[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
No, dumbass, it doesn’t. No consent is required. Why don’t you research the laws on this before you expose any more **fucking ** ignorance.
(bolding mine) Look, if you want to continue swearing up a storm and bitching us out, could you get out of MPSIMS? I like this forum to be light and fluffy. That’s the definition. Jeez.
Bad coding also mine. Sorry.
I wouldn’t object.
I don’t think your question makes sense. You’re asking me if I would object to something I objected to? Isn’t that a bit tautological?
Or maybe you’re asking if I would try to physically prevent someone from taking a picture of me against my will? The answer is no. I go back to the staring analogy. You can ask them not to, but ultimately they still have the right. I also can’t see how either staring or photography does any harm.
No. The person who is uncomfortable does NOT get the say. None of their civil trights are being compromised. People have a right to take pictures in public. Other people don’t have a right to tell them they can’t.
You might think it’s rude, but it’s not illegal.
If you cover your face, you are “physically preventing” the person from taking your picture. I never said I would do any more than Siege did. Unless of course the person followed me, continuing to take pictures of me while gloating. Then I’d likely inform security that the person was harassing me, and would they kindly prevent it? That is what people are talking about DtC, the person went from being just another citizen, to harasser IMO. Surely you can agree that people have the right to be out in public and not subject to what they feel is harassment? (Whether or not you’d feel you were being harassed in the same situation.)
Oh shit…I thought we were in the Pit. My apologies. I was using the “New Posts” search and assumed Siege’s OP was a Pit rant. Mea Culpa. I wasn’t paying attention. My apologies to the mods as well.
Pretend that I said all that stuff in a more polite way.
Uh…we’re not arguing about the illegality of it anymore, Dio. We’ve accepted it’s perfectly legal. What other people are saying is there are certain rules of politeness that decree you shouldn’t take a pic when they don’t want. What I am saying is you have gone way over the deep end on this issue and maybe need to calm down. Please!
Whoa!
I understand people have some strong feelings about this, but this isn’t the forum to be insulting other people. You don’t tell someone he’s “full of shit” in MPSIMS, and you certainly don’t call someone a “dumbass.” Diogenes and Zabali, knock it off.
Now calm down, leave the thread or bitch about each other in the Pit.
Maybe this is too much to ask, but could everyone just either agree on the factual, legal part of this problem or refute it? The OP was really a vent about rudeness and etiquette and the “right to privacy” part came in later. I think people are using the phrase “right to privacy” in a subjective, feeling manner. Not in a legal manner.
And I’d like to reiterate that picture taking is not anagolous to staring because of the ability to share photographs.
Is it your contention that anything not illegal is OK to do?
My apologies for saying things the way I did to you in my first post DtC. I could have phrased that in a non-aggresive way and still made my point.
First of all, I only saw **Dio’s ** apology after I posted my post. But I still think he got all together too worked up over this issue. Just my two cents.
**Dio’s ** right in that you can take pictures of anyone you want in public. There was a court case about this some time ago.
Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s right, IMO. Perhaps **Dio ** can expound on the law. Is it legal to take someone’s picture and then profit off it? Girls Gone Wild? Is it legal to take someone’s picture and publish it, say in a newspaper. All without permission of course.
Anyway. No, I certainly think there needs to be a better law on this…but at the same time, not too strict, or you would never be able to take pictures of sporting events, etc.
I don’t know what you mean by “OK.” I think that taking pictures without consent is a mildly rude thing to do, but people do all kinds of rude things in public. I get annoyed by people yapping on cell phones at the library or while standing next to me in line, but it’s legal for them to do it and it doesn’t do me any long-term harm.
My entry in this thread was simply to refute another poster’s assertions that it was specifically illegal to take the pictures without permission. Others have used legal terminology like “right to privacy” which is not applicible to the situation. Apparently, there has been some cross communication where I’m talking about legalities and others are talking about ettiquette. As I said, I think it’s mildly rude but I don’t think it’s the gross offense that some seem to think it is, nor is it legally an invasion of privacy.
It doesn’t have any harm to you. It had harm to CJ. She would prefer not to be photographed. That’s her right. She did ask Shutterbug not to take her picture because that’s her right.
Quit being obtuse, Dio You’re making an ass of yourself.
Robin
Am I freakin’ invisible? I sure feel like it.
Question: Did people have to pay to get memberships to the convention?
Question: Are non-members allowed into the con suite?
Question: Would the fact that only members are allowed into the area where the attempted act of photography affect the private/public space argument?
Just curious,
JOhn.
I don’t know about Girls Gone Wild. My guess is that they would have to get the girls to sign a release because the videos are for commercial release.
I believe that news organizations have a right to publish whatever they want as long as the photos were obtained legally (non-consensual public photographs of celebrities are the lifeblood of tablids). I know that permission is also needed if an image is used for advertising.
IAN remotely a L, though. I hope somebody else has a better handle on the exact laws.
Ok, well Dio, what about all the cases for slander? Are those civil cases only?
No, legally, it is not her right.
Could we please agree that if we’re only going to talk about ettiquette and not legalities that we will stop using legal terms like “rights” which keep confusing the issue?
To try to clarify what I’ve been saying. In my mind, there is more than one level of “law” at work. One is, freedom of speech/press. Sure, you can take a picture of anything in public. However, there is also an individual’s right to pursue happiness. So, in cases where the person who is pursuing their happiness by taking pictures meets with someone who is does not like the idea of having their picture taken, then morally, the photographer should back off, respecting the other individual’s right to find happiness. There are many other people the shutter bug can capture on film after all. That is what I’ve been trying to get across.
It’s not so much “the law” as the spirit of the law in a way. I also think, that in an odd way another thing at play is freedom of expression. Since when does the photographer’s freedom of expression supersede the non-willing subjects freedom of expression? The person who does not choose to express themselves that way should get the say in that case IMO, morally of course, not “by law”. Does that muddy things even more, or have I managed to explain what I meant? (Yes, I realize that the terms I just used aren’t the most precise or accurate. They are the general terms for this purpose, not the law school terms so much.) I don’t know what can be done to balance the rights of both parties as far as actual laws. I do know, that sites that show “legally” taken photographs of women exist. Sites that show “up the skirt” images and such. I don’t think that’s right, but I don’t know how such a problem could be solved either. I don’t think the laws as the stand now are exactly balanced though.