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


"whisky-dave" <whisky-dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dmhh0i$9h7$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "H Duffy" <hester_duffy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:3v1iicF134mhnU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> 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.

They are general rules, which are therefore applied to anyone involved in
that particular field.

>> *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.

Generally, friends, who have no intention of selling the photos.

>> 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.

They weren't, though; when they were for sale, download was disabled.

>
>
>> 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.

They weren't complaining about images of others of of the Abbey or anything
else. They were complaining, specifically, that photos of _them_ were on
sale, and that they had not been told that the photos would be sold, nor had
they consented to their sale.

>> 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.

Is that suppsed to be "tell" (which makes no sense) or "take", or "sell"?
Could you please check what you write before posting it, so that it at least
makes sense?

>> 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 ?

I didn't say that, Dave.

>> 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

You did, actually.

>> 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.

But they should have the right to know what's going to happen to the photo
before they pose for it.

>>> 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.

I didn't say pictures must not be sold, and I also didn't say that anyone
has a right to free prints, mugs, or anything else.

>> 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'm pretty sure she wouldn't have wanted a mug or a print, but if she did,
she could take her emailed copy of the photo to a comp;any which prints mugs
(or prints), and pay them to print it. See?

>> 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,

But, for example, it doesn't imply that you're happy for them to be used in
a political campaign, or an advertising campaign. Would you agree>

>>> 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.

But you seem to be suggesting that we _can't_ trust photographers; that
they're all up to something and aren't telling us the full story. Is that
what you meant to imply?

>> 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.

Could you quote the post where you did exactly that, please? I obviously
missed it.

H


.