Re: Goth Weekend Photos (Originally Taken For The Whitby try 2


"H Duffy" <hester_duffy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:3ulp5tF11et8bU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "whisky-dave" <whisky-dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:dm49td$1bg$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> "H Duffy" <hester_duffy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:3ullk3F10v5ltU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>> But yuo've still not answered the Q of why a person doesn't want
>> ***anyone*** to see a picture they have posed for.
>
> There's a reason I haven't answered that, Dave.
Because you can't

> It's because it's only in your head. None of the people involved inthis
> discussion have posed for pictures and then objected to anyone seeing
> them. No-one, other than you, has mentioned anyone doing such a thing.
> You are, once again, introducing completely specious arguments, simply
> because you have nothing worthwhile to say.

Nothing worthwhile you mean when it was me that told you how
clueless you were by saying that the person in the picture DOES NOT
own the copyright and that the photographer is the one that owns the
cocpyright,
I wass the one that posted details of what a model release form is
and what one might lok like.


>> The SUBJECT is who has the say in what images can be made availible
>> for viewing on-line and for printing and the anwser to that is the
>> copyright
>> holder of the phootgraph or image, at first yuo denied the photographer
>> had this right of copyright, now you've been proved WRONG again, you're
>> trying to *** it to some obsure moral issue, but that is irrelivant.
>
> No, it's isn't; this discussion began when people were upset by the way a
> photographer had behaved, and it began as a discussion of whether he had
> behaved in an ethical and socially acceptable way or not.


Well then prove it but as uusual you're lying Marge complained about her
images on the site and that he was selling them for profit, and that she
asked
him to send her a copy and he failed to do so, which was untrue


>> You were wrong about who's right it is to display the pictures and now
>> you're squirming out of it.
>
> No, I'm not; I was indeed wrong about the issue of copyright, and i have
> freely admitted to that.

So now you're trying to claim it was about ethics to save face.
Ethics are down to each individual and for themselves to decide
what they do in any given situation there is no law that tells you
what your ethics are.


>>> Pretty simple, huh?
>>
>> Well the person that is posing could ask, why couldn't they.
>
> If the photographer hasn't been up-front with them fro the stat,
And when is the start, for me that would happen before I posed
rather than a month later.

> I would venture to guess that they're not going to be upfront when asked
> either.
You opion of an individual ios most likely to be flawed especailly
from ancedotal evidence.

> In any case, the "default", that is, the most common situation, is that
> people at Whitby take photos and put them on their websites, without
> charging anyone.
Which has been done.

> or selling copies, so it's quite reasonable to assume that that's what
> will happen unless the subject is informed otherwise.
No it's not, no one really knows whether a friends has been given a pint
for a copy of any whitby photos, it's only your small mindedness
that thinks people that take photographes refuse to allow others copies.
I know peole that habve been to whitby and have been given copies of
events and pictures were a few have posed together.
You do not need the permission of everyone in a photo before you
copy it for someone else, and it's also unethical for you to refuse one
person
a copy and not let another person have a copy for the reason that you
just don't like the person in the picture.

>
>> So let me explain it again you don't need the permission of the person
>> in the photo to be able to show that photo or even to copies of the
>> photo,
>> because copyright belongs to the photographer, the only time when this
>> can
>> be changed is when the photograph is taken on private property,
>> or if the picture is inappropriate.
>
> That's correct, legally you don't need permission. But it's still bloody
> rude to sell pictures of people without letting the people posing for the
> pictures know that you're planning to sell them.

But not illegal, and ethically it could be considered wrong but also
ethically wrong to deny people the chance to have a copy of a picture
they are in or pictures of say the Abbey or any other public building.



>>> She didn't object to it seeing the light of day, she objected to it
>>> being sold.
>>
>> WRONG again.
>> As she didn't want it made availible to newspaper even if the image
>> was given to them for free.
>
> But she didn't object to it appearing on the website, as long as it wasn't
> being sold.

Yes and PeeBee removed that option as requested, so there wasn't
a problem, but he didn't know until he was told.
And now everyone is denied a copy even of themselves as a result.


>>> And it's still a perfectly reasonable stance.
>> Yes it is, I've never said it wasn't but at least it indicates that the
>> objection
>> ha snothing to do with what the photgrapher has done or anything about
>> what the photograph represents.
>
> Well, except that it has. If the photographer had told his subjects, when
> taking photos, that they were to be sold, the subjects could have made an
> informed decision about whether they were willing to pose or not. Had that
> been the case, there would have been no objections.
> It is the fact that he _didn't_ make that clear which has caused problems.

It appears he didn't make it clear to everyone, what about those that
didn't care or wanted their photos in the Gazette or want to buy
photos of themselves or any view of whitby.



>>> I'm discussing it, just as you are. Stop being such a fucking idiot,
>>> Dave. Internet Newbies counter discussion with "How dare you tell me
>>> what to d, you're denying me my rights". You've been around for a decade
>>> at least, so you have no excuse for that particular piece of
>>> fuckwittery.
>>
>> I know a photographers rights to the photos he takes,
>> your the one that got it wrong not me.
>
> I'm not preventing anyone from doing anything, Dave; I'm taking part in a
> discussion. You know that, and yet you're still acting like a ***-witted
> newbie, trying to suggest that I'm sojmehow actually preventing people
> from doing things. Why is that?

Because you are.



.

Quantcast