Nah, its a free country. You come to a public place, you accept the risks. Others have a right to live their lives too. See you in court
What if I don't want videos of my hobby time available to the world?
691–700 of 767 posts
Re: What if I don't want videos of my hobby time available to the world?
#692Earlier quoted context omitted.
The birdwatching community is similar to a collecting community insofar as seeing a bird is like having it in your collection and going out to birdwatch is like hunting items to add to your collection. Lists and records fill the role a physical collection plays in collecting hobbies. The whole idea of conflating community and publicity or some documentation requirement seems a bit silly to me Usually that simply mean…
That all sounds fantastic, I'm sure I'd find that pretty engaging and I enjoy making small collections of hobbyist interests and going on adventures in-pursuit of niche experiences as well. I wasn't so much curious about the mechanics of the hobby, although it is interesting, rather what defines it as a "community". Like what qualifies or doesn't qualify as being in or out of the "community"? If I make a list of bird…
what defines it as a "community"
Norms and continuity maybe?
But my point is that air soft has norms and if video is among them, then that’s just how it is.
And for what it is worth your theoretical exercise of keeping private lists of birds is fine by me. But if it is just you, it is not a community because that’s not how we use the word community.
Likewise, the community of birdwatchers typically uses the word birdwatching to include the kind of activities I mentioned.
Re: What if I don't want videos of my hobby time available to the world?
#693Earlier quoted context omitted.
But you can already do that. This discussion isn't about what's polite. It's about what you think ought to be against the law. And being fined or thrown in jail if you break the law.
I was really thinking of imposing a framework where people know someones preference even when looking at the videos later. I would be fine even if there is no fine, if someone found me on one of your photos and say - look a lanyard, what a jerk for putting that online, without any additional consequence. EU came into my mind because of the existing GDPR and as a platform where this could be propagated. No I would gen…
> if someone found me on one of your photos and say - look a lanyard, what a jerk for putting that online, without any additional consequence
You can wear a lanyard today!
Re: What if I don't want videos of my hobby time available to the world?
#694Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or look at newsreels, or news reports from ... any time up to the 2010s. Obviously people's faces weren't blurred before we had the tech to do it. It's some entirely new, modern prissiness. It screws up the documenting of social history when you can't see any faces. There's been an internet fad for restored film of street scenes from 1915 or so: imagine if all the faces were blurred to protect the privacy of people w…
The difference is that social media now exists. The fear of an embarrassing or compromising moment causing social embarrassment at an unlimited scale or affecting future employment prospects indefinitely is not based on nothing - we have all seen examples of this. Even an unlikely scenario is worth considering if the stakes are that high. This situation compounded very gradually. In the late 90s, it was extremely com…
> The difference is that social media now exists. The fear of an embarrassing or compromising moment causing social embarrassment at an unlimited scale or affecting future employment prospects indefinitely is not based on nothing - we have all seen examples of this. Even an unlikely scenario is worth considering if the stakes are that high.
Realistically unless you are doing something absolutely unforgivable it will be forgotten about in a few days/weeks. At worst you will become a reaction emote.
Also going viral is a huge opportunity. Some viral people have ended up in commercials, podcasts etc.
Lets not pretend it is all negative.
> Then in the early 00s, the experience of going a little viral (just within your college Facebook community, before the word ‘viral’ was a thing) was actually pretty common and this started to make people just a little more guarded about being photographed. So those who got filmed doing something drunk/dumb would be more likely to go more viral, as it was now a rarer sight. And so on.
No this is a rewriting of history. What happened is that employers started looking through potential hires and/or current employees and quizzing them about getting drunk at a party a few years ago. This seemed to happen in the US more than other places, or maybe it was reported there more.
Then everyone with any sense made their profile semi-private (friends only) on Facebook.
Also a lot of the stuff that went viral was often clever marketing. There are advertising agencies where they have case studies detailing how they have done it.
Also there is a whole genre of streaming where people literally act outrageously in public, called IRL streaming. People have gone/are going to prison in hopes of going viral.
> It’s a recursive effect that made us all duller and more image-conscious and anxious in public. This process took a couple of decades to end up where we are now.
This is absolute nonsense. I am old enough to remember how people acted before social media in is largely the same while out in public. In fact I would say it was actually the opposite of what you claim.
Re: What if I don't want videos of my hobby time available to the world?
#695Genuinely curious: what concrete negative consequences are there from appearing in the background of other people’s photos/videos, in a full face mask no less? Is he afraid that someone will be able to identify him as engaging in a hobby that some people might be judgmental about, e.g. a potential employer finding the footage and concluding “this guy spends lots of time and money playing a children’s game; he’s clear…
what possible harm could come to the people incidentally captured?
That is not the point. If someone doesn't want to be in someone else's photos or videos without consent, it is their choice. It is their face afterall. It doesn't matter why. They do not owe an explanation.
The polite thing to do would be to blur other people's faces (or remove people altogether) before adding our photos to the gajillion others already floating around on the internet.
Re: What if I don't want videos of my hobby time available to the world?
#696Earlier quoted context omitted.
Strong disagree. The right to take photos of random people without consent in public spaces, is NOT the same as the right to publish those photos online for the world to see and as a theoretically permanent discoverable archive.
You must be extraordinarily naive to think that people take photos in public places without ever posting them online, by default. And let me know one single instance where someone gets sued for posting a photo of someone appearing in public space in the US.
I’m not naive, I’m just saying they are two separate issues. The laws that allowed public photos predate social media.
People sue over much less in the US.
Re: What if I don't want videos of my hobby time available to the world?
#697Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am assuming you have no good alternatives regarding your gym? Because if you feel uncomfortable with the behaviour of the owners, you should really vote with your wallet.
I don’t go there anymore. The owner has been texting me on and off to try and get me to go back. I’ve been looking for other options, but am having trouble finding one that looks decent for me. It’s a bit of a paradox. When I’m looking for a gym, I find pictures incredibly helpful, but I don’t want them taken of me as a member there.
The gym I go to explicitly forbids both taking unsolicited photos/videos or staging any permission videos.
Good idea
Re: What if I don't want videos of my hobby time available to the world?
#698[dead]
Re: What if I don't want videos of my hobby time available to the world?
#699Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are you trying to dehumanize the idea of taking a picture of someone and possibly posting it publicly by referring to it as photons? Yes we are all just atoms moving around in 3D space but it doesn't take away the fact that people should be allowed to exist outside their house without some random person recording them and possibly posting it to the internet. You don't care and that is totally fine but some people…
I'm not dehumanizing it, I'm making it clear that photography is generally a passive activity. Where's the line between "don't record me" and "don't look at me"? If it's ok you look at you, but not record you, where's the line? Can someone use a telescope to look at you? Can a store have a camera and a live TV view of all the people who walk in? Can there be a live camera that captures the people on a sidewalk and di…
How is it passive? You are literally choosing to use a camera by pointing it in a specific direction and press a button to make it record. The problem is how people who record videos of others are perfectly fine with it while other people might not be. It's not other people seeing me or noticing me that is the problem. It's random people I don't know recording me because I don't get to choose how the video/recording stored on their device will be seen or distributed in the future.
Businesses recording security footage is different because there is some type of social contract that they won't publicly release it. If I knew for example that the grocery store I shop at was posting security videos to youtube I would go spend money at another grocery store. I can choose not to go to a sporting event concert because I don't want to be on a jumbo tron. I have way to choose whether or not some random person will record me while I'm working out or taking my dog out.
Re: What if I don't want videos of my hobby time available to the world?
#700Earlier quoted context omitted.
Better yet, offer a free class to people who don't mind being photographed (of whom there are many). 'Being part of a company's marketing' isn't something that should be included in the price of a product or service.
Better still, pay people for the use of their image in advertising Always
> Better still, pay people for the use of their image in advertising
There exist sufficiently many people who love to have pictures of them being available publicly. Just look at basically some arbitrary Instagram page. Thus, there exists no need to pay (at least until, say, 95 % of society is really reluctant to have pictures of them publicly accessible).