed, though in the case of children I feel these must be strictly confined to close family members.



There are already some definite guidelines regarding The 'Family, Friends and Me' thread. See the Photo posting guide under the heading: Rules specific to the 'Family, Friends and Me' forum.

Part of the trouble is that it was never envisaged initially that the photo threads would be about showing photos of people. It was always meant to be about places in the World and objects of interest rather than that. OK, things have progressed. Members wanted to show family photos and so we have the forum where that can be done within the guidelines.

If we were to extend that forum to include people in general. I still think that even if people are posing for the camera, it doesn't necessarily mean they know the photos will end up on the Internet. They should be informed of that in my opinion, whether accompanied by information about them or not. If we're close enough to take a close-up, or a posed photo, then we're close enough to ask the people in them if they'll mind. I'm sure that's the right thing to do. A crowd scene could be different I suppose but I personally try to keep people at a distance when taking photos.
_________________________
Error: Keyboard not attached. Press any key to continue..

Top
#441874 - Wed Oct 01 2008 12:45 PM Re: 'People' photos
picqero Offline
Multiloquent

Registered: Tue Dec 28 2004
Posts: 2813
Loc: Hertfordshire<br>England UK
It's not as simple as that; you can only ask them if you both speak the same language, which isn't always the case. In last week's music theme, I posted an image of two young violinists in Gdansk, but I don't speak Polish, and have no idea if they spoke English. In any case I doubt if they'd have wanted their performance interrupted by a 'foreigner'!
I've also posted images of sports events, such as soccer, but would not have had any opportunity to obtain players' permission to post their images on the internet.
Sue's point that people engaged in public performances expect their photos to be taken, and these days probably posted somewhere on the internet, is reasonable. The only alternative, as I see it, is to impose a blanket ban on all people images.

Top
#441875 - Wed Oct 01 2008 01:01 PM Re: 'People' photos
tellywellies Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Sat Apr 13 2002
Posts: 5415
Loc: South of England
Quote:

The only alternative, as I see it, is to impose a blanket ban on all people images.



If that were to happen, it would at least be much better than the time when no photos or images at all were allowed in any of the forums. We'd have at least progressed a long way from those days.
_________________________
Error: Keyboard not attached. Press any key to continue..

Top
#441876 - Thu Oct 02 2008 12:44 AM Re: 'People' photos
tellywellies Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Sat Apr 13 2002
Posts: 5415
Loc: South of England
Just further thought on this subject that I'm somewhat uneasy about. The same points put a different way perhaps.

If someone is kind enough to pose for a photo, is it fair to show that photo on the Internet/forum without saying this may be the intention? I don't think any legal pitfalls would apply in most cases but I'd say it would certainly be a case of courtesy/fair play/politeness.

Also, what about photos of public events (or even just ordinary street scenes) where the faces of those incidentally appearing in the shots are clearly defined? Should these be shown? What if someone browsing the Internet/forums sees someone they know who has said they were somewhere else at the time? ("Who was that woman/man you were with?" ) An admittedly very unlikely event but a possibility. Unlikely scenarios happen sometimes.

I don't propose a 'no go' on people shots but I do suggest that those who take photos where people are close enough to be identified, ask if's OK to show them here. Personally, if I couldn't get that permission (for whatever reason), I wouldn't post them.

I can see the point about about public performers. They may not mind at all if their photos are put up for public gaze. I don't think any copyright issues apply unless shown for profit. That slight doubt might persuade me not to post them though. When it comes to other people, many don't trust, or perhaps even like, the Internet and might prefer their photo not to be shown. We won't know unless we ask.

Please just consider these points.
_________________________
Error: Keyboard not attached. Press any key to continue..

Top
#441877 - Thu Oct 02 2008 08:36 AM Re: 'People' photos
gypsy1326 Offline
Participant

Registered: Thu Apr 06 2006
Posts: 26
Loc: Urbana Illinois USA       
Just food for thought: another photography website that I follow requires, as has been suggested here, that any photo where the human subject is "identifiable" be accompanied by a PM to the moderator certifying that permission was obtained. It does not seem to interfere terribly with the operation or participation of that site, although there have been some photos that I could not post there because of the restriction.
_________________________
A closed mouth gathers no foot.

Top
#441878 - Fri Oct 03 2008 09:53 PM Re: 'People' photos
Jar Offline
Multiloquent

Registered: Wed Apr 11 2001
Posts: 4224
Loc: Texas USA
One last note. I was going to take a picture of a fire fighter (thinking of Sue) and I asked if I could take his photo. He was very kind, and said sure. However, I did say I would like to post it in a family forum, and he then declined. When I asked him why, he said, "You never know when it is going to jump up and bite you in the ????" I can see his point, some unscrupulous persons could do something with it, I suppose. But that was it. He said no, and I understood.

Also, sometimes cities do not allow personnel in their employ pose for photos, especially if it is on the internet.
_________________________
If you can't sleep, then get up and do something instead of lying there worrying. It's the worry that gets you, not the lack of sleep.
-Dale Carnegie

Top
#441879 - Wed Oct 15 2008 03:15 PM Re: 'People' photos
Tredici Offline
Mainstay

Registered: Wed Jul 23 2008
Posts: 544
Loc: Greeley Colorado USA    
Another thing to remember, once you put a photo in a public domain it becomes, well, public.

There was recently a report here in the States of a family seeing their dog picture suddenly appear on a television sports program and another family who was surprised to see a picture of their daughter used in a commercial for penpals. So beware.

If you use a photo hosting service be sure to indicate your pictures are "private".

On a personal note, a spamming war broke out on a forum I was a member of and people got so carried away they did terrible things with family photos. Most of us post pictures with a sincere desire to share our experiences but unfortunately there are others who can and would do harm.


Edited by Tredici (Wed Oct 15 2008 03:16 PM)

Top
#441880 - Wed Oct 15 2008 04:53 PM Re: 'People' photos
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 7613
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
There's no UK law preventing use of any unclassified images in public as the ownership and copyright belongs to who took the photo. As a result as well as press freedom (currently under threat) would be very restricted as well as the general public. The fact the internet didn't exist beforehand didn't stop images of anyone in them not only being used publicly but in some cases commercially by holiday companies who take random crowd photos for their brochures. If we can be seen walking down a street by people around us then being seen online by others isn't actually that different. Unless you're Salman Rushdie.

And remember all those street cameras filming you there? Many of them are streamed online and the council never asked anyone. I think if they set such precedents we can relax over such things.


Edited by satguru (Wed Oct 15 2008 04:55 PM)
_________________________
Does the brain create or receive consciousness?

Top
#441881 - Thu Oct 16 2008 12:23 AM Re: 'People' photos
tellywellies Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Sat Apr 13 2002
Posts: 5415
Loc: South of England
It's not a question of law, although it might apply in some cases. I just think it's right that people should know their photo might end up on the Internet.

It's not always possible to keep background people entirely out of photos but I find that if you wait a few seconds when taking photos of public areas, there usually comes a time when all unknown people in the shot aren't very close to the camera.

There is also the point that Photo-a-Day always was meant to be about places and objects, almost anything but people. When I was asked to help set the forum up and look after it, perhaps a rule should have been made about that but I never thought about doing so. Anyway, the number of rules were building up and I was trying not to make too many. I don't intend to suggest to Admin that we make another rule about this, although we apparently wouldn't be alone if there was one (see gypsy1326's post above).

I think it would be difficult to make a hard and fast rule. It's a grey area. An example perhaps being Picqero's re-enactment scenes. The people in those are giving a display intended for public view. There's a very good chance that, unless there are rules against photographing the event, they probably aren't going to mind the publicity. I see that as being different to people who are not giving some sort of show. They might not welcome being on the Internet. Just consider if that could be the case is all I say.

Edit: Just a couple of grammar errors.


Edited by tellywellies (Thu Oct 16 2008 04:31 AM)

Top
#441882 - Sat Oct 25 2008 12:05 PM Re: 'People' photos
sue943 Offline
Administrator

Registered: Sun Dec 19 1999
Posts: 37341
Loc: Jersey
Channel Islands    
I did ask permission to post this on an internet forum site after taking a photo of this poor exhausted looking man; he was perfectly happy to be shown.



This is why the poor man looks so tired. Yes, that is me wearing the halo.


Edited by sue943 (Sat Oct 25 2008 12:05 PM)
_________________________
Many a child has been spoiled because you can't spank a Grandma!

Top
#441883 - Sat Oct 25 2008 12:19 PM Re: 'People' photos
jordandog Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Tue Apr 17 2007
Posts: 5097
Loc: Ohio USA         
Oh, Sue, I could run with that one, but value my FT account too much!
_________________________
The bond that links your true family is not one of blood, but of respect and joy in each other's life. Rarely do members of one family grow up under the same roof.-- Richard Bach [i]Illusions

Top
#441884 - Sun Oct 26 2008 02:36 AM Re: 'People' photos
lady1 Offline
Champion Poster

Registered: Wed Jun 07 2006
Posts: 20697
Loc: Gauteng South Africa          
Not even Santa Clause is safe with Sue around.
_________________________
"If Life Were Easy Where Would All The Adventure Be?"

Top
#441885 - Wed Oct 29 2008 03:46 AM Re: 'People' photos
ren33 Offline
Moderator

Registered: Thu Sep 30 1999
Posts: 12412
Loc: Kowloon Tong  Hong Kong      
Here is a corner of a classroom with some of my 'Heavy Mob" the A level students, all on task for once, so it has to go down in history.
_________________________
Wandering aimlessly through FT since 1999.

Top
#441886 - Mon Nov 17 2008 12:30 AM Re: 'People' photos
mc_shellsie Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: Mon Jun 16 2008
Posts: 335
Loc: Vancouver Island BC Canada
I have just noticed this thread and here are my two cents worth:

It might be worth noting that law on the privacy of photographing people in public places is different in North America than in Europe. And then again varies between countries. There are many professional photography websites that explain what is being debated here.

As for public figures ... it becomes not a question of consent .. but one of remuneration. Papparazi case in point. No laws against it. That said ... individuals can make a federal case out of it ... literally!

It is interesting to ponder the question posed "what about someone being somewhere they shouldn't". Well the answer is really clear, that's not the photographers problem. It's obviously a problem for the person who is doing something they shouldn't. In fact, the photographer becomes the 'truth bearer'. You know, this makes me think about the war photos we see - and the 'undercover' shots of people exposing corruption, etc. Why would we want to shoot the messenger?

Law or no law, my personal standards in regard to children are no matter even with consent ... it is morally wrong to POST them. They are innocents and however remote the possibility may seem, their photos on the internet subjects them to danger. I also always ask permission from their charges to photograph and always tell them the use the photo will be put to. But internet? It's not just irresponsible, it's endangerment. Never. Never. Never.

In all photography I like to put ethics ahead of law ... usually with that approach, the former takes care of the latter.

Someone mentioned what they had seen done to photographs after having problems. Well, we have one of those photos here ... i beleive Queen Elizabeth is having tea with a couple of ladies through the magic of Photoshop. A photo like this would open the site up for libel issues should the Queen decide that was an inappropriate use of her image. I'm sure it's done all the time on the internet. It can be cute, it can be funny, (or cruel) but "is it right"? Is it ethical?

Anyhow ... I'm fairly new here and I just enjoy sharing my work - have been photographing for 30 years, and make some nice spare change selling some of my photos; but I really do it because it is my passion. Never would I ever consider photographs of people as not being photography. There is so much good work out there that explains our human condition through photographing people, a culture, a way of life, suffering, joy etc. much more than any photograph of a pleasant landscape ever could. In fact, portraiture was actually the main reason for the invention of photography. Easier than everyone having to have their own personal Rembrandt to memorialize the family sitting, lol.

To me, photo's aren't just something we look at. They are something to make us think. Something to make us see the world through others eyes, minds and hearts. It can connect us in an unconnected world.

Anyhow, off my soapbox, my high horse. These are just my opinions, not intended to devalue any of yours. I let the gods decide how the forums should go, lol -
i already have enough bad karma

Just keep taking pictures all of you ... of everything! Post within allowances. Have fun! I really love seeing all of your images in the forums, and i do mean that sincerely.


Edited by mc_shellsie (Mon Nov 17 2008 12:47 AM)

Top
#441887 - Mon Nov 17 2008 02:05 PM Re: 'People' photos
tellywellies Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Sat Apr 13 2002
Posts: 5415
Loc: South of England
Everyone has contributed some valid points in this thread. The content of some photographs is always going to be debatable. I personally decided a while ago not to post any further photos of myself or my family on the Internet. However, I have attempted to run the forum for the members, some of whom feel there is nothing wrong with posting such photos. I've always been quite anxious not to force my own views on everyone just because I'm the Moderator here. For this reason, rule making is always discussed behind the scenes of the open forum. Aside from any rule-making, the type and content of photos allowed has also been discussed.

Nonetheless, I now feel we should say that all photos containing people are not allowed, full stop. This would apply to any photo containing...

* Adults.
* Children.
* Infants.

...whether they are related to members or not. Perhaps it is too much of a legal or moral minefield to post such photos. Some (including me) will nearly always give reasons why they feel some photos are OK and others aren't. I think all might have a point but it becomes too complicated to make hard an fast rules when the boundaries are so blurred.

I believe it best if we now return to the original Photo-a-Day only threads but with the addition of a rule that no 'people photos' are allowed. As pointed out earlier, it wasn't so long ago that we couldn't post photos or images in the FunTrivia forums at all. Compared to that, Photo-a-Day will still be a big plus.

I know this probably won't be a popular move but we think it best to err on the side of caution from now on. We (I) hope you will keep posting photos in Photo-a-Day within the limitation. From all the great photos I see in there, it looks like most will have no difficulty in doing that.


Edited by tellywellies (Mon Nov 17 2008 02:41 PM)
_________________________
Error: Keyboard not attached. Press any key to continue..

Top

Moderator:  flopsymopsy