photography wankers (1 Viewer)

[La La]

Really? I see buckets of this stuff on sites like photo.net and others. It can be annoying all right .... but if you submit your pictures for criticism you just have to put up with stuff like that ....

flickr is the only photo sharing site i use, im a member of and have contributed photos to several c+c groups, and have yet to come across something like the aforementioned. so that's that, i've no more to add to this, i should be working on my thesis.....

 

[hugh]

flickr is the only photo sharing site i use, im a member of and have contributed photos to several c+c groups, and have yet to come across something like the aforementioned. so that's that, i've no more to add to this, i should be working on my thesis.....

Fair enough .. I'm not saying she is not necesssarily "up her own hole" though by the way

 

[JohnnyRaz]

JohnnyRaz: I have a question for you ... it's kindof off-topic. I was looking at your street photos just now. You exhibited these, right? There are quite a few people in them that are recognisable. I dunno if your pictures were for sale or not, but assuming they were, did you have to get model release forms signed?.....

the laws vary from country to country. As far as Im aware you dont have to in this country unless the photo is taken for specifically commercial purposes.

 

[Ferox13]

LOL@La La's comment

 

[Scientician 0.8]

yer wan is up her own hole, fair enough, but the thumped massive getting stuck in just seems a bit childish. any 'artistic' endevour attracts know-it-alls and bullshit artists.

I made a completely reasonable comment in relation to what your wan had posted.

 

[JohnnyRaz]

I made a completely reasonable comment in relation to what your wan had posted.

alright, fair enough. apologies all round

 

[Goff]

the laws vary from country to country. As far as Im aware you dont have to in this country unless the photo is taken for specifically commercial purposes.

You don't. Not even for commercial purposes, so long as they're outdoors. That might be changing soon though. It's all about copyright Vs. Privacy. At the moment, copyright trumps privacy. People are fair game if they place themselves in a public situation, apparently. Sounds a bit stupid, but, if you think about it, it makes sense.

That doesn't mean you can go taking pictures up people's skirts. There's other laws that trump that.

 

[magicbastarder]

You don't. Not even for commercial purposes, so long as they're outdoors. That might be changing soon though. It's all about copyright Vs. Privacy. At the moment, copyright trumps privacy. People are fair game if they place themselves in a public situation, apparently. Sounds a bit stupid, but, if you think about it, it makes sense.

that's not what i understood - if you are recognisable in a picture, they need your permission to use the shot in a commercial context. you've no rights not to have your photo taken once you are in, or visible from, a public place.

 

[Donkey OJ]

and on that note

that stephen shore quote reminds me of [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKiIroiCvZ0"]this[/ame]

god bless mammy, daddy, stephen shore and david lynch.

 

[the strange guy]

Added my 2c.

 

[Janer]

Knowing your 2c it'll prob start a run on flickr currency!
/heads of to read it....

 

[Denny Oubidoux]

go to your room(s)

 

[GO]

Nooly,the Thumped massives got yer back yo.

 

[the strange guy]

I'm Kissthesky1980, BTW

 

[sarah]

Hey nooly, cool pumpkin carving, but I do think you took too much offense at the comment. Personally I would assume that photographs submitted for critical evaluation were ones that had some sort of idea or concept behind it. I'm sure everyone's stream is made up of a combination of snapshots that you like and photo's were you were experimenting with getting a specific effect. Your ones comment was a bit arsy but it seems to me like she was genuinely assuming you submitted the photo because there was a bit more to it than meets the eye. Seems like she was just trying to figure out what that was and commented accordingly.

If I submit photos to a pool I expect people will comment in the style of that group. seems like crossed wires to me. good to know you can mobilise the thumped posse if needs be though. ;-)

 

[hugh]

that's not what i understood - if you are recognisable in a picture, they need your permission to use the shot in a commercial context. you've no rights not to have your photo taken once you are in, or visible from, a public place.

Yeah this is my understanding of it too. As a photographer, you can take anyone's photo as long as they are in a public place and there's nothing they can do about it. There is no law that can stop you taking such pictures.

But, if the subject is recognizable in the shot then you need their consent to use it commercially.

My question really is this. Does putting a picture up in a gallery for exhibition constitute commercial use?

But now that I think about it even this interpretation doesn't completely make sense as surely this would mean that all paparazzi are breaking the law by selling pictures of celebrities to newspapers, since that is clearly commercial use ...


??

 

[Goff]

that's not what i understood - if you are recognisable in a picture, they need your permission to use the shot in a commercial context. you've no rights not to have your photo taken once you are in, or visible from, a public place.

Not in this country.

Not yet.

There have been plenty of occasions where people have had their picture used without consent. But no decent advertising company would ever use a picture it didn't have the rights to use it, as the flak wouldn't be worth it. Although Virgin tried their hardest last year. And if you took them to court, they'd more than likely settle for a (very) small fee. Even though they don't have to.

They are considering changing the law though. But I don't think they'll change that part. They've been waffling about it for the last two or three years, but that's Oireland; not in any rush to change a law unless it's bailing out banks. In most countries, a magazine will not publish a picture of someone recognisable without a model release form. But they do over here. The newspapers do it all the time (and not just as "fair comment" either). The assumption is that the photographer has already secured whatever rights may, or may not be, necessary. And, as there really aren't any needed that are worth a wank, it's all fine and dandy.

 

[Janer]

Gotta go with magicBastarder and Hugh on this, I knew someone that worked in the council cleaning the streets with one of those machines that vacuum cleans up the rubbish and the council used him in an advertising billboard campaign without his knowledge along the lines of "DCC cleaning your city bla", he took them to court and won the case.

 

[Scientician 0.8]

This might be a useful link:
http://www.digitalrights.ie/2006/05/09/photographers-rights/

 

[Scientician 0.8]

I think there might be a difference between an exhibited photograph, ie a work of a art and a commercial use, printed in a publication, implied endorsement of a product etc.