Quandary.....

Toxick

Splat
Shutterbug said:
2) There are all kinds of weirdos out there, and like migtig, the thought of some guy carrying my picture into the bathroom to “excite” himself (put nicely) makes me want to :barf:.



Am I the only one who would be flattered by this?
 

Tigerlily

Luvin Life !!!
vraiblonde said:
How many photos of strangers in embarrassing situations get posted just on these forums? Elaine doesn't want that to be her, and I don't blame her.


"Southern Maryland Forumites Gone Wild" on sale now for the very low price of $19.99.
 

Hot N Bothered

New Member
vraiblonde said:
Actually, that's not true. Whenever a reporter or cameraman snaps a pic or footage that will be made public, they must have a release signed by the people in the picture. The only exception is when it's a crowd shot and nobody stands out as obviously recognizable. When we'd show up at clubs on a busy night to get footage for a commercial, we had EVERYONE sign a release. And there were always those who objected to being filmed and we would simply let them know we were filming and they'd move out of the shot.

You know when you're watching a cop show and some of the faces are blurred? Those people didn't sign the release.
That's a good CYA, but I'm not sure it's true. If I remember correctly from a class I took in copyright/privacy law, if you are in a public place, you don't have a "reasonable assumption of privacy" and pictures are fair game. (We aren't talking about the bathroom, or up the skirt shots here)

I recall my nephew being photographed at a festival by a newspaper reporter. The reporter never requested a release, just asked the child's name and age for purposes of keeping the caption accurate.

I think legally, post away. What that'll do to your karma score or whether people refuse to show up at future events or invite you to them, that'll have to be up to the individuals.

You may also consider posting them without names. People could always claim that they "just happened" to be there, or had heard about a good cause and wanted to contribute. The people who were there know the truth, but they know the faces anyway.
 
K

Kain99

Guest
Hot N Bothered said:
That's a good CYA, but I'm not sure it's true. If I remember correctly from a class I took in copyright/privacy law, if you are in a public place, you don't have a "reasonable assumption of privacy" and pictures are fair game. (We aren't talking about the bathroom, or up the skirt shots here)
It's actually NOT true... Releases are used out of common courtesy... Not required by law. The guys with their faces blurred haven't been convicted yet. :wink:
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Hot N Bothered said:
I recall my nephew being photographed at a festival by a newspaper reporter. The reporter never requested a release, just asked the child's name and age for purposes of keeping the caption accurate.
Giving a name and age implies consent.

I think legally, post away.
Shutterbug isn't going to do that - she's a nice person and respects people, with no need to consult a lawyer to see if it's legal for her to post someone's photo against their wishes.

Anyway, it doesn't matter. If someone's photo gets posted on here and the subject objects, we have a legal and moral obligation to remove it. No need to get into a pissing contest about it. I suspect some of you are now just trying to cause trouble.
 

Fishn Guy

That's Dr. Fishn to you..
This thread is dumb.

Just don't take any pics anymore just incase someone wants to get sensitive about it.

Unless they are naked, then you can throw them in the Fishn Hole and we can laugh at your saggies.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Kain99 said:
The guys with their faces blurred haven't been convicted yet. :wink:
Actually, I think you're right about that - criminals don't have privacy rights when it comes to publishing their photos in public. Otherwise there wouldn't be anyone on the post office wall.

But there is a legal right to privacy when it comes to average citizens having their picture put into the public domain. I already posted the link to it.
 

itsbob

I bowl overhand
vraiblonde said:
Actually, I think you're right about that - criminals don't have privacy rights when it comes to publishing their photos in public. Otherwise there wouldn't be anyone on the post office wall.

But there is a legal right to privacy when it comes to average citizens having their picture put into the public domain. I already posted the link to it.
But they]re not CRIMINALS until they are convicted!! 'splain THAT one miss smarty pants!!
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
itsbob said:
But they]re not CRIMINALS until they are convicted!! 'splain THAT one miss smarty pants!!
Must pertain to suspects as well because we get "be on the lookout" photos from the Sheriff's Dept. all the time.
 

unixpirate

Pitty Party
Shutterbug said:
Ok....I haven't been online since this morning due to the NMCI issues, and I finally get online to find a ton of PMs in my inbox. Most of them asked me please do not post any pictures of the Rondevous event. So....what to do? I am the type of person who respects the wishes of others, heck, I don't even like having MY picture posted.

As it stands, I took 202 pictures the other night. I also have dial up at home. That said....it's going to take me several days before I have the patience to upload these pictures...let alone send them to anyone.


But then....what do I do about some of the pictures? Do I pick out the ones of certain people and send those pics to just that person (i.e. the pics of Otter and Catt only go to Otter and Catt)? That's going to take me a very long time, and well.....what a pain in the neck that would be. :dead:



I'm thinking that maybe I should just wait until the next Rondevous event and present a slide show. :ohwell:


Post away! :cheers:
 
Top