"I was disturbed to see one of your pictures...."

[scifisam]

LOL at your Mum. I mean, LOLZ @ ur mum!!!11!!

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nevertheless

They are completely interchangeable words. The entry for 'nonetheless' even has 'nevertheless' as part of its definition.

 

[neonwilderness]

I only captured what anyone walking by would see.

Have you had any further contact from the person who complained?

I remember a while back I found a couple of photos of my girlfriend's house on Geograph. At first she was quite outraged that someone had gone out of their way to take a photo of her house which is quite literally in the middle of no where. Then after I pointed out that it was taken from a public right of way and explained how Geograph worked she calmed down a bit

 

[Hi-ASL]

Your mum's.

Well, that would personalise the issue for me. I was just extending a similar courtesy to obanite. And let's not pretend that, for the owner, it's anything but personal.

Please tell me you're trolling

Openly. Can we call it 'drawing out people's thoughts on the matter' instead?

In this context, not a chance in hell.

I'm listening.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nevertheless

You should have extended the quote.

Synonyms

nonetheless

Stick to computers, bosky. Leave all the 'command of basic English' stuff to me.

 

[_angel_]

Somehow, if someone's thinking of buying a place, I think they might just visit the street in person. Then they'd see the broken window anyway. Also, there are other pics of that street (in Ed's set) which look much nicer.

Bloody hell, wouldn't you even do that if you were just thinking of renting? I walked all over this estate before coming here asking everyone I came across what the area was like.

But council dwellers don't tend to get to be too picky compared to houseowners!!

 

[scifisam]

Bloody hell, wouldn't you even do that if you were just thinking of renting? I walked all over this estate before coming here asking everyone I came across what the area was like.

But council dwellers don't tend to get to be too picky compared to houseowners!!

Yup, I would, and I did.

When it comes to buying a place, I doubt many people would really be put off by one pic of a broken window, when it could have any cause and just be temporary.

 

[Herbsman.]

I really can't believe it.

 

[Louloubelle]

To be honest, I can't ever imagine ever getting worked up enough about one photo of my neighbours house in an overwhelmingly positive feature on my town.

She was the one barking the law at me. I politely told her the facts.

I can understand how it would upset someone even if you can't.

Granted, the tone of her email was way off, but even so your reply might be factually correct but it's pretty curt IMO.

You can't imagine why she might be upset but that might just be a limit to your empathic abilities. Other people can understand it, so the issue is, IMO, just because you can do it legally, should you dismiss the distress you cause to others by your actions?

She's legally entitled to take a photo of you looking hideous at 4am as you nip out down the road for a kebab in your slippers, or slyly picking your nose on the bus if she wants to and she can upload it for zillions of people to see and she can even make it so that when you google your name it's one of the first things that people see.

Then when you email her to complain she can send you an equally curt email pointing out her legal rights as a photographer.

I suppose I'm just thinking that just because people are legally entitled to do something does not mean that those things are the right things to or that the feelings of others should be disregarded, well IMO anyway.

The notion of editing/censoring a picture on the grounds of a neighbour not liking the look of it or a (frankly bizarre) suggestion that it might somehow knock a few quid off the selling price of another house is patently ridiculous.

Ridiculous? Really? Maybe, maybe not. We're in a recession and many people are in negative equity and really struggling to sell their homes or risk facing eviction and homelessness. If you photo is one the first page of a google search then of course it might adversely affect the prices of houses in that street.

Even if it doesn't affect it but only causes more sleepless nights for some poor sod who's lost their job or cant pay the mortgage and who thinks it might affect any slim chance they have of selling their home then keeping it on line just seems to me to be a really selfish thing to do. It's not even a great photo.

I wonder if the accusing tone of her initial email has got you to dig your heels in, whereas a more polite email might have been more accommodating?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

If I'd gotten a snotty email like that there is no way I'd be taking down the picture. However, even if I'd gotten a polite email asking me to take it down, I probably still wouldn't either, unless there was some actual reason given.

 

[Herbsman.]

She's legally entitled to take a photo of you looking hideous at 4am as you nip out down the road for a kebab in your slippers, or slyly picking your nose on the bus if she wants to and she can upload it for zillions of people to see and she can even make it so that when you google your name it's one of the first things that people see.

What a great analogy. Spot on.

 

[Herbsman.]

Perhaps people should stop being selfish and just stop making any sort of art or documentary in case someone loses money as a result. It's only fair.

 

[Louloubelle]

If I'd gotten a snotty email like that there is no way I'd be taking down the picture. However, even if I'd gotten a polite email asking me to take it down, I probably still wouldn't either, unless there was some actual reason given.

The thing is, when people are really, really stressed about financial problems, a very common situation these days and one linked in all probability to the email send to the ed, they don't always express themselves as nicely and politely as they do when they are sleeping well, happy and not stressed.

I'd remove the photo if I's uploaded it, but then I've already got an imaginary mental image of the sender and their situation in my mind.

There again maybe I'm just a big softie.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Perhaps people should just stop making any sort of art or documentary in case someone loses money as a result. It's only fair.

I did take some pictures earlier on today which involved a contrast between run-down streets and corporate buildings in the background. Clearly I am thus contributory to the credit crunch and should be ashamed of myself.

 

[Louloubelle]

What a great analogy. Spot on.

it's not meant to be an analogy

Just stating what she can do if she wants to

 

[editor]

You can't imagine why she might be upset but that might just be a limit to your empathic abilities. Other people can understand it, so the issue is, IMO, just because you can do it legally, should you dismiss the distress you cause to others by your actions?

It's not her house. And there is no house number visible.

Seeing as it's part of a series of photographs showing the street (and the town) in a very positive light, I'm having real trouble seeing how anyone could possibly be 'distressed' or 'disturbed' by seeing a photo of something that was visible to all and sundry, day and night.

She's legally entitled to take a photo of you looking hideous at 4am as you nip out down the road for a kebab in your slippers, or slyly picking your nose on the bus if she wants to and she can upload it for zillions of people to see and she can even make it so that when you google your name it's one of the first things that people see.

It's the picture of part of a house, not a person. No one knows who lives there, if anyone. In fact, it could be one of several houses in the street.

I suppose I'm just thinking that just because people are legally entitled to do something does not mean that those things are the right things to or that the feelings of others should be disregarded, well IMO anyway.

So you think it's wrong that photographers can take pictures of buildings from the street?

If you photo is one the first page of a google search then of course it might adversely affect the prices of houses in that street.

Utter rubbish.

 

[_angel_]

I think you do have to be a little bit careful when taking photographs of someone's home - yep.

That the person who complained wasn't the resident (or, we are assuming the owner). However I think it's best approached with some caution if it's going to be made public.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

The thing is, when people are really, really stressed about financial problems, a very common situation these days and one linked in all probability to the email send to the ed, they don't always express themselves as nicely and politely as they do when they are sleeping well, happy and not stressed.

I'd remove the photo if I's uploaded it, but then I've already got an imaginary mental image of the sender and their situation in my mind.

There again maybe I'm just a big softie.

Well, I don't see any real indication that the person concerned has financial stress regarding property or anything like that, though I may have missed that part. I would think it very unlikely that it had anything to do with that. And even if it were, the publishing of a photo of a broken window in a street isn't going to materially affect sales prices anyway, regardless of how stressed they are about it.

 

[editor]

The thing is, when people are really, really stressed about financial problems, a very common situation these days and one linked in all probability to the email send to the ed, they don't always express themselves as nicely and politely as they do when they are sleeping well, happy and not stressed.

I'd remove the photo if I's uploaded it, but then I've already got an imaginary mental image of the sender and their situation in my mind.

Congratulations! Your post is fuelled by 100% fact-free supposition and wild speculation, all of which is designed to put the beastly, selfish photographer (that's me) in a bad light.

Imagine the cheek of it! I took a picture of a house and didn't knock on all the doors of the street to check everyone's financial situation and house-selling plans first! Outrageous!

I'll do my best to ensure that all future photographs showing houses in less than pristine condition are immediately rejected.

 

[editor]

I think you do have to be a little bit careful when taking photographs of someone's home - yep.

Really? Please elaborate, dear expert.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I think you do have to be a little bit careful when taking photographs of someone's home - yep.

That the person who complained wasn't the resident (or, we are assuming the owner). However I think it's best approached with some caution if it's going to be made public.

I don't think in this instance there's any call to be careful at all. It's a photo of a broken window, with a street sign. Fine, if you went to the area I suppose you could track down exactly which house it was and say "ooh you had a broken window in 2008", but I don't see how that level of possible harm really requires any particular care taken over it.

 

[_angel_]

Really? Please elaborate.

I was thinking purely in terms of good manners.

 

[internetstalker]

Imagine the cheek of it! I took a picture of the house and didn't knock on all the doors of the street to check everyone's financial situation and house-selling plans first!

can't beleive you didn't do that first Ed

You should be truly ashamed of yourself!!

 

[editor]

I was thinking purely in terms of good manners.

So it's bad manners to document housing architecture, yes?

What about shop fronts? Or untidy landscapes? Maybe the gardener might lose his job if I take a picture of a rose bush looking a bit tatty.

 

[Louloubelle]

Well, I don't see any real indication that the person concerned has financial stress regarding property or anything like that, though I may have missed that part. I would think it very unlikely that it had anything to do with that. And even if it were, the publishing of a photo of a broken window in a street isn't going to materially affect sales prices anyway, regardless of how stressed they are about it.

I'm not saying it's 100% definitely the case but someone is very upset about the photo, obviously, and this is my admittedly speculative hypothesis as to why. Of course the ed could ask the person who emailed him why she is so upset then we would know wouldn't we?

 

[editor]

Fucking hell. Look at how dirty the pavement is and there's chalk all over the wall. And that kid looks like he's begging.

Now, that's going to put the house price down. And the bastard photographer even published the street name too.

What a selfish wanker.

 

[editor]

Of course the ed could ask the person who emailed him why she is so upset then we would know wouldn't we?

Hello? Try reading the thread.

 

[Pie 1]

Lou, I respect you & your posts normally, but you're way off on this one. Leave it.

Why _angel_ is wading in with more utter toss? oh, hang on....

 

[_angel_]

So it's bad manners to document housing architecture, yes?

What about shop fronts? Or untidy landscapes? Maybe the gardener might lose his job if I take a picture of a rose bush looking a bit tatty.

People don't live there, do they?

Cos I'm in a council house anyone can do anything... they sent snoops around to photo my front garden without any warning!! I'm sure that's legal but it's not very nice (especially if I or anyone else for that matter had been in the picture). If it was going to be published somewhere, it would have been even nastier.

I'm not saying what you did was wrong, necessarily, but people may well have the right to be upset about it if it was their house, their street.

Quite possibly the person was over reacting, who knows? It might be prudent to leave out the street name in future, if it's going to be published without consent..

 

[Louloubelle]

Seeing as it's part of a series of photographs showing the street (and the town) in a very positive light, I'm having real trouble seeing how anyone could possibly be 'distressed' or 'disturbed' by seeing a photo of something that was visible to all and sundry, day and night.

why yes! Now I look that are all really positive

It's the picture of part of a house, not a person. No one knows who lives there, if anyone. In fact, it could be one of several houses in the street.

My point about someone taking a photograph of you was not to say that you are a house or equivalent to a house, just to point out that the argument that you can do what you want because you are legally entitled is an argument that others can use too, in a situation that you might not feel so great about.

anyway, I'm not really that bothered, if it was a really great photo I could understand why the ed might feel reluctant to remove it but it's just an average photo, very far from one of his best so why get so stubborn about someone else's obvious distress?

I'm not up for wasting more time on here tonight so I'll say adieu

 

[editor]

why yes! Now I look that are all really positive

Oh dear. I expected better from you that to pull out the three negative pics from such a big collection.

As well you know, the remainder of the photos are almost entirely positive.

anyway, I'm not really that bothered, if it was a really great photo I could understand why the ed might feel reluctant to remove it but it's just an average photo, very far from one of his best so why get so stubborn about someone else's obvious distress?

It's part of a series of photos that tells a story and no half-decent documentary photographer is going to start self-censoring images because some random person doesn't happen to like the way their neighbour's house looks.

I like the photo by the way, and it plays an important part of the collection. I don't really care what you think of it.

 

[fubert]

The person who wrote the letter is a neighbour - doesn't even own or live in the house so the busybody can fuck right off.

It would be a bit like me contacting whoever takes the photos that go on the postcards of the town we live in and moaning at them over some crap.

Mail them back, offer to Photoshop the pic so the window isn't broken and see what reaction you get.