'People' photos (2)

Posted by: tellywellies

'People' photos (2) - Tue Dec 09 2008 04:01 PM

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.
Posted by: Professer

Re: 'People' photos (2) - Wed Dec 10 2008 06:40 AM

Thanks TW for the relaxtion of the rule, here is the Scott Memorial with a ferris wheel behind.

Posted by: satguru

Re: 'People' photos (2) - Wed Dec 10 2008 07:21 AM

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.
Posted by: tellywellies

Re: 'People' photos (2) - Wed Dec 10 2008 08:25 AM

I think that serves as a good example Professer. I'll swear I know the bloke on the left though
Posted by: lady1

Re: 'People' photos (2) - Thu Dec 11 2008 08:35 AM

tw
Posted by: Professer

Re: 'People' photos (2) - Thu Oct 08 2009 11:58 AM

Guy tyhat Martin is referring too we all know is a guy called REbus
Posted by: mc_shellsie

Re: 'People' photos (2) - Fri Oct 09 2009 12:04 AM


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 ...
Posted by: tellywellies

Re: 'People' photos (2) - Fri Oct 09 2009 02:47 AM

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!
Posted by: The_lioness33

Re: 'People' photos (2) - Fri Oct 09 2009 07:48 AM

Wait, I'm confused. Are people shots allowed or not?
Posted by: Professer

Re: 'People' photos (2) - Fri Oct 09 2009 07:54 AM

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
Posted by: The_lioness33

Re: 'People' photos (2) - Fri Oct 09 2009 08:40 AM

Thanks for clearing that up. TW's post confused me a little - I wondered whether there had been further changes.
Posted by: MadMags

Re: 'People' photos (2) - Fri Oct 09 2009 09:15 AM

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.
Posted by: PauFlP

Re: 'People' photos (2) - Fri Oct 09 2009 11:08 AM

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.
Posted by: The_lioness33

Re: 'People' photos (2) - Mon Oct 12 2009 05:43 AM

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.
Posted by: ClaraSue

Re: 'People' photos (2) - Mon Oct 12 2009 04:44 PM

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...
Posted by: picqero

Re: 'People' photos (2) - Thu Dec 24 2009 02:34 PM

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!
Posted by: satguru

Re: 'People' photos (2) - Thu Dec 24 2009 04:13 PM

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.
Posted by: MadMags

Re: 'People' photos (2) - Thu Dec 24 2009 05:09 PM

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.
Posted by: MadMags

Re: 'People' photos (2) - Thu Dec 24 2009 05:24 PM

Rats, the edit messed up the Photographers Rights link. Here it is again.

http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf
Posted by: tellywellies

Re: 'People' photos (2) - Thu Dec 24 2009 05:41 PM

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.
Posted by: MadMags

Re: 'People' photos (2) - Thu Dec 24 2009 05:45 PM

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.
Posted by: MadMags

Re: 'People' photos (2) - Thu Dec 24 2009 05:52 PM

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.
Posted by: veronikkamarrz

Re: 'People' photos (2) - Thu Dec 24 2009 08:43 PM

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?
Posted by: satguru

Re: 'People' photos (2) - Thu Dec 24 2009 08:54 PM

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.
Posted by: MadMags

Re: 'People' photos (2) - Thu Dec 24 2009 09:15 PM

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.
Posted by: veronikkamarrz

Re: 'People' photos (2) - Thu Dec 24 2009 09:34 PM

The signs are posted each point of entry. I don't know the legal aspects, but it happens to tourists, daily.
Posted by: MadMags

Re: 'People' photos (2) - Thu Dec 24 2009 09:46 PM

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.
Posted by: tellywellies

Re: 'People' photos (2) - Fri Dec 25 2009 02:45 AM

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.
Posted by: martin_cube

Re: 'People' photos (2) - Fri Dec 25 2009 07:02 PM

Anybody want to buy a camera? Suddenly, I'm afraid to be seen in public with one!
Posted by: picqero

Re: 'People' photos (2) - Fri Dec 25 2009 10:53 PM

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
Posted by: tellywellies

Re: 'People' photos (2) - Sat Dec 26 2009 01:42 AM

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 .
Posted by: sue943

Re: 'People' photos (2) - Sat Dec 26 2009 03:47 AM

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.
Posted by: picqero

Re: 'People' photos (2) - Sat Dec 26 2009 04:16 PM

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
Posted by: sue943

Re: 'People' photos (2) - Sun Dec 27 2009 08:40 AM

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.
Posted by: alexis722

Re: 'People' photos (2) - Fri Aug 09 2013 02:57 PM

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
Posted by: Christinap

Re: 'People' photos (2) - Fri Aug 09 2013 03:52 PM

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.