Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I refuse to succumb to other people's mental insanity.
While we're discussing mental insanity ... you seem to be displaying signs of extreme narcissism. So, glass houses and all ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by shyguylh
Well guess what Tonto--I DON'T have to ask permission to take photos in public. GET OVER IT. Don't like it, work to change the laws so we can be like those French poodles who have such laws. We're not in France, and anyone who tries to change the laws to make us like France will find me and a lot of other photographers fighting you tooth and nail.
You refuse to understand that it's not about what's LEGAL or not. It's about freaking RESPECT of others and their own personal boundaries, whether you agree with them or not.
When I saw this response I assumed you meant that you were describing what happens when people who do NOT want their picture taken make a big stink about it.
No. I mean that assembling the entire table on one side for a picture interrupts any conversations at the table, and any conversation that a person gathered back from the overall crowd for the picture was having with someone else.
You refuse to understand that it's not about what's LEGAL or not. It's about freaking RESPECT of others and their own personal boundaries, whether you agree with them or not.
In social situations in the home, sure. In public, taking "overview" shots--I'm not obligated legally OR MORALLY to not take photos of the PUBLIC views in front of me. It's that simple.
Well guess what Tonto--I DON'T have to ask permission to take photos in public.
If you publish them--and social media is considered publishing--you may well indeed need a release. Impractical? Yes. Enforced? Not often. But if you single someone out and post a photo of them online (vs, say, a crowd shot at a concert), that person is well within his or her rights to request that you take it down. If you do not, that person can indeed have an attorney contact you. This goes twice over if you run a commercial site and the image could be seen as advertising or a product. The laws that govern paper publishing apply in online publishing.
Why is it such a big deal for you to collect pictures of people like this? It sounds voyeuristic and fetishistic on a good day, downright creepy and disrespectful on a bad. There are enough narcissists in the world who would love to mug for you. Go bother them with your non-existent boundaries, and leave people who don't want you pestering them alone.
His kids don't have a decent picture of him after about age 35.
So what? They'll remember him young and healthy, not old and decrepit. I don't see what the big deal is. Not like his kids are going to forget what he looks like.
Not exactly. It's actually yours plus your newlywed husband's life and your (plural) decision. Assuming that both of you were on the same page, then yes, you're the ones who get to make that decision.
That said, unless your aversion to being photographed stems from religious objections, I find your decision to be appallingly selfish. In a broad sense, weddings belong not only to the bride and groom but also to the best man, the maid of honor, the bridesmaids and groomsmen, the parents of the bride and groom, and the honored guests of the couple. They also belong to the future children of the bride and groom, because their parents' wedding is an integral part of how they came to be.
But because you don't want your picture taken, they're all denied a key piece of memorabilia of this important event. Your choice? Yes. Selfish in the extreme, and even a bit spiteful? Yes.
This is absurd. ^^^ By your rationale, people who elope are appallingly selfish, too.
What is appallingly selfish is for anyone to assume that a couple's wedding belongs to anyone but the couple. Good grief.
If you publish them--and social media is considered publishing--you may well indeed need a release. Impractical? Yes. Enforced? Not often. But if you single someone out and post a photo of them online (vs, say, a crowd shot at a concert), that person is well within his or her rights to request that you take it down. If you do not, that person can indeed have an attorney contact you. This goes twice over if you run a commercial site and the image could be seen as advertising or a product. The laws that govern paper publishing apply in online publishing.
Why is it such a big deal for you to collect pictures of people like this? It sounds voyeuristic and fetishistic on a good day, downright creepy and disrespectful on a bad. There are enough narcissists in the world who would love to mug for you. Go bother them with your non-existent boundaries, and leave people who don't want you pestering them alone.
How is someone incidentally ending up in a photograph mostly in the background being "pestered?" Good grief. It's not like we're talking about Taylor Swift here.
As I understand it, you need a model release for commercial, advertising or editorial purposes, not showcasing the particulars of your town on a personal page, which is what I or most any other hobbyist street photographer would do. I seriously doubt that I need a model release to publish a picture of grandma standing underneath a tree or the street vendor selling papers from the traffic island.
People who would contact an attorney about this--if that's indeed a recourse and I don't know that it is--they have a stick up their rear, and need to be told they do. They're too uptight. If they feel otherwise, they are WRONG and should be told so. I'm more than happy to do so.
Regardless, it's obvious to me you don't read--you know, that post where I made it clear I don't go following people around clicking in their faces, mostly just that if I'm photographing something like a water fountain with 20 kids on it I'm fully in my rights to do so legally AND morally vs waiting for all 20 kids to clear out. Feel free to go back and read it. (Why do so many people hate photos??)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilac110
This is absurd. ^^^ By your rationale, people who elope are appallingly selfish, too.
What is appallingly selfish is for anyone to assume that a couple's wedding belongs to anyone but the couple. Good grief.
Then why would they invite everybody to it? If they really want it to be just about themselves, then yes, go elope, but even then--yes, I think that's somewhat selfish too. What mother or father doesn't dream of the day they see their daughter and/or son marry? It's a big deal. I could see eloping if the parents are nasty, sure, but otherwise--yes, it's selfish, as it is to demand that no one can take photos at a wedding for remembering the occasion. In fact, if I were that girl's father, I would refuse to attend the wedding at all or support it in anyway whatsoever for telling me I can't take photos at my own daughter's wedding. If she were looking for me to pay, that in fact would be a condition--I'll help pay on the condition that you allow photographs, otherwise you're on your own 100%. If she gets mad and tells me I'm no longer in her life, fine.
As I understand it, you need a model release for commercial, advertising or editorial purposes, not showcasing the particulars of your town on a personal page, which is what I or most any other hobbyist street photographer would do. I seriously doubt that I need a model release to publish a picture of grandma standing underneath a tree or the street vendor selling papers from the traffic island.
People who would contact an attorney about this--if that's indeed a recourse and I don't know that it is--they have a stick up their rear, and need to be told they do. They're too uptight. If they feel otherwise, they are WRONG and should be told so. I'm more than happy to do so.
Regardless, it's obvious to me you don't read--you know, that post where I made it clear I don't go following people around clicking in their faces, mostly just that if I'm photographing something like a water fountain with 20 kids on it I'm fully in my rights to do so legally AND morally vs waiting for all 20 kids to clear out. Feel free to go back and read it. (Why do so many people hate photos??)
If a photo is just for your personal use, there is no reason to put it online, is there?
Morever, if your personal page accepts advertising, even if it's just Adsense, you could be seen as profiting from the use of someone's image.
As for the rest, I've read your posts, all right. My opinion of your techniques stands. Moreover, I'll add that if you stand around parks or schools taking photographs of children, sooner or later someone equally unhinged is going to take exception to you photographing his kid and pop you one in the face. Wouldn't be the first time something like that happened.
As for weddings, it doesn't matter. You get married your way, other people get married theirs. If they don't want photographs, they don't want photographs. There is no such thing as an unobtrusive photographer. Some people feel photographs and photographers are too much of a distraction from the celebration. Personally, I hated it when I got married. I kept thinking, "Can't a beyotch eat some damn soup on her wedding day in peace?"
If a photo is just for your personal use, there is no reason to put it online, is there?
Morever, if your personal page accepts advertising, even if it's just Adsense, you could be seen as profiting from the use of someone's image.
As for the rest, I've read your posts, all right. My opinion of your techniques stands. Moreover, I'll add that if you stand around parks or schools taking photographs of children, sooner or later someone equally unhinged is going to take exception to you photographing his kid and pop you one in the face. Wouldn't be the first time something like that happened.
As for weddings, it doesn't matter. You get married your way, other people get married theirs. If they don't want photographs, they don't want photographs. There is no such thing as an unobtrusive photographer. Some people feel photographs and photographers are too much of a distraction from the celebration. Personally, I hated it when I got married. I kept thinking, "Can't a beyotch eat some damn soup on her wedding day in peace?"
Why put it online? Because it's MY photos and MY page and because I WANT to. Satisfied?
Let some fruitcake some unhinged. They'll answer for it. They'll be dealing with assault and battery charges, because you better believe I'm pressing the issue. If they can't accept the reality of public space and the 1st amendment that's their problem, and their battle to fight by attempting to have the laws changed--good luck there, the 1st amendment tends to be a very protected thing. The entire world of public photography isn't obligated to stop just because someone forgot to go to the birth control section of the local drug store.
Of course someone can make whatever demands, as STUPID as they are, with respect to their wedding being a camera-free zone, and given that they're inviting people to it, they have no business whining if someone calls them on their selfishness. Would they expect nothing but support if they demanded that every attendee had to wear yellow underwear and burgundy long-johns, I mean it's their wedding? They could always just say that cameras are allowed but that they're not going to bother with the elaborate "shoots" which, I admit, can be draining the way they typically go.
Why put it online? Because it's MY photos and MY page and because I WANT to. Satisfied?
Let some fruitcake some unhinged. They'll answer for it. They'll be dealing with assault and battery charges, because you better believe I'm pressing the issue. If they can't accept the reality of public space and the 1st amendment that's their problem, and their battle to fight by attempting to have the laws changed--good luck there, the 1st amendment tends to be a very protected thing. The entire world of public photography isn't obligated to stop just because someone forgot to go to the birth control section of the local drug store.
Of course someone can make whatever demands, as STUPID as they are, with respect to their wedding being a camera-free zone, and given that they're inviting people to it, they have no business whining if someone calls them on their selfishness. Would they expect nothing but support if they demanded that every attendee had to wear yellow underwear and burgundy long-johns, I mean it's their wedding? They could always just say that cameras are allowed but that they're not going to bother with the elaborate "shoots" which, I admit, can be draining the way they typically go.
Sure, when your jaw heals and you can speak. I wouldn't deem anyone's photo worth that much, much less a photo of a stranger's kid, but then again, I have healthy boundaries.
Do you see how illogical you're being? You say they're your photos, but they're of someone else's face and body, or, in the case of a wedding, someone else's event. If you don't like the rules, don't go to the wedding. And yes, weddings have dress codes. They may not be that specific, but they are there: Formal/black tie, semi-formal, casual, beach. If you show up to a black-tie event in jeans, security may not let you in because you don't look like you belong there. Hey, certain restaurants still keep generic jackets and ties on hand for people who don't dress appropriately. If you don't wear them, they don't let you in. Start snapping photos at an event where they are not allowed, security will escort you off the premises.
Maybe you don't have a lot going on in your life right now that you need to pry into other people's and try to capture them for whatever weird reasons you have--and your visceral reaction to what people are telling you here tells me that your reasons are probably pretty weird, and perhaps prurient. Most photographers don't get so upset about this kind of thing. Like I said, plenty of narcissists in the world who would live their entire lives on a camera. Why not bother them?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wouldn't deem anyone's photo worth that much, much less a photo of a stranger's kid, but then again, I have healthy boundaries. 
