Re: . in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r21032062 en Tue, 01 Dec 2009 21:58:11 EDT Tue, 01 Dec 2009 21:58:11 EDT Re: . http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21044970 ReVeLaTeD :
said by ChrisXP See Profile :

said by ReVeLaTeD See Profile :

"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 See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21044970 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 12:44:02 EDT Re: . http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21036214 S_engineer : And yet NOBODY answered "Would you condone people having their conversations recorded at public establishments and their transcripts posted on the web?". Its the perfect analogy for what photographers are doing.
--
The "Lifetime" channel is responsible for 83% of all divorces...Robert Ginty]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21036214 Sun, 31 Aug 2008 14:48:29 EDT Re: . http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21035784 ChrisXP :
said by ReVeLaTeD See Profile :

"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 See Profile :

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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21035784 Sun, 31 Aug 2008 13:10:32 EDT Re: . http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21035753 ChrisXP :
said by james See Profile :

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 See Profile :

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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21035753 Sun, 31 Aug 2008 13:04:02 EDT Re: . http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21035617 dfxmatt : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21035617 Sun, 31 Aug 2008 12:33:10 EDT Re: . http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21035596 ReVeLaTeD :
said by ChrisXP See Profile :

said by james See Profile :

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. :uhh:
"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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21035596 Sun, 31 Aug 2008 12:25:29 EDT Re: . http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21035549 AEKDB : Go look up "copyrights"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21035549 Sun, 31 Aug 2008 12:10:51 EDT Re: . http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21035518 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.

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!".]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21035518 Sun, 31 Aug 2008 12:01:28 EDT Re: . http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21035188 Kearnstd : i sometimes wonder if some people go into the supermarket security office and ask for the time they where shopping to be erased. or walk past a bank ATM and then protest they are now on file with its camera simply by walking past.

i have a suggestion, dont goto London because the police have cameras on multiple corners.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21035188 Sun, 31 Aug 2008 10:18:41 EDT Re: . http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21034854 BF69 :
said by S_engineer See Profile :

said by Dream Killer See Profile :

Photographers should be allowed to capture what they want in public space - people and all. I'm not talking about taking pictures in private spaces like inside homes and hotel rooms.

PS: I have never made any money from my photos. I do it as a hobby.
It's irrelevant whether your being paid or not, and just because it's in a public space does not make it right. Would you condone people having their conversations recorded at public establishments and their transcripts posted on the web?
Thats what your doing McFly!
So if you're on vacation and you're at the beach and you take a snapshot of your family and some person who may be in the shot inadvertantly comes up to you and says to give him the camera because you have no right to take a picture of him, you're just handing over your camera right? I thought not.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21034854 Sun, 31 Aug 2008 07:30:54 EDT Re: . http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21034850 Maggs : 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!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21034850 Sun, 31 Aug 2008 07:28:48 EDT Re: . http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21034730 KrK : 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!)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21034730 Sun, 31 Aug 2008 05:03:19 EDT Re: . http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21034702 ChrisXP :
said by james See Profile :

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. :uhh:]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21034702 Sun, 31 Aug 2008 04:29:20 EDT Re: . http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21034543 james : Juding from your insane rambling, I'd bet that you've had an embarassing picture published on the internet.

You're trying to limit the rights of others in order to satisfy what you feel is your right. What about someone elses right to take a photograph of a building? Or a landscape? Or their right to make an audio recording of themselves while you're audible on the tape because you're speaking obnoxiously on your cellphone nearby.
If your insane idea of the law was reality, you would be complaining that *so and so* building was roped off and no one could go by it because someone was taking a picture of it. Or complaining about photographers bothering you for releases because the back of your head is in the lower right corner of their picture of *landmark*.

All of this because you feel that when in public no one should be able to look at or listen to you because you'll embarass yourself.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21034543 Sun, 31 Aug 2008 02:28:55 EDT Re: . http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21034515 james :
said by S_engineer See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21034515 Sun, 31 Aug 2008 02:15:17 EDT Re: . http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21033473 grandpinaple : Upon reflection I do not wish to post. Take me back!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21033473 Sat, 30 Aug 2008 20:23:37 EDT Re: . http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21033002 Kearnstd : using a major city as an example(most common places on streetview) if you are on a sidewalk/on the bus/subway in Manhattan, you should expect zero right to privacy. there are likely 100s of times in an afternoon where you are photographed in some fashion in a city. walking past an ATM, or heck going past the MTV or WABC studios in Times Square, if either one is on the air atm you could be pictured and your image beamed around the world.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21033002 Sat, 30 Aug 2008 18:07:42 EDT Re: . http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21032710 n2jtx :
said by S_engineer See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21032710 Sat, 30 Aug 2008 16:51:18 EDT Re: . http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21032573 SALAMANCA : Photographers, including armature and professionals, are allowed to capture what they want in public places and freely post to publicize their own work. The images that photographers capture is the rightful property of the photographer to do with as he/she chooses. Period! ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21032573 Sat, 30 Aug 2008 16:18:26 EDT Re: . http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21032433 S_engineer :
said by Dream Killer See Profile :

Photographers should be allowed to capture what they want in public space - people and all. I'm not talking about taking pictures in private spaces like inside homes and hotel rooms.

PS: I have never made any money from my photos. I do it as a hobby.
It's irrelevant whether your being paid or not, and just because it's in a public space does not make it right. Would you condone people having their conversations recorded at public establishments and their transcripts posted on the web?
Thats what your doing McFly!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21032433 Sat, 30 Aug 2008 15:45:21 EDT Re: . http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21032258 Dream Killer : Photographers should be allowed to capture what they want in public space - people and all. I'm not talking about taking pictures in private spaces like inside homes and hotel rooms.

PS: I have never made any money from my photos. I do it as a hobby.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21032258 Sat, 30 Aug 2008 15:07:47 EDT Re: . http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21032222 Kearnstd : lol when i worked at staples, we would make full color copies of family photos.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21032222 Sat, 30 Aug 2008 15:00:18 EDT Re: . http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21032159 insomniac84 : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21032159 Sat, 30 Aug 2008 14:49:10 EDT Re: . http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21032062 S_engineer :
said by Dream Killer See Profile :

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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21032062 Sat, 30 Aug 2008 14:27:12 EDT Re: . http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21031889 DrModem : It would take the prowler years to looks through all the street view pics trying to find one person who may not even be in any of the pictures.

Do you think you can just type in someone's name and it will take you to a picture of them in street view?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21031889 Sat, 30 Aug 2008 13:44:50 EDT Re: . http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21031839 anon : Lets just say u have an order protection agianst someone would u want that person to find u through google?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21031839 Sat, 30 Aug 2008 13:33:43 EDT . http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21031820 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.

Also, I hope that Google never "become grown up as some of the larger companies" - they're doing right and different from the mold and I hope they never change out of that.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21031820 Sat, 30 Aug 2008 13:28:28 EDT