131–140 of 292 posts
But when you're informed about cookies when entering the site, the only option is "I accept". Not unlike walking in a public space, where it's is, and should be, legal to photograph anyone. (And no, the back button is not a meaningful other option.)
Not true in the EU. (Legally, anyway.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's surprising that this is allowed in the US at all. For a country that values personal freedoms, the legalization of being photographed against one's will is unexpected. As a non-photographer, I absolutely don't consent to having my photo taken for public display. For a private collection, that's a different matter, provided care is taken to make that photo inaccessible to the public. If a photographer is to make…
> It's surprising that this is allowed in the US at all. I’m curious - why do you find this surprising? > For a country that values personal freedoms, the legalization of being photographed against one's will is unexpected. And what of the personal freedoms of the person holding the camera? To make this more complex, what if that person is holding an iPhone, and the subject of their photo is their kid? And what if yo…
As for general freedoms, a person's freedom ends when it infringes on the freedoms of another. We can debate the nuance of that sentiment (that's what courts are for) but the freedom of anyone to privacy should exceed the freedom of some to make money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's surprising that this is allowed in the US at all. For a country that values personal freedoms, the legalization of being photographed against one's will is unexpected. As a non-photographer, I absolutely don't consent to having my photo taken for public display. For a private collection, that's a different matter, provided care is taken to make that photo inaccessible to the public. If a photographer is to make…
The basis of privacy rights in the US is the expectation of privacy. No one can claim an expectation of privacy in public. That image may be of you but you have no claim to it, as you didn’t take it.
Writing this out, it makes a lot more sense. The US is known for allowing certain rights and privileges to those who can afford them ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you sure you need to delete them? I don't know Norwegian law specifically, but it might be the case that you are allowed to take photos in public and you just can't publish them without subjects consent.
This is for the most part true yes. It is late and I do not have the exact phrasing, but "You are not allowed to take a photo of a person who is in a vulnerable position" The problem there is what constitutes a vulnerable position. A man urinating, a drunk person, a beggar, a homeless person, children, someone crying are all examples of things that -can- be illegal. (Unless you have written release) (which is not eno…
They wish to control pictures photographer produce and they take no shame in that. It is absolutely terrible. They basically oppress photographer who wish to show reality with all imperfections. They make illegal any photography that tries to show reality as it is or as photographer perceive it instead of some polished idealistic BS that has nothing to with what is really going on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's surprising that this is allowed in the US at all. I’m curious - why do you find this surprising? > For a country that values personal freedoms, the legalization of being photographed against one's will is unexpected. And what of the personal freedoms of the person holding the camera? To make this more complex, what if that person is holding an iPhone, and the subject of their photo is their kid? And what if yo…
If a photo of someone's kid includes a recognizable photo of me, and the photo is for private use then it's a different matter than someone exhibiting that photo for public use. As for general freedoms, a person's freedom ends when it infringes on the freedoms of another. We can debate the nuance of that sentiment (that's what courts are for) but the freedom of anyone to privacy should exceed the freedom of some to m…
There is a spectrum of use between "private display" and "purely for commercial benefit" that is nearly impossible to legislate effectively. The acceptable use of photography equipment and fair use of the resulting photos can't be boiled down to privacy vs. profit, and that's why this particular subject is so controversial and difficult to resolve.
Consent of photographic subjects, specifically BIPOC, being used by for profit companies in marketing.
My recent example is in Climbing. gyms require waivers that also contain text granting the company rights to take your photo and use it however they want throughout the universe in perpetuity lol.
Now, there are BIPOC speaking out because they feel used.
Context: BIPOC are very underrepresented in the sport.
There was a recent IG post (sorry I can't find) from a women of color who climbs (I think at Brooklyn boulders). She had her photo taken, she didn't notice it was. Then she saw it used to promote the gym.
One complaint is mentioned in the article: not being approached or asked about taking photos and feeling this invisible, targeted white male gaze.
With corporations it goes further than public space art photography: - giving away of rights - for free with zero compensation - hidden in legal docs - then being used in marketing to sell stuff - companies are just doing 'woke slacktivism marketing' without doing anything to support these communities. Remember all those black squares on IG?! Then going back to buy this shoe without taking any action whatsoever
Props to the gym which did actually take action, changed their waiver, said they wouldn't take photos without permission AND provide compensation/recognition in any marketing.
This article says: - The people who get the most worked up over the ethics of certain images are NOT themselves the subjects of the photo. - This example did care and spoke out. Many other examples across industries too. - "palpable, real-world harm resulting from it." - A bit more nuanced. But she argued that the gym was pretending to be a safe space with more climbers of color. Even though it's still like almost every other gym, super white, with a history of loud male chauvinism/racism. - "intention" is important I agree.
I think the intention of a lot of these companies is to make money on the backs of creators & communities without giving compensation or even just basic support.
Outside of climbing there is also a huge history of stealing art, imagery, creativity from minority cultures without giving any compensation or even mention/nod to the original creators.
In art & fashion you can find some specific incidents that have been called out by Diet Prada on IG.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The basis of privacy rights in the US is the expectation of privacy. No one can claim an expectation of privacy in public. That image may be of you but you have no claim to it, as you didn’t take it.
That's what I mean. It's very surprising that exposing oneself to the public (as is unavoidable to do most things in life) warrants a loss of freedom to privacy. Effectively, the only people who get anonymity and a semblance of public privacy are those who can afford it, and not just anyone. Writing this out, it makes a lot more sense. The US is known for allowing certain rights and privileges to those who can afford…
Again, I understand your personal desire for privacy (and even share it), but this argument doesn't make sense. "Public" is literally an antonym of "Private" - the reason one loses privacy in public is baked into the very definition of the words we're using to describe the situation.
This made me think - and I've still not managed to produce a coherent viewpoint. Closest I can come up with is that there's some sort of asymmetric 'value' that sometimes appears from nowhere and this throws us off a bit. As people have mentioned, security cameras are filming me all the time - and I've no issue with that. My image has no value. It's one amongst billions of frames taken, that will be ultimately wiped,…
My worry about it is how street photographers are able to convey meaning through context, captions, etc. I don't mind someone taking a photo of me if they get permission afterwards to post it and I'm able to ask them to take it down. However, I don't like losing control over my image.
Perhaps you do not like loosing control over photographer and art expression of others? Perhaps 'control over image' is just an excuse for that?
Would you like to control all forms of arts? Just imagine the possibilities... They will publish what you allow. They would draw what you permit. They will beg you to forgive them if they did not satisfy your taste. You will have complete control over you image and not only photo image the public image too. Think about press. If they have something critical to say about you they would need your permission before they publish. Would you like all that?
This made me think - and I've still not managed to produce a coherent viewpoint. Closest I can come up with is that there's some sort of asymmetric 'value' that sometimes appears from nowhere and this throws us off a bit. As people have mentioned, security cameras are filming me all the time - and I've no issue with that. My image has no value. It's one amongst billions of frames taken, that will be ultimately wiped,…
Thinking about the security-cameras vs photographer thing: - Security cameras: At least in theory, security camera footage is mostly private, and recorded with a specific, 'good' goal: if something happens, they have the security footage. It can be useful to me if someone robs me and they can get identified because they were filmed. - Photographer: absolutely no use to me, and possibly going to share that picture on…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is probably an unpopular opinion, but I'm in the same boat as em-bee - I am not ok with security cameras in public[1], or with public-facing doorbell cameras, either. My thought is basically: if a camera is recording the public, the public should have access to the recording. That isn't generally the case, so I'm not ok with it. [1] Note that by "public" I mean cameras facing streets, sidewalks, etc. I can alway…
I disagree with this. I consider the human eye a camera. It also saves videos in a storage medium that doesn't permit deletion. I don't distinguish between a silicon-based camera and a carbon-based camera. To me they're just different rows of the periodic table. In fact I even hope to think that one day silicon-based cameras can be used to restore vision to carbon-based beings that have non-functioning carbon-based c…
We don’t have cameras and flash embedded in ourselves, someone’s recollections are not the same as an video file in terms of evidence, and there’s a substantial difference between someone actively on the street corner watching and security camera you can set and forget which will record 24/7.