Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What if I don't want videos of my hobby time available to the world?

neilzone.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 767 posts

Re: What if I don't want videos of my hobby time available to the world?

#381

Post by ryandrake »

eterm wrote: post #29

I wonder if it's a generational or cultural difference present in the comments here. I am sympathetic to the author, and I also find video a bit invasive of privacy in a way that photos aren't. I therefore find the (obviously common) attitude that videos are just "something you need to accept" quite alien, but I wonder how much of that attitude is just comments coming from a younger generation that have grown up with…

I think there is an age range where all this "posting" has been normalized, but outside of that generation it's not appreciated. I'm old enough that this kind of shit is still taboo to me, and I know my young kid and her friends are all deeply aware of who's being photographed, and what to share online and what not to. All the kids seem to deliberately distinguish between photo/video of objects and of people around them, when they go to post things. They're definitely aware and careful. It's this middle age range of maybe 25-45 year olds (?) where a sizable number of people are just careless or even accept casual posting of other people's photos and video.

Re: What if I don't want videos of my hobby time available to the world?

#382

Post by ThrownOffGame »

justinclift wrote: post #252
carlosjobim wrote: post #226

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.

> A wedding is one of the most fundamentally public events that have ever existed. Not sure why you think that? Although weddings can be in public places, they don't have to be and it's quite common for only invited guests (ie not the public) to be present.

Weddings held in churches have been public with nobody turned away at the door. Perhaps you are thinking of receptions, where invitations are checked, and accountants are eyeing the attendees accordingly.

An impending wedding is usually one of the most publicized events in any city. The banns must be published, typically in a special section of the newspaper. In order to give notice for anyone who may object or know about a prior bond. Also any hint of duress or urgency that may impede free consent. The banns are the actual execution of the ceremonial “callout” you see in films.

The witnesses of a wedding are not optional. The witnesses serve as representatives of the general public. Typically a clandestine wedding would be invalid without witnesses to verify and vouch for the identity, presence, and consent of bride and groom.

Taking photos for verification is sort of after-the-fact, and it would be most unfortunate for the banns to miss the mark until after the ceremony, or the consummation.

But only crazy people would consider a wedding ceremony “private” or “closed to the public” other than “renting an officiant” and flying off to a Caribbean elopement that only your billionaire girlboss bridesmaids can afford.

Re: What if I don't want videos of my hobby time available to the world?

#384

Post by ProllyInfamous »

NoSalt wrote: post #357

This is an issue a lot of gyms are facing; idiot "influencers" coming in and not caring who or what they film. It is really up to the private establishment to set rules for taking images and video within their facilities, but most will allow it because they want that almighty dollar to continue flowing in.

This is one of the reasons I use the free county gym — there are no influencers here (it's bare bones dudes slamming weights, only). I used to pay for a membership at a higher-end local establishment (and could still afford to), but got tired of all the glimglam of social gyms. The only thing I miss is the yoga class.

Re: What if I don't want videos of my hobby time available to the world?

#385

Post by cosmic_cheese »

jedimastert wrote: post #188

Back in my day shakes first there were places where someone could do things that would normally be mildly embarrassing because they were in a supportive community. In this example, it could be playing pretend and possibly saying goofy things or falling over and tripping or getting your butt handed to you by someone half your age or something. When I was young, it would have been playing open mics as a teenager. I was…

It may be an exaggeration but it feels like half the problem with the internet has been this sort of “dunk culture” that’s proliferated in the past 10-15 years. How heinous is it that anybody can gain significant notoriety by just providing a steady supply of innocent people to lambast?

Re: What if I don't want videos of my hobby time available to the world?

#386

Post by pixl97 »

MontyCarloHall wrote: post #187
squigz wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're looking for a generic reason, I think, and there isn't and doesn't need to be one other than "people can desire their privacy for various reasons" Maybe publicizing where someone is every week lets criminals plan their crimes. Maybe it gives away someone's location to an abusive ex or family member or stalker. Maybe people just don't want Google and the like to have even more data about our whereabouts and act…

These are all nice concrete consequences, but I’m not sure having public images meaningfully exacerbates them. >robbers Why would a criminal take time to comb through random, anonymous, uncategorized images of people to ambiguously identify someone who might not be home (and might not even have a house worth breaking into), when it’s much easier to just stake out wealthy neighborhoods and definitively see who’s not h…

>So said stalker would have to run facial recognition software on every image on the internet

This argument is so poorly formed I almost believe it's in bad faith.

Both you and I know that a stalker wouldn't do that. People tend to congregate their online behaviors in a very small circle of sites based upon their physical locations, I'm not going to index files in Japan to find someone in Iowa. Digital footprints are both large and small at the same time.

> when it’s much easier to just stake out wealthy neighborhoods and definitively see who’s not home and who has unsecured valuables

Because it's risky and time consuming to be there in person. In fact it's even easier to setup a camera in said neighborhoods and have software track users behavior then to sit around there yourself.

Re: What if I don't want videos of my hobby time available to the world?

#387

Post by Aurornis »

andiareso wrote: post #351
jen729w wrote: post #11

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…

Yes? I'm not sure I understand here. If you are doing it because you're a creator on YouTube and you are getting paid through views on YouTube, aren't you then required to get release info? If it's for personal use, sure thing, but when you are making money on it then you should absolutely get releases and default to bluring non-released individuals. I think the bigger issue is that our laws (in the US at least) have…

> If you are doing it because you're a creator on YouTube and you are getting paid through views on YouTube, aren't you then required to get release info?

The model release laws are usually tied to commercial use where some endorsement is implied.

That’s why your company must secure a model release when filming in your office: The material is being used in a manner related to the company and as an employee in the video you are implicitly part of that.

If the AirSoft facility was filming customers and using that footage in an ad, they would probably require model release forms.

There are freedom of speech protections covering the capture of likeness for artistic display, editorial use, and so on.

If the YouTuber made some video in this case as an ad for some AirSoft product and included other people in it without model release forms in a way that implied they were part of the endorsement, they could be in trouble. If they’re just making videos reporting on their games then I doubt there’s an argument that you could make requiring a model release, even if the channel was monetized.

This is also why news channels don't need to secure model release forms when reporting on public events. If we required everyone to do the model release form thing to show any video of them, you would never see any negative videos of politicians or criminals agin.

Re: What if I don't want videos of my hobby time available to the world?

#388

Post by ascendantlogic »

Seems like the most reasonable answer would be to have days where no video was permitted, and days where it is. Then you can attend on the days where no video is permitted but the ones who like creating and uploading videos can have their chances as well.

Re: What if I don't want videos of my hobby time available to the world?

#390

Post by [deleted] »

ThrownOffGame wrote: post #382
justinclift wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A wedding is one of the most fundamentally public events that have ever existed. Not sure why you think that? Although weddings can be in public places, they don't have to be and it's quite common for only invited guests (ie not the public) to be present.

Weddings held in churches have been public with nobody turned away at the door. Perhaps you are thinking of receptions, where invitations are checked, and accountants are eyeing the attendees accordingly. An impending wedding is usually one of the most publicized events in any city. The banns must be published, typically in a special section of the newspaper. In order to give notice for anyone who may object or know…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN