Re: Goth Weekend Photos (Originally Taken For The Whitby Gazette & Sexy Sunday Website)


"H Duffy" <hester_duffy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:3v1iicF134mhnU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "whisky-dave" <whisky-dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:dmeosd$9ad$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> "H Duffy" <hester_duffy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:3uoeanF1244b9U2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Actually, they were; it was unethical not to tell the subjects of the
>>> photos that the photos might be offered for sale, or that they might be
>>> offered to a newspaper.
>> How did you manage to apply those ethics here are they your own
>> invention.
>
> No, they're not my own invention; a lot of people share that particular
> view.

But do they apply that view to themselves or just others.
Do they get permissiojnn before taking pictures of people,
have they ever given a picture to someone else, have they ever let
a commercial do their D & P because before digital images
most that took picures of friends at whitby had to get a company
to process those picture ie. that let someone else make money from them.
Have they ever given a copy of a picture to another without knowing
what all those peolpe in the photo think about giving away their picture to
a
3rd party.


>> I'm sure few people tell thos ethey are pjhotographing that the pictures
>> might be sold or given nto a newspaper. If you're employed by someone
>> that
>> wants you to take photographs for them then that coulkd be classed as
>> ethical.
>
> *heh* Are you seriously trying to claim that photojournalists are ethical?
I guess some are, some have to be.
Then it's down to whether or not you trust a pro. photographer at whitby
or an amateur one, or a friend that has no idea what the ethics or the law
is.
Which is the default situatiion with most pictures people take.

>> But that's how things work, lots of peolpe put up pictures of WGW
>> and of people posing were they all asked ? NO.
>
> But in geneal, the photos are put up for free, and not for sale.
The pictures were there for free OR for sale, what's wrong with choice.


> It's the "for sale" bit that was the issue, as has been explained to you a
> million fucking times. Are you really too thick to grasp that, even after
> being told repeatedly?
Those that complain have the right to complain about images
of themselves but not images of others or the abbey or the pubs
or the bands or anything else in Whitby.


>> So your ethics here are that a friend has to pay the cost of producing
>> the print, mug or mouse mat desired,
>
> No, no-one _has_ to do anything. the friend has every right to say no.
And that freind also has the right to tell them to a commercial processor,
but you seem to want to deny them that right.


> and what if this friend can't print
>> 10X8
>> or can't put the image on a mouse mat or a CD or a T-shirt.
>
> Then you have to cry yourself to sleep for weeks over the fact that you
> don't have a mousemat with your picture on it. Boohoo, how sad.

So that's ethical is it, person A takes a picture of person B but person B
is not allowed a copy of that picture, how ethical is that ?
If you can't have a picture of yourself then what/who can you have a
picture of,
are you really saying that no one should be allowed to have a picture of
themself
unless they take it themselves.
That's why I used the situatuion were you must use a self timer because
that
would be the only way to get a picture of yourself if no one else can take a
picture or you.



>> Who should pay the cost in this case, the friend or the person that
>> wants the print, mug or mouse mat ?
>> Perhaps ethically you believe the photographer should pay.
>
> No, I think they should all be arrested by the fashion police and thrown
> into jail for life, on a charge of appallingly bad taste.

Are you refering to all those that attend WGW or just yourself.


>>> Yes, but that time and effort is being put into a hobby.
>> There's no ethical law against free hobbies of you can achieve it,
>> just like there's you don't have to play music to others free of charge
>> as a band you are allowed to charge those that want to come a listen to
>> you and you can charge bthem ffor a CD you produce.
>> But of course NO band has to produce a CD, music could just be their
>> hobby.
>> So as a hobby are you saying any band that plays has to provide free
>> CDs to everyone at the gig, or perhaps just those that ask.
>
> No Dave, _you're_ the one who thinks that a photographer has a duty to
> give out free hard copies of his or her work, not me.
No I don't I've never said that what I have said is that his pictures
can be availble for sale, just like a band 'selling' music, there's no law
against
selling something you own.[1]


>> Same for bands and even DJs if playig music is there hobby why
>> should they be expected to be paid for doing their hobby ?
>
> They shouldn't, actually.
> However, if they are able to make money out of it, fair enough. On the
> other hand, if they were, say, using someone else's songs or someone
> else's talents, you'd expect them to check with that person that they were
> happy to appear on the record, right?

That would depend on the track and the context, now for photos I would
assume someone that was posing didn;'t mind the photo being reproduced
for viewing, and that it is no concern of there;s whether I get have to pay
ofr
it or whether or not I can earn 50p or £5 for it, is not their decision.
I can charge what I want for pictures I take. They person has some rights
to decide whether or not it should be made available but has no
right to set the price.



>
>>> Yes, but the photographer didn't need to put them up if he or she didn't
>>> want to. That's their personal choice, for their personal hobby, nothing
>>> more.
>> And it is alos thier choice if they wish to charge people for viewing
>> or reciving copies as they own copyright. NO ONE has a right to free
>> prints
>> mugs, T-shirts or anything else just because someone took the photo.
>
> Then why do you keep claiming that they do?

I'm not claiming that you are., or have you forgoten that pictures must
not be sold.

>> If someone wanted your mug on a mug who should pay for it.
>
> The NHS should pay for their stay at a mental institute; once they're
> cured, they will no longer want my picture ona mug, so the question won't
> arise.

That makes sense but they might be there for a long stay, these people are
quite weird it could take a lifetime and they might regress.
Personally I'd have them put down at this first and second sign of
insanity. :)
Save the tax payer money.


>
>>> Because if they weren't online, Peebee wouldn't have posted here
>>> inviting people to go and look at themand buy them.
>> And if they ween't on-line perhaps those that had posed might still want
>> to
>> see the photos or have copies,
>
> They might, and if they did, no doubt Peebee could have emailed them a
> copy, which wouldn't have cost him any extra.

Which he did with marge, but only after he knew or was informed of that
request, I don't believe any charge was made for this service.
If Marge had requested a print or mug how should be expected to pay for that
service.


>>> I don't think I know anyone who would insist on being given a copy of a
>>> photo if they wre not being made public,
>>
>> What has that got to do with it, publioc ofr not when I've done wedding
>> people have asked me for copies I've never put wedding photos on-line
>> as yet.
>
> That's a very different situation.
How, people are posing in those photos same as people do at whitby.
Perhaps some of those wouldn't want to be seen looking 'normal'.


>>>but one always has the choice not to pose if one is given full and honest
>>>information about what is going to be done with the pictures.
>> But you have that right, anyone whether or not you've been given
>> any information or not.
>
> And in English please?
If someone piokes a camera at you you usaully have a right to turn your
back,
posing for the picture implies you don't mind one being taken,
and if you don't mind one being taken you'd be pretty stupid if you
believed NO ONE would ever see that photo.
People don't often waste time taking photos that'll never see
the light of day.



>> If you don't know what the photographers upto then don't pose,
>> simple really.
>
> So what you're saying is that we should automatically distrust all
> photographers?
That's you're choice, and I'd use the same choice in any situation
from someone giving you a lift, to a free drink, to a kiss on the lips.
If you don't think you cabn trust them don't encourage them.

>> No, because of you had any sense at all you would have check your
>> beliefs,
>> before giving your sermon.
>
> I didn't give a sermon; I said that, according to what pyromancer had
> posted, copyright remained with the model. It turned out, eventually, when
> someone finally posted the information from a reliable source, that
> Pyromancer had been wrong. If you were half as knowledgable as you pretend
> to be, you could have corrected Pyromancer, with decent information,
> before anyone was misled, but of course you didn't.

AFAIK I did exactly that.



[1] except for specific etc.. things like drugs


.