- Thread starter
- #41
It would have been okay if they'd painted the guy.
I actually think I detect a faint smile on his face.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It would have been okay if they'd painted the guy.
Really? thats interesting. We held alot of intregrated sports events and always have to get permission slips signed from parents. Anywork I've done with kids and photography has always required permission.
How is it defined that you dont do you know? just that you have to be in a public space. I mean we could have said the football club we used was a public space as it was funded through public funds
Would it not be more probable for a paper like the Times to operate in a more ethical manner than just sticking to the minimum the law requires?
Wouldn't there some policy of getting some names to go with the 'art'? If not for permission then at least for follow up.
i've always found opportunistic photos of homeless people to be boring and discomfiting.
the photographer, presumably, saw a potential visual pun which made for a neat image.
the editor is the one who chose to put this on the front of the paper -- to contextualise it.
i'm assuming that none of us know the guy in the photo, but here we are talking about him on the internet. we're doing that because of a decision made by the editor, not the photographer. if anyone assaulted this guy's dignity, it was the editor more than the photographer.
it's hardly the most extreme example, but in this context, it is a cruel image.
but i've always found opportunistic photos of homeless people to be boring and discomfiting.
Maybe it's posed
you might be right, he's wearing shoes with a tracksuit! seems a bit off to me.
Yeah that cup looks a bit too clean if you know what I mean.
shoes and a tracksuit aren't that unusual are they? it is cork after all.you might be right, he's wearing shoes with a tracksuit! seems a bit off to me.
Actually I is John, the ultimate no comebacksies of criticism is commenting on one single word within a post, and following it up with cultural references, both from the present time and the past, in order to imply both your hipness AND your well-readness.
Isn't it, you sneaky devil?
Well there's a difference between the act of taking a photograph and then what you go on to use that photograph for. It might be perfectly okay for me to take a photograph of a kid in a public place but not okay for me to publish that photograph without seeking permission. But even that is less well defined than you might think .... see previous thread on this topic here!
Most photographers and organizations seem to operate on the basis of asking permission/obtaining release forms and so on if the picture is going to be used for anything and that seems like the correct thing to do. Otherwise you really piss people off and leave yourself open to them bringing you to court ..... and since the law is very undefined that might go either way .. again see previous thread.
I'm not sure how public place is exactly defined. Obviously the street is, public parks are etc etc ... I would imagine that just because somewhere is funded by public money that does not mean it automatically becomes a public place. That would mean I could waltz into a lecture theatre in UCD whenever I felt like. Or into your football club.
http://www.pobal.ie/DAF/Pages/1106.aspx
This was the only public funding put forward to support the homeless strategy. I realise I'm completely off topic but I dont care. Once off payments only totally €1.5m. That wont be reducing too many statistics for them.
Upgrade your account now to disable all ads...
Upgrade nowWe use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.