Rules: Read Me!
Admin: sue943
Legal / Conditions of Use

Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Topic Options
#449173 - Thu Dec 24 2009 09:34 PM Re: 'People' photos (2) [Re: MadMags]
veronikkamarrz Offline
Mainstay

Registered: Thu Dec 28 2006
Posts: 915
Loc: Carson City
NevadaUSA
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 CostaRica
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: 5325
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: 2448
Loc: Bristol EnglandUK
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>EnglandUK
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: 5325
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: 35458
Loc: Jersey ChannelIslands
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>EnglandUK
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: 35458
Loc: Jersey ChannelIslands
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: 59
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: 1564
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 2 of 2 < 1 2

Moderator:  Copago, LeoDaVinci, ren33