Rules
Terms of Use

Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
#449148 - Tue Dec 09 2008 04:01 PM 'People' photos (2)
tellywellies Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Sat Apr 13 2002
Posts: 5391
Loc: South of England
Many are having difficulty keeping people out of photos. The main points about why I think the forum shouldn't show photos of people were posted and discussed in the first 'people photos' thread. I don't want to go over that again but still believe those views are right for our forum.

However, because of various points of view put forward, we'll try a compromise. Never let it be said I don't listen . Would everyone stick to keeping people in photographs well in the background and certainly not recognisable. The question arises as to what is 'well in the background'? I'm sorry but I'm still going to have to be the judge of that but hope that people in photographs won't start getting nearer and nearer to the camera. Anyway, perhaps relaxing the rule will give a little more scope of what photos can be shown in the forum and also make some of our valued members happier.

The 'Family, Friends & Me thread won't be opening again. I am persuaded that that showing ourselves and especially children perhaps isn't right for the forum. Let's just remember that the photo forums always were primarily for displaying objects and places of interest.
_________________________
Error: Keyboard not attached. Press any key to continue..

Top
#449149 - Wed Dec 10 2008 06:40 AM Re: 'People' photos (2) [Re: tellywellies]
Professer Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: Mon May 19 2008
Posts: 464
Loc: Lincoln<br>England†UK††††††...
Thanks TW for the relaxtion of the rule, here is the Scott Memorial with a ferris wheel behind.

_________________________
Would I do it again? of course i would darling. Freddie Mercury

Top
#449150 - Wed Dec 10 2008 07:21 AM Re: 'People' photos (2) [Re: Professer]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 7237
Loc: Kingsbury London†UK†††††††††††
Thanks Martin, far better as the real world is full of them. I know I was finding it hard to pick ones with nobody at all, and had to leave out some good ones which did have vague figures about somewhere. I hope most people also would prefer to see some life in some of the photos as well as me.


Edited by satguru (Wed Dec 10 2008 10:14 AM)
_________________________
Does the brain create or receive consciousness?

Top
#449151 - Wed Dec 10 2008 08:25 AM Re: 'People' photos (2) [Re: satguru]
tellywellies Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Sat Apr 13 2002
Posts: 5391
Loc: South of England
I think that serves as a good example Professer. I'll swear I know the bloke on the left though
_________________________
Error: Keyboard not attached. Press any key to continue..

Top
#449152 - Thu Dec 11 2008 08:35 AM Re: 'People' photos (2) [Re: tellywellies]
lady1 Offline
Champion Poster

Registered: Wed Jun 07 2006
Posts: 20697
Loc: Gauteng South†Africa††††††††††
tw
_________________________
"If Life Were Easy Where Would All The Adventure Be?"

Top
#449153 - Thu Oct 08 2009 11:58 AM Re: 'People' photos (2) [Re: lady1]
Professer Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: Mon May 19 2008
Posts: 464
Loc: Lincoln<br>England†UK††††††...
Guy tyhat Martin is referring too we all know is a guy called REbus
_________________________
Would I do it again? of course i would darling. Freddie Mercury

Top
#449154 - Fri Oct 09 2009 12:04 AM Re: 'People' photos (2) [Re: Professer]
mc_shellsie Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: Mon Jun 16 2008
Posts: 335
Loc: Vancouver Island BC†Canada

loved your shot of the scott memorial ... i never really got a good photo of it last year when in edinburgh, it was my last day there and the rain was pelting down ...

i am glad as well for the relaxation of the rule ... although many times, people are the subject of my photos, have lovely photos of police overseas, and one of a vicar walking in the square ... but yes, they do have their right to privacy, as we all do ...

thanks tw for rethinking your views, its such a wacky world we live in, that we have to always consider these things in our published work ...
_________________________

"a kind deed is useless, unless it is done with love."

Top
#449155 - Fri Oct 09 2009 02:47 AM Re: 'People' photos (2) [Re: mc_shellsie]
tellywellies Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Sat Apr 13 2002
Posts: 5391
Loc: South of England
I'm glad it was thought an OK move. The whole thread is about what I thought was right for the forum. Our much liked and respected Copago might interpret the rules differently, or change them as seen fit. She's not doing a bad job ..OK, I'm joking . She's doing a wonderful job!
_________________________
Error: Keyboard not attached. Press any key to continue..

Top
#449156 - Fri Oct 09 2009 07:48 AM Re: 'People' photos (2) [Re: tellywellies]
The_lioness33 Offline
Multiloquent

Registered: Sat Feb 25 2006
Posts: 2869
Loc: Adelaide South†Australia††††
Wait, I'm confused. Are people shots allowed or not?

Top
#449157 - Fri Oct 09 2009 07:54 AM Re: 'People' photos (2) [Re: The_lioness33]
Professer Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: Mon May 19 2008
Posts: 464
Loc: Lincoln<br>England†UK††††††...
The rule is as follows


Would everyone stick to keeping people in photographs well in the background and certainly not recognisable.


surely that is easy to understand


Edited by Professer (Fri Oct 09 2009 07:56 AM)
_________________________
Would I do it again? of course i would darling. Freddie Mercury

Top
#449158 - Fri Oct 09 2009 08:40 AM Re: 'People' photos (2) [Re: Professer]
The_lioness33 Offline
Multiloquent

Registered: Sat Feb 25 2006
Posts: 2869
Loc: Adelaide South†Australia††††
Thanks for clearing that up. TW's post confused me a little - I wondered whether there had been further changes.

Top
#449159 - Fri Oct 09 2009 09:15 AM Re: 'People' photos (2) [Re: The_lioness33]
MadMags Offline
Star Poster

Registered: Sat May 03 2008
Posts: 17092
Loc: Orosi Costa†Rica††††††††††††††
Ella, I think what TW is saying is that while the 'no recognisable people in shots' rule stands as of now, Copago is free to change it if so desired.

I concur with TW too, Copago is doing a great job! She had big shoes to fill, and is doing it well.

edited because I obviously can't spell 'what' :/ Further edited to add in missing words, change grammar and clarify.

Signed: Queen of edit.


Edited by MadMags (Fri Oct 09 2009 05:36 PM)
_________________________
A smile is a curved line that sets things straight. ~ Anon.

Top
#449160 - Fri Oct 09 2009 11:08 AM Re: 'People' photos (2) [Re: MadMags]
PauFlP Offline
Explorer

Registered: Tue Jul 07 2009
Posts: 87
Loc: Santa Rosa California†USA††††
People might check their photo editing software for a blur tool. I used the one in Photoshop Elements to smudge out some faces in a July 4 parade photo (the one with the Model A Fords posted in October Photo-a-Day) that I thought could be recognized. The tool is sizable and the degree of blur is configurable, so the result can be relatively unobtrusive.

Top
#449161 - Mon Oct 12 2009 05:43 AM Re: 'People' photos (2) [Re: MadMags]
The_lioness33 Offline
Multiloquent

Registered: Sat Feb 25 2006
Posts: 2869
Loc: Adelaide South†Australia††††
Quote:

Ella, I think what TW is saying is that while the 'no recognisable people in shots' rule stands as of now, Copago is free to change it if so desired.





Cool. That's good, if a little disappointing...I've got an awesome shot of my sisters that I wanted to share but I understand the rules.

Top
#449162 - Mon Oct 12 2009 04:44 PM Re: 'People' photos (2) [Re: The_lioness33]
ClaraSue Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Sun May 18 2003
Posts: 7837
Loc: Arizona USA
I know the feeling, Ella. I had some great photos that I wanted to share, but waited too long, then the ruling changed. Oh well...
_________________________
May the tail of the elephant never have to swat the flies from your face.

Top
#449163 - Thu Dec 24 2009 02:34 PM Re: 'People' photos (2) [Re: ClaraSue]
picqero Offline
Multiloquent

Registered: Tue Dec 28 2004
Posts: 2813
Loc: Hertfordshire<br>England†UK
I'm an administrator for a Flickr special interest group, and one of our members has just had all their images removed from the site, due to them having posted 'candid' images of people in public. The member had over 6,000 images on Flickr, which must have taken a huge amount of time and effort to upload and describe, yet all images were removed, not just the relatively small number of people images!
Hence it would seem that the 'No People' rule is both relevant and important!

Top
#449164 - Thu Dec 24 2009 04:13 PM Re: 'People' photos (2) [Re: picqero]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 7237
Loc: Kingsbury London†UK†††††††††††
Is it anywhere in their rules? I say that as there are hundreds of candid/street photography groups, and never come across this before. Obviously they can decide whatever rules they like, although there aren't any laws broken whatever they have shown. I wonder if the story's a bit more complex than this, and if isn't I can see many thousands of paying members suddenly withdrawing their cash. Then there may be no Flickr to withdraw pictures at all. I'll have to investigate this more now as has implications for every person there.
_________________________
Does the brain create or receive consciousness?

Top
#449165 - Thu Dec 24 2009 05:09 PM Re: 'People' photos (2) [Re: satguru]
MadMags Offline
Star Poster

Registered: Sat May 03 2008
Posts: 17092
Loc: Orosi Costa†Rica††††††††††††††
I too think the story must be more complex. Here's what Flickr won't let you do, according to their Community Guidelines:
Quote:

What not to do
Hereís the deal: In most circumstances, we like to give second chances, so weíll send you a warning if you step across any of the lines listed below. Subsequent violations can result in account termination without warning.

Donít upload anything that isn't yours.
This includes other people's photos, video and/or stuff you've collected from around the Internet. Accounts that consist primarily of such collections may be terminated at any time.
Donít forget the children.
Take the opportunity to filter your content responsibly. If you would hesitate to show your photos or videos to a child, your mum, or Uncle Bob, that means it needs to be filtered. So, ask yourself that question as you upload your content and moderate accordingly. If you donít, itís likely that one of two things will happen. Your account will be reviewed then either moderated or terminated by Flickr staff.
Donít show nudity in your buddy icon.
Only content considered "safe" is appropriate for your buddy icon. If we find that you've uploaded a buddy icon that contains "moderate" or "restricted" content, we'll remove the buddy icon, moderate your account as ďrestrictedĒ and send you a warning. If we find you doing it again, weíll terminate your account.
Donít upload content that is illegal or prohibited.
If we find you doing that, your account will be deleted and we'll take appropriate action, which may include reporting you to the authorities.
Donít vent your frustrations, rant, or bore the brains out of other members.
Flickr is not a venue for you to harass, abuse, impersonate, or intimidate others. If we receive a valid complaint about your conduct, weíll send you a warning or terminate your account.
Donít be creepy.
You know the guy. Don't be that guy.
Donít use your account to host web graphics like logos and banners.
Your account will be terminated if we find you using it to host graphic elements of web page designs, icons, smilies, buddy icons, forum avatars, badges, and other non-photographic elements on external web sites.
Donít use Flickr for commercial purposes.
Flickr is for personal use only. If we find you selling products, services, or yourself through your photostream, we will terminate your account. Any other commercial use of Flickr, Flickr technologies (including APIs, FlickrMail, etc), or Flickr accounts must be approved by Flickr. For more information on leveraging Flickr APIs, please see our Services page. If you have other open questions about commercial usage of Flickr, please feel free to contact us.





Nothing about 'no people' allowed. Flickr even has a People in Photos feature that let's you identify people in your photo, if that person has a Yahoo account.

There are thousands of street photography photos posted, and thousands more with crowd scenes, or passersby. Even "Explore" has featured these type of shots. There has to be more to this story.

Most cases I've seen in Flickr where a person's account has been deleted is more likely to be a rogue admin with a grudge, rather than Flickr staff, and if it has been staff, then it's been a transgression of one of the above stated rules, e.g. commercial use or selling services.

Outside of Flickr, as to what we may or may not photograph in general, here's a link to <a href="http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf" target="_blank">The Photographer's Rights</a> part of which states:

Quote:

Members of the public have a very
limited scope of privacy rights when
they are in public places. Basically,
anyone can be photographed without
their consent except when they have
secluded themselves in places where
they have a reasonable expectation of
privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms,
medical facilities, and inside their homes




So, anything or anyone in public is perfectly legal to photograph, with a few exceptions such as military and national security buildings. It's a common misconception that one needs to get the permission of a person before capturing their image. If this were true, all security cameras would be operating illegally.

edited to add: For anyone who does do street photography either of people or buildings, it's a good idea to print the Photographer's Rights out, and carry it in your camera bag.


Edited by MadMags (Thu Dec 24 2009 05:22 PM)
_________________________
A smile is a curved line that sets things straight. ~ Anon.

Top
#449166 - Thu Dec 24 2009 05:24 PM Re: 'People' photos (2) [Re: MadMags]
MadMags Offline
Star Poster

Registered: Sat May 03 2008
Posts: 17092
Loc: Orosi Costa†Rica††††††††††††††
Rats, the edit messed up the Photographers Rights link. Here it is again.

http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf
_________________________
A smile is a curved line that sets things straight. ~ Anon.

Top
#449167 - Thu Dec 24 2009 05:41 PM Re: 'People' photos (2) [Re: MadMags]
tellywellies Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Sat Apr 13 2002
Posts: 5391
Loc: South of England
I never did think it was a question of legality or rights. I'd still say it isn't right to take a photograph of someone and then put it on the Internet without asking them. Also, when Photo-a-Day was created, it never was intended to be like a family album. It was a place to post photos of interesting places and objects.

To be blunt, I wouldn't want to post photos of my family or friends on the Internet. Anyone could download a photograph of a nice looking young person and photoshop it in any way they wanted to. Unlikely perhaps but definitely possible.


Edited by tellywellies (Thu Dec 24 2009 05:42 PM)
_________________________
Error: Keyboard not attached. Press any key to continue..

Top
#449168 - Thu Dec 24 2009 05:45 PM Re: 'People' photos (2) [Re: tellywellies]
MadMags Offline
Star Poster

Registered: Sat May 03 2008
Posts: 17092
Loc: Orosi Costa†Rica††††††††††††††
I totally agree with you telly, and I agree to abide by the guidelines of FunTrivia without any problems at all.

The only reason I put up the Photographers Rights link, is that there may be photographers here that make photos that don't get posted either here or Flickr. Myself, for instance.
_________________________
A smile is a curved line that sets things straight. ~ Anon.

Top
#449169 - Thu Dec 24 2009 05:52 PM Re: 'People' photos (2) [Re: MadMags]
MadMags Offline
Star Poster

Registered: Sat May 03 2008
Posts: 17092
Loc: Orosi Costa†Rica††††††††††††††
There was a case I remember reading about, about a man who was photographing inside a train station. Unfortunately I don't remember which one. He was hassled by the transit police, cuffed and detained overnight - all illegally on the transit police's part. Ironically he was taking those photos for a competition that that particular line was running for "Best Photo of so-and-so's rail line.

Had he known his rights a bit better, that probably would never have happened.

Edit: Google tells me it was Amtrak.


Edited by MadMags (Thu Dec 24 2009 05:59 PM)
_________________________
A smile is a curved line that sets things straight. ~ Anon.

Top
#449170 - Thu Dec 24 2009 08:43 PM Re: 'People' photos (2) [Re: MadMags]
veronikkamarrz Offline
Mainstay

Registered: Thu Dec 28 2006
Posts: 930
Loc: Carson City
Nevada†USA†
If you enter a Casino with a camera, and take photos, the 'film' or equipment will be confiscated. People do NOT want to be seen in certain places...

I think people pics are allowed in the Blogs, yes?
_________________________
...Be careful out there...

Top
#449171 - Thu Dec 24 2009 08:54 PM Re: 'People' photos (2) [Re: veronikkamarrz]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 7237
Loc: Kingsbury London†UK†††††††††††
Private places can do whatever they like, the photographers rights Mags posted apply in public and are the same as the ones here, and our only exception is the new terrorism act which has yet to be tested in court, so the police are basically stopping anyone they feel like the same as Amtrak. The chief constable had to publish a piece in the paper explaining our rights but doesn't seem to have stopped them doing it. Funnily enough my mother found herself in a calendar this year although had no idea they took the photo at the time, and wasn't bothered at all. I'd be far more concerned if someone was pointing a gun at me than a camera to be fair.


Edited by satguru (Thu Dec 24 2009 08:55 PM)
_________________________
Does the brain create or receive consciousness?

Top
#449172 - Thu Dec 24 2009 09:15 PM Re: 'People' photos (2) [Re: satguru]
MadMags Offline
Star Poster

Registered: Sat May 03 2008
Posts: 17092
Loc: Orosi Costa†Rica††††††††††††††
Veronikkamarrz, the Casinos have no legal right to take your film, memory card or camera from you. That is theft, and they can be charged. They DO have the right to ask you to stop, and/or to leave the premises, and you must then do so. If you don't then the police may be called in, and they are the only ones who can confiscate your film IF they arrest you, at which time it is held as evidence. Otherwise they need a court order to take your film.

They Casinos may 'tell' you they have the right to confiscate it, but they don't.
_________________________
A smile is a curved line that sets things straight. ~ Anon.

Top
#449173 - Thu Dec 24 2009 09:34 PM Re: 'People' photos (2) [Re: MadMags]
veronikkamarrz Offline
Mainstay

Registered: Thu Dec 28 2006
Posts: 930
Loc: Carson City
Nevada†USA†
The signs are posted each point of entry. I don't know the legal aspects, but it happens to tourists, daily.
_________________________
...Be careful out there...

Top
#449174 - Thu Dec 24 2009 09:46 PM Re: 'People' photos (2) [Re: veronikkamarrz]
MadMags Offline
Star Poster

Registered: Sat May 03 2008
Posts: 17092
Loc: Orosi Costa†Rica††††††††††††††
The Casinos have every right to say 'no photos allowed'. They do not have the right to take your equipment from you, if you do take photos. That is theft. They do have the right to call police and have you arrested for trespassing if they've asked you to leave and you don't.

Starbucks (another private place open to the public) are at odds right now with photographers. Head office has a photography competition going on (and part of the rules are they hold all rights to your photos, winning or not), but a lot of Starbucks outlets aren't aware of it. Some outlets don't mind if you make photos inside, others do, and have tried to either take equipment, or demand you delete, both are illegal. They DO have the right to ask you desist, or leave. They have no grounds (no pun intended ) to stop you from taking photos from the street, a public place.

Personally, I have little interest in photographing people, or the insides of private places open to the public. But if I were to go into a store and want to photograph something, I'd ask first, it's only good manners.
_________________________
A smile is a curved line that sets things straight. ~ Anon.

Top
#449175 - Fri Dec 25 2009 02:45 AM Re: 'People' photos (2) [Re: picqero]
tellywellies Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Sat Apr 13 2002
Posts: 5391
Loc: South of England
Quote:

I'm an administrator for a Flickr special interest group, and one of our members has just had all their images removed from the site, due to them having posted 'candid' images of people in public. The member had over 6,000 images on Flickr, which must have taken a huge amount of time and effort to upload and describe, yet all images were removed, not just the relatively small number of people images!
Hence it would seem that the 'No People' rule is both relevant and important!



I suppose the trouble is that once someone in charge has thought a number of photos worrying, they may then wonder what other photos the member might have published that haven't been noticed. It maybe then wouldn't be possible to sift through 6,000 photos in order to find the odd one or two that maybe shouldn't have been shown. Hence the deletion of the lot.

Perhaps once the photos had been noticed, the problem would have been discussed behind the scenes. The decision to delete may not have been down to one person.

I think it's quite a responsibility to be in charge of a photo site. Posting is a free and easy action for members, no worries. However, those in charge need to be certain the site won't come under fire for any published photos ...and even act in what they feel is a member's best interests come to that. Actions may need to be taken that sometimes won't be popular.
_________________________
Error: Keyboard not attached. Press any key to continue..

Top
#449176 - Fri Dec 25 2009 07:02 PM Re: 'People' photos (2) [Re: tellywellies]
martin_cube Offline
Multiloquent

Registered: Mon Sep 18 2006
Posts: 2534
Loc: Bristol England†UK††††††††
Anybody want to buy a camera? Suddenly, I'm afraid to be seen in public with one!
_________________________
Don't Dream It, Be It!

Top
#449177 - Fri Dec 25 2009 10:53 PM Re: 'People' photos (2) [Re: martin_cube]
picqero Offline
Multiloquent

Registered: Tue Dec 28 2004
Posts: 2813
Loc: Hertfordshire<br>England†UK
The Flickr member's account wasn't canceled, but all their images were deleted. I understand, from the member, that the 'unacceptable images' were just normal people in general street scenes, etc, with no-one in what could be called 'compromising positions. They are now going through the tedious process of re-uploading all the non-people images.
I recall many years ago, while traveling through Russia during the Communist era, there were restrictions on what could be photographed, but I never had to worry that there might be people in the photo


Edited by picqero (Sat Dec 26 2009 04:10 PM)

Top
#449178 - Sat Dec 26 2009 01:42 AM Re: 'People' photos (2) [Re: picqero]
tellywellies Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Sat Apr 13 2002
Posts: 5391
Loc: South of England
The only trouble I've experienced was years ago when some relatives we were out with photographed the inside of a shopping mall. It was a general scene to show the folks back home. A security guard came up. He didn't ask for the camera or anything like that but just informed us that photography wasn't allowed.

I don't worry about photographing most scenes here but there are some places I wouldn't point the camera at. The only reason my photos are a bit sparse in the forum these days is because we don't travel much and I've run out of places and objects to photograph. We have lots of nice countryside here but a tree is a tree is a tree .
_________________________
Error: Keyboard not attached. Press any key to continue..

Top
#449179 - Sat Dec 26 2009 03:47 AM Re: 'People' photos (2) [Re: picqero]
sue943 Offline
Administrator

Registered: Sun Dec 19 1999
Posts: 36820
Loc: Jersey
Channel†Islands††††
Quote:

The Flickr member's account wasn't cancelled, but all their images were deleted. They are now going through the tedious process of re-uploading all the non-people images.
I recall many years ago, while traveling through Russia during the Communist era, there were restrictions on what could be photographed, but I never had to worry that there might be people in the photo




More like the railways if I remember correctly.
_________________________
Many a child has been spoiled because you can't spank a Grandma!

Top
#449180 - Sat Dec 26 2009 04:16 PM Re: 'People' photos (2) [Re: sue943]
picqero Offline
Multiloquent

Registered: Tue Dec 28 2004
Posts: 2813
Loc: Hertfordshire<br>England†UK
That's right Sue - so needless to say, we just had to photograph the Russian trains whenever we saw them
Actually the Russians, including the police, didn't seem at all bothered about what we photographed, and that was long before Gorbachev, glasnost and peristroika

Top
#449181 - Sun Dec 27 2009 08:40 AM Re: 'People' photos (2) [Re: picqero]
sue943 Offline
Administrator

Registered: Sun Dec 19 1999
Posts: 36820
Loc: Jersey
Channel†Islands††††
I was there either in 1975 or 1976, I can't remember which. We were on a tour organised by Intourist. My ex was a stroppy sort of person and in one town other people on the coach wanted to visit yet another church and the tour guide said we could for £1, or perhaps £2 per head and my ex said that he would go for free but would not pay extra to visit the church, he would rather just spend time in the town. That caused all manner of problems as obviously they needed to set up surveillance for us, couldn't just let us be let loose in what we later discovered to be near to wear they used to keep political prisoners! We were not paranoid but were aware of the surveillance at times, it really didn't help that my ex had two passports sealed together and had visited some very strange countries.


Edited by sue943 (Sun Dec 27 2009 08:40 AM)
_________________________
Many a child has been spoiled because you can't spank a Grandma!

Top
#1001710 - Fri Aug 09 2013 02:57 PM Re: 'People' photos (2) [Re: martin_cube]
alexis722 Offline
Explorer

Registered: Fri Aug 02 2013
Posts: 65
Loc: Connecticut USA
As far as catching people in fotos, there seem to be certain types of people: those that do not care, those that appear paranoid and those that love attention - any kind.
I think the rule for publishing anything on the internet or in public view should follow the basic ground rules for pornography v. acceptable . You'll know it when you see it, whether it defies description or not. Each one is a case unto itself, and one person may react negatively to what several peeps find acceptable and amusing. Staying neutral usually works best. confused
_________________________


Top
#1001728 - Fri Aug 09 2013 03:52 PM Re: 'People' photos (2) [Re: tellywellies]
Christinap Offline
Prolific

Registered: Sun Jul 27 2008
Posts: 1700
Loc: Essex UK
The trouble is not all people with a camera act in a responsible manner. On another site I belong to there is one member who made a habit of posting photos of complete strangers that he had taken with a very long lens. These included a close up of a bride and groom kissing at a wedding reception where he was the other side of a hedge, not an invited guest, in fact had no idea who they were. A close up of a young child playing on a beach - again nothing to do with him, he had no idea of who the child was, he just took the photo. Children in a play school was another one.
He honestly could not understand why everyone else felt that his actions in taking these "spy" photos was wrong and posting them on an open website was even more wrong. He just regarded it as a photographic exercise and could not see that there was any violation of privacy etc. In the end a blanket ban of any people photos was the only way to stop him, but I'm sure he has found somewhere else to put them.

Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >

Moderator:  Copago, flopsymopsy