311–320 of 767 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A wedding is one of the most fundamentally public events that have ever existed. The purpose is so that as many people as possible should know that these people are taken. Asking guests to not take photos is such a faux pass that the couple has destroyed their reputation completely. They can have a quiet and private ceremony instead if they have stage fright.
This is one of the weirdest takes I have ever heard.
Not wrong, it’s rude.
Be nice to just live without needing to feel like crowd sourced surveillance all the time.
I get it, but the alternative is what? Get model release forms from anyone in a public space every time you turn your video camera on? Who's to say how much of you I have in the shot? Do you feature? Did you flash by? Are you blurred? Recognisable? I was shooting video of a car park exit last year. (I was trying to prove to the shopping centre owners that it was dangerous.) Mundane footage. Some lady drives out in he…
Not every thing has to be recorded.
It is like all those runners and cyclists who log and share all their runs/rides on Strava without even taking the time to figure out if it really serves a purpose other than a vain attention seeking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it's private then it's up to the owner. And they may very well have decided that more customers want to take and share videos, than there are customers who are bothered by it. And nobody is talking about monetizing content here. There's no profit. If there were, that would be a different conversation obviously. But the post did not bring that up.
> There is no profit. We don't know that.
At the very least, these videos are being used to train models. That’s a good way to bypass the union contracts that prevent Hollywood from digitally cloning film extras.
I get it, but the alternative is what? Get model release forms from anyone in a public space every time you turn your video camera on? Who's to say how much of you I have in the shot? Do you feature? Did you flash by? Are you blurred? Recognisable? I was shooting video of a car park exit last year. (I was trying to prove to the shopping centre owners that it was dangerous.) Mundane footage. Some lady drives out in he…
Basic human decency. Just as the author says: “Publishing someone’s photo online, without their consent, without another strong justification, just because they happen to be in view of one’s camera lens, feels wrong to me.” It doesn’t fall to the legal level, but a social rules level. People who obnoxiously recording people in public, even if 100% legal, and disregard the wishes and conform of others around them dese…
You've got a very large, diverse population without a strong social identity and ever-fraying trust. So you won't consistently get basic human decency any longer. That's something which is extended to the in-group with which you have real social ties and obligations. Most people don't have this any longer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is one of the weirdest takes I have ever heard.
[flagged]
A large component of society has no particular code of ethics, religion, or internal moral framework. End result is if it's legal I can do it, and I shouldn't feel bad for doing so.
equates to
>you only have to worry about surveillance if you are doing something wrong.
This is, 100% guaranteed, a systematically injected narrative.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it's a right to be lazy. And thank goodness it is. You can inconvenience other people in a thousand different ways every day. And should be allowed to. The idea that laziness or inconvenience ought to be outlawed... do you realize what you're saying? The kind of police state you're envisioning? This is a principled thing. What's next, I get fined for walking slowly on the sidewalk? For holding up the line at…
We have numerous laws that ban those things in shared public spaces: - littering - jaywalking - excessive noise Etc. And we impose fines for all of those — under the consistent logic that you can’t infringe on others use of public space with your own. I’m glad that you can admit this is not about your usage of public spaces though — it’s just about you wanting to be a nuisance to others without consequence.
It's about not wanting to outlaw every possible nuisance. And you're right -- we do outlaw plenty of things. But we also have to draw the line somewhere.
Jaywalking is a great example. It was finally repealed in NYC. Since it's fundamentally a pedestrian-first city.
And public photography is one of those things where it's such a tiny nuisance, and the cost of regulating it would be so onerous, that we wisely choose not to.
The answer seems pretty simple. Ask your teammates not to take videos, or find a different group or a different hobby. But since they genuinely enjoy posting the videos, and there's nothing wrong with that, you're probably the one who's going to have move on. You're entitled to not want videos of you taken in public places showing up online. But you're not entitled to getting that outcome.
There's also the option of having a detailed image of a penis on your clothing so that any sort of social media app will R-rate a video featuring you.
If the two tactics don’t work separately, would they work when combined?
I get it, but the alternative is what? Get model release forms from anyone in a public space every time you turn your video camera on? Who's to say how much of you I have in the shot? Do you feature? Did you flash by? Are you blurred? Recognisable? I was shooting video of a car park exit last year. (I was trying to prove to the shopping centre owners that it was dangerous.) Mundane footage. Some lady drives out in he…
You can use AI to blur anyone that doesn't give permission. You can't use the excuse of "it's too much work!" It should be the law that you can't indiscriminately video everyone for your own financial gain.