S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
 ·Comcast
| Re: . said by Dream Killer  :As a photographer, I'm all for taking pictures and posting them online. I'm not deleting or cropping anyone out just because you ask me to. Well aren't you the uncurtious pile of ****!
It will be funny when you or someone you care about gets photograghed in a humiliating position and those photos go world-wide. It's not just MS and google, its people like you that are subtly killing privacy too | |
|
 
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
| Re: . Don't argue with a photographer. They make money taking pictures of things they don't own, then they claim they own the photo of it. It's a shady business. Because of them people with home cameras can't get pictures developed if they look "professional" and can't reprint things like year book photos and family photos because somehow paying someone to take your picture gives them ownership of the picture by default. | |
|
 | 
Maggs
Premium
join:2002-11-29
Woodside, NY | Re: . Work made for hire, if I pay a wedding photographer for their services, I technically own the photos. If I wanted to be an ass I could go to court and have them seized if need be.
--
NIL ILLEGITIMUS CARBORUNDUM! | |
|
| | AEKDB
join:2004-03-07
Towson, MD | Re: . Go look up "copyrights" | |
|
| | | dfxmatt
join:2007-08-21
Evanston, IL
| Re: . Sorry, the person you are replying to is correct.
If you are commissioned to take wedding photos then you own all copyright. The people who pay you for the photos are paying you to reproduce them but that doesn't mean you give up your copyright.
Meanwhile, no, just because people ask not to be taken doesn't mean they can stop you from taking photos anywhere other than inside a military base. Even those they can assault you but cannot legally in the US prevent you from taking photos or take your photos at any time, even with a disclaimer stating "No Photography allowed"...first amendment folks, learn it. It isn't given up unless you allow yourself to. | |
|
n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
·Optimum Online
| said by S_engineer :It will be funny when you or someone you care about gets photograghed in a humiliating position and those photos go world-wide. It's not just MS and google, its people like you that are subtly killing privacy too If you are out in public, what right do you have to privacy?
I believe the courts have ruled many times over you have no privacy rights in public.
Now if they are using a telephoto lens or thermal imaging camera and are looking into the windows of a private home, that is a privacy invasion.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
|
| grandpinaple
join:2006-01-03
New York, NY
1 edit | Re: . Upon reflection I do not wish to post. Take me back! | |
|
james
join:2001-02-26
antarctica
| said by S_engineer :its people like you that are subtly killing privacy too And it's people like you who are overtly killing freedom of speech and expression.
If you dont want to be photographed in a humiliating position, then don't do humiliating things in plain view of public property. | |
|
| 
ChrisXP
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
Premium
join:2002-12-13
USA
| Re: . said by james :If you dont want to be photographed in a humiliating position, then don't do humiliating things in plain view of public property. Your private property isn't public. Google goes even as far as driving up your private road to take photos of you by your pool.  | |
|
| |
james
join:2001-02-26
antarctica
| Re: . Yeah, it's a big conspiracy by google! They're sneaking onto all of our private property in order to document our activities. It's not possible or likely that the private road they turned onto wasn't clearly marked as private, so they mistook it for a public road.
While I do agree that it was stupid of them to photograph on private property AND illegal for them to publish the pictures, that's not what S_engineer is talking about. He thinks that it is (or should be) illegal for anyone to photograph anyone on public property, and is telling photographers that they're "whats wrong with this country HURRRR GODDERM TERRIST!". | |
|
| | |
ChrisXP
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
Premium
join:2002-12-13
USA
| Re: . said by james :Yeah, it's a big conspiracy by google! They're sneaking onto all of our private property in order to document our activities. It's not possible or likely that the private road they turned onto wasn't clearly marked as private, so they mistook it for a public road. That they did, is the problem.
said by james :While I do agree that it was stupid of them to photograph on private property AND illegal for them to publish the pictures, that's not what S_engineer is talking about. He thinks that it is (or should be) illegal for anyone to photograph anyone on public property, and is telling photographers that they're "whats wrong with this country HURRRR GODDERM TERRIST!". It should be if it's used to make a profit off of it; and if it's done to invade a person's privacy.
We're not public figures afterall.
--
Zionism is a crime
»www.jewsagainstzionism.com »www.christianzionism.org
Biden - "I'm a Zionist"
»www.ynetnews.com/articles/0%2C73···C00.html | |
|
| | 
ReVeLaTeD
Premium
join:2001-11-10
San Diego, CA
| said by ChrisXP :said by james :If you dont want to be photographed in a humiliating position, then don't do humiliating things in plain view of public property. Your private property isn't public. Google goes even as far as driving up your private road to take photos of you by your pool. "Private road" =/= you own it and nobody else can drive on it. It means it's paid for by the community. That does not preclude driving on that road. As stated, as long as they're not invading places where you DO have a defensible right to privacy - your living room/driveway/backyard, for example - you have no complaint. | |
|
| | |
ChrisXP
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
Premium
join:2002-12-13
USA
| Re: . said by ReVeLaTeD :"Private road" =/= you own it and nobody else can drive on it. It means it's paid for by the community. Nope, it's laid by you or made by paying someone else to lay the road for you. Be it a dirt or asphalt. It's yours, and not to be used by third parties.
said by ReVeLaTeD :That does not preclude driving on that road. It does if it has a no trespassing sign around the property (doesn't even need to be posted near the road even).
No trespassing means -- stay off the property.
And like all road signs, the excuse "I didn't see it!" doesn't apply (try telling a cop that when you drive 60mph in a 30mph zone!).
--
Zionism is a crime
»www.jewsagainstzionism.com »www.christianzionism.org
Biden - "I'm a Zionist"
»www.ynetnews.com/articles/0%2C73···C00.html | |
|
| | | |
ReVeLaTeD
Premium
join:2001-11-10
San Diego, CA
| Re: . said by ChrisXP :said by ReVeLaTeD :"Private road" =/= you own it and nobody else can drive on it. It means it's paid for by the community. Nope, it's laid by you or made by paying someone else to lay the road for you. Be it a dirt or asphalt. It's yours, and not to be used by third parties. said by ReVeLaTeD :That does not preclude driving on that road. It does if it has a no trespassing sign around the property (doesn't even need to be posted near the road even). No trespassing means -- stay off the property. And like all road signs, the excuse "I didn't see it!" doesn't apply (try telling a cop that when you drive 60mph in a 30mph zone!). So when the postal carrier brings you your mail every day, and UPS/FedEx/DHL brings you packages, they're breaking the law? And don't give me the "permission" argument, because a postal carrier can bring you anything, even that which you did not implicitly give them permission to deliver.
The way I see it, a TRULY private road is fronted by a locked gate. That's a bonafide sign to anyone that you are not go beyond that point. | |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| Uh.... Sorry, but there is no expectation of privacy when you're in a public place. A photographer with a camera has just as much right to be there as you do, and if they take a picture and you're in it, it doesn't mean you have veto power over their image. Sorry.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
|
|
|
|
