Posting pictures on the internet of people you don't know.

[iamcanadian2010]

Originally Posted by mrodgers

That is the problem. Laws are nothing more than the opinion of those in power. If you were trying to get to work, and I was running down the 55 mph road at 35 mph holding you back, you wouldn't just sit back and "suck it up". You would be getting ticked off of me holding you back (not you specifically, you as in the general public.) But as the law states a maximum speed limit of 55, I am perfectly in my right to drive 35, even though there are 40 others lined up behind me trying to drive. But it's the law, that's tough.
laws.

Actually in Canada not sure about anywhere else you could get pulled over for going that slow, just had to point that out. I think its the same in the states.

Now to the actual subject, I don't think that its morally wrong or whatever, and in public you have no right to privacy.

Thats my 2 cents.

[Sime]

Originally Posted by iamcanadian2010

Actually in Canada not sure about anywhere else you could get pulled over for going that slow, just had to point that out. I think its the same in the states.

Now to the actual subject, I don't think that its morally wrong or whatever, and in public you have no right to privacy.

Thats my 2 cents.

Ahh, yeah, a good mate of mine was booked for it in Australia.... "Driving too slow"

[xxpinballxx]

actually there is a minimum speed limit too. They just dont post it everywhere. You can get a ticket for driving 35 down the freeway. 40 or 45 is the minimum. True a opinion may become a law but to say its just an opinion once its voted into law is ignorant really. I mean I can say well thats your opinion about taking kids photos and you have no recourse. Go murder someone and say well its your opinion that its wrong. se if there is any recourse? A big difference once they are officially called "Laws" wouldn't you agree?

[Jamesc359]

How is the act of taking a photo morally wrong? If I'm out and about in public and I see something, how's it wrong that I take a photo? I certainly don't intend to be rude, but I haven't seen much beyond an opinion on your part to justify your position.

I'll gladly agree that people who have the attitude of "It's my right and I'll do whatever I please." are a bother. But think about what you're proposing. You're effectively stating that I shouldn't have the right to engage in a passive act. By it's nature taking a photo is harmless. Saying I have no right (morally or otherwise) to capture light on a photo sensor is about the same as saying I have no right to see or look at your child, let alone to actually remember their face.

Our world is to over complicated as it stands. Making more laws won't solve anything. Screaming at people and beating them up isn't going to make things any better either. It only serves to make you worse than the guy taking the photo.

Being polite and courteous is the only real solution, and that's something that has to start with you. You can't be rude and then expect the other person to not reciprocate. If you're rude (or worse...) to somebody over their taking a photo, of course they're going to cop an attitude!

Is it really so unreasonable that if you don't want someone taking photos of you or your kids that you politely ask them not to? Just as it isn't that unreasonable to expect them to be courteous enough to stop upon your request. If they don't, well yeah they're being a jerk, but I think that the likely hood of that ever happening is rather slim.

I also think it's stupid to curtail our rights based upon the fact that a few people might act like jerks. Which is something you can't pass a law on, if somebody is going to be a jerk they're going to be a jerk. Your better off if you leave them alone. This applies to more things than just photography.

If they harass you, then call the police. Initiating in violence is never the answer.


*Steps off his soap box*

[jdepould]

Originally Posted by Agata

I did hear that there are some cities in the US where photography on city streets is no longer allowed (New York for example), which makes me feel really sad because I've never been to N.Y. and now if I ever do go I won't be able to capture any memories of it. I'm not sure if that has changed though.

http://digital-photography-school.co...rivacy-advice/

Not even remotely true. The proposed restrictions are dealing with tripods and commercial filming/photography.

[jdepould]

Originally Posted by mrodgers

That is the problem. Laws are nothing more than the opinion of those in power. If you were trying to get to work, and I was running down the 55 mph road at 35 mph holding you back, you wouldn't just sit back and "suck it up". You would be getting ticked off of me holding you back (not you specifically, you as in the general public.) But as the law states a maximum speed limit of 55, I am perfectly in my right to drive 35, even though there are 40 others lined up behind me trying to drive. But it's the law, that's tough.

The laws are simply wrong (IMO and others obviously). What are the reasons to claim the law is "as it should be"? The attitude that "I can take a photo of anyone I want in public" is simply just rude and disrespectful.

Those posting against this attitude have stated many reasons for their opinions. Those who make these statements only say "it's my right" and "it's the law." Those aren't reasons of the opinion, just the opinions of power. The true reason for these "laws and rights" are money. Money rules and without these laws, there is no money to be made. Without the exchange of money, no one would care about the "Photographer's rights" laws.

Laws aren't just some random person's opinions. These laws date back to a time when legislators weren't idiots, too. This argument is a lot like the extreme right-wing Christian groups who want to regulate everyone's behavior and turn America into an evangelical nation, instead of a place where anybody can come to be free from persecution. They aren't concerned with protecting others' rights, only their own. And that is morally wrong, as is your argument.

This has nothing to do with money.

[Agata]

Originally Posted by mrodgers

But as the law states a maximum speed limit of 55, I am perfectly in my right to drive 35, even though there are 40 others lined up behind me trying to drive. But it's the law, that's tough.

No, you are not perfectly in your right to drive 35 MPH, because you would be impeding the flow of traffic and creating a possibly dangerous situation.

Ontario, for instance: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/sta...08_e.htm#BK196

Originally Posted by mrodgers

The laws are simply wrong (IMO and others obviously). What are the reasons to claim the law is "as it should be"? The attitude that "I can take a photo of anyone I want in public" is simply just rude and disrespectful.

Those posting against this attitude have stated many reasons for their opinions. Those who make these statements only say "it's my right" and "it's the law." Those aren't reasons of the opinion, just the opinions of power. The true reason for these "laws and rights" are money. Money rules and without these laws, there is no money to be made. Without the exchange of money, no one would care about the "Photographer's rights" laws.

And that is just your opinion -- so why are you so righteous to think that your opinion is more "right" than the law? It seems to me that you are just extremely touch and sensitive on the issue to the point that you would abolish photographer's rights simply to "protect the children".

People who don't already have a corrupted mind don't see a single thing wrong with someone capturing memories of our society (happy children playing at a park, for instance).

Do you think it's wrong that journalists taking photographs of naked and starving children in the poorest of war-torn African countries are exploiting those children and doing something morally wrong? Or is it a way to show and educate the rest of the world about what's going on somewhere else?

Originally Posted by jdepould

Not even remotely true. The proposed restrictions are dealing with tripods and commercial filming/photography.

What's with all the "No Photography" signs that are apparently plastered all over New York?

http://www.jeffsstuff.com/blogs/inde...&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

[Nicole]

Originally Posted by Jamesc359

Being polite and courteous is the only real solution, and that's something that has to start with you. You can't be rude and then expect the other person to not reciprocate. If you're rude (or worse...) to somebody over their taking a photo, of course they're going to cop an attitude!

I think this applies to all parties involved in the situation. A little courtesy from everyone goes a long way. Whether it's realizing that someone is looking very uncomfortable because you are taking their picture or realizing that a person taking a single picture or you or your family isn't about to disappear into a pillar of hellfire.

Of course, just because someone is rude to you is not an excuse in my mind to be rude back. There's no reason to take the same rude attitude that someone else does, because it seems like that's often the kind of thing that exacerbates the situation. See, that just goes back to my opinion that politeness and courtesy is the best way to proceed regardless of which side of the lens you are on.

[jdepould]

Originally Posted by Agata

What's with all the "No Photography" signs that are apparently plastered all over New York?

http://www.jeffsstuff.com/blogs/inde...&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

That link doesn't really say much beyond there are some signs up at bridges and tunnels. At the end of the day, the signs are irrelevant. Standing on public property, a person can photograph anything they can see, provided it isn't a nuclear power facility or military installation. It says so in the United States Code, which trumps any municipal law.

The only thing I heard about NYC was proposed time limits and permit requirements on using tripods on a public sidewalk (or other such thoroughfare).

As an aside, it bugs me that they only enforce such "regulations" when a person has a big black camera. I'm pretty sure terrorists don't want to lug around all the gear we lug around, just to get a picture of something they could get from the comfort of their cave in 15 seconds on Google Images.

[Agata]

Cool. Thanks for clarifying that! :-)