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

[FridgeMagnet]

Or there's always the potential to allow them the opportunity of buying the entire set of pictures, at full rate obviously, if they wish to exercise some sort of editorial control.

There's an increasing tendency, I think, for people to assume they have some sort of right to have other people's pictures taken down when they're clearly not being used in any sort of offensive way, to invade privacy, or, you know, for anything bad. It's not like it's stalking, or some sort of data-gathering exercise, it's a picture of a broken window as part of a series about an area, one which has a broken window in it.

I may be a little bitter about this as I've had pictures frivolously DMCAed on Flickr, who took them down without even notifying me, but as far as I'm concerned if there's not actually a decent reason given at all, no way would I remove anything. "I don't like the way it makes my area look" isn't decent as far as I'm concerned. Your area does look like that, hence the photographs.

 

[editor]

"I don't like the way it makes my area look" isn't decent as far as I'm concerned. Your area does look like that, hence the photographs.

Absolutely.

I have taken down a handful of pics in the past after being contacted by concerned parties offering a good reason, but this person can fuck right off.

 

[boskysquelch]

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

nevertheless it still makes Hi-ASL sound like an arse hole...but I guess he wants to go through his life thought as being one, nonetheless.

adds to derail

I knew Martin Parr when he lived in Hebden Bridge...he tried to get me the sack from a voluntary job I was doing at the time in Impressions, York...coz he caught me having a couple of conversations I had with Ansel Adams & Angus McBean while he was waiting for me to make him a coffee....which I had already told him to make himself three times already already already....before they rang ME!

I clearly remember saying "Oh fuck off back to Hebden Bridge you fucking hippy..." before being dragged down to the darkroom by a kewl Japanese photographer I forget the name of....

/adds to derail

 

[oryx]

even so your reply might be factually correct but it's pretty curt IMO.

It's pretty polite compared to what I'd have said.

I used to do bits of photography in a previous job and was astonished about how prissy, precious and uptight people are about photos being taken of themselves, their children and their surrounding area.

The argument about house prices is a ludicrous one. Unless tampered with, a photo is a factual record. If a place has a broken window, it has a broken window, and if you're thinking of buying in the surrounding area you're going to find out sooner or later.

There is nothing wrong with recording the truth and if all people thought like the writer of the email and some of the people on this thread, we would have been denied thousands, perhaps millions, of photographs of historical and artistic merit.

 

[northeastoipunk]

i agree with you its your right to photograph what you want .im an amateur photographer i take photos of local countryside etc if i take a picture of some nice village scene do they have the right to ask me to remove it cos people live there ??hmm no , i took a lot of photos of people in the crowd at this years rebellion fest in blackpool cos i like to take people when they arent posing but i approached everyone i shot and asked them if it was ok showed them the shot id took and said id delete it if they objected not one person did object , i think taking photos of people without permission is different to bricks and mortar tho , ps i didnt ask permission from the copper i photographed after he pinched my can of cider off me outside the venue cheers porky

 

[Hi-ASL]

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.

And this is my concern really: that the legal provisions don't adequately express all the possible ethical considerations. I agree in this case that the photo is aesthetically pleasing enough in context, and the potential harm sufficiently minimal, even to the householder, that its continued online presence can be justified, but I do wonder what the boundaries should be in cases like this. At what point should aesthetic or journalistic considerations yield to concerns for individual privacy?

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

What would be the difference between that and removing the photo - which he said he doesn't intend to do?

 

[Hi-ASL]

nevertheless it still makes Hi-ASL sound like an arse hole...but I guess he wants to go through his life thought as being one, nonetheless.

What does - you pulling me up on the use of a word wrongly, irrelevantly and repeatedly, even after I've helpfully pointed out your mistake?

 

[editor]

And this is my concern really: that the legal provisions don't adequately express all the possible ethical considerations. I agree in this case that the photo is aesthetically pleasing enough in context, and the potential harm sufficiently minimal, even to the householder, that its continued online presence can be justified, but I do wonder what the boundaries should be in cases like this.

Could you give me some examples of the 'potential harm' rendered to a householder from a photographer legally taking photos from a public right of way, please?

What 'legal provisions' would you like to see introduced?

 

[boskysquelch]

What does - you pulling me up on the use of a word wrongly, irrelevantly and repeatedly, even after I've helpfully pointed out your mistake?

jus playing your game...wazzock.

have some more >>>> you are right, nevertheless it sounds stupid.

Nonetheless, if you insist on taking the piss what do you expect?

 

[boskysquelch]

Could you give me some examples of the 'potential harm' rendered to a householder from a photographer legally taking photos from a public right of way, please?

e2a:::and http://www.stockportexpress.co.uk/news/s/1021291_neighbours_slam_bbc__for_horror_house_celebrity

 

[editor]

That's all about a TV show, moran.

 

[Jonti]

No sorry - not in Google images - it's the link to the whole set of photos on a general google search.


Yes ed, I agree, but I can well imagine someone living on the street worrying about the impact it might have on a proposed sale, or on their house value, iykwim.

Of course it's your right, and theirs, to imagine what you like, and feel a way about things.

And it's everyone else's right not to give a toss.

 

[Hi-ASL]

Could you give me some examples of the 'potential harm' rendered to a householder from a photographer legally taking photos from a public right of way, please?

Two-timing partner caught on camera? Erm... struggling for other concrete examples, to be honest. No matter. It's the general sense of invasiveness - which I know I'd feel if people were taking photos of me and mine without permission - that I'm not comfortable with. And where that sense of personal discomfort exists there's an ethical issue that clearly isn't addressed by the legal provisions (otherwise I'd be fine with it), and to which a response of 'oh well - tough shit' doesn't seem to be a very cogent counter-argument.

I should say at this point that I think you have far more right to display the photo than some random neighbour of the house you photographed has to request it's removal, so my problem isn't with that issue in particular, but with the wider considerations.

Suppose you were walking down the road, camera at the ready, and you came across a gang of men armed with crowbars smashing up a car. Where would your documentary instincts lead you in a situation like that? It would, after all, make a great photo. Would you follow your photographer's instincts or would you respect their wish for a little privacy? It seems to me that there's a certain arrogance and duplicity in all this talk of documentary primacy that ultimately comes down to what you think you can get away with (newspaper editors have to address the same concerns). Maybe that's just natural and human but it doesn't necessarily make it ethically right.

What 'legal provisions' would you like to see introduced?

I'm not a lawyer, nor a moral philosopher, nor someone arrogant enough to pretend he has all the answers (novel, I know).

I just see some ethical tensions that I think raise a few questions. I certainly don't think it's a clear-cut, black and white issue. To be honest, I'm more interested in clarifying what I think about it all than in anything else (I wish I had other people's moral certainty but, sadly, usually find myself plagued by more questions than answers. ).

 

[boskysquelch]

That's all about a TV show, moran.

same principle...dickwud.

Public highway blahblahblah

http://tinythingsihate.blogspot.com/2007/11/0058-people-who-live-next-door-to.html

 

[Hi-ASL]

jus playing your game...wazzock.

have some more >>>> you are right, nevertheless it sounds stupid.

Nonetheless, if you insist on taking the piss what do you expect?

I'm not, bosky. Friends?

 

[Dhimmi]

From the same street and nearby area:

My mother regularly travels to Wales and is shocked and offended by such a blatant copyright abuse in using a photograph featuring daffodils without requesting the permission of either the daffodils, the Welsh nor Alan Titchmarsh.

If there's one thing I've learned from the 76 complaints I made about that dreadful radio show I've never listened to it's that my banal arse-holing should be respected and responded to, especially with a large cheque to cover the pain and suffering I've endured as a result of your blatant disregard for the human rights of flowers.

And another thing...

 

[Hi-ASL]

That's all about a TV show, moran.

It raises similar questions though, albeit on an entirely different scale.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

I just see some ethical tensions that I think raise a few questions. I certainly don't think it's a clear-cut, black and white issue. To be honest, I'm more interested in clarifying what I think about it all than in anything else (I wish I had other people's moral certainty but, sadly, usually find myself plagued by more questions than answers. ).

No you're not, you're on a wind-up imo. Anyhow, i think motions to desist are rubbish but I'm not bothered to tell you why.

Moral certainty arises from the knowledge that you're correct, not the belief, so maybe we need more of the former perhaps?

 

[Dhimmi]

...I don't like the sinister association made by the publishing of this picture on your so-called forum. It wrongfully suggest some form of association between our wonderful boys in blue and a serial killer, where no association exists in fact.

Fred West never met nor knew any policemen, and no policeman ever actually stood either outside his house nor went in side ever, that's a fact. I think it's high-time we had another law from our great government to prevent this sort of charade being publically paraded for cheap entertainment, unless it's on the pages of the sole bastion of truth the Daily Mail.

 

[soulman]

Thinking about it I'm just happy to have seen that photo montage of Hebden and the surrounding area. Lots of nice memories.

 

[soulman]

That email is probably some fucking letting agent moaning because they can't rent the floor with the broken window.

 

[Hi-ASL]

No you're not, you're on a wind-up imo.

No, I think I made several contributions early on that were maybe a bit tongue-in-cheek, but which were nevertheless aimed at opening up the debate a bit and maybe hinting that it isn't an entirely black and white issue but, believe me, I wouldn't have typed everything I just did unless I was expressing genuine concerns as well as I could.

Anyhow, i think motions to desist are rubbish but I'm not bothered to tell you why.

I've said several times that I don't have any real problem with this particular photo (except maybe some niggling concerns that tie into everything I've just said).

Moral certainty arises from the knowledge that you're correct, not the belief, so maybe we need more of the former perhaps?

It would be nice, yes - but how can we know we're right in matters of morality?

 

[greedy banker]

Could you give me some examples of the 'potential harm' rendered to a householder from a photographer legally taking photos from a public right of way, please?

Witness protection programme or someone hiding from their abusive former partner. Fourteen year old girl flashing tits.

Or maybe this guy.

 

[scifisam]

Witness protection programme or someone hiding from their abusive former partner. Fourteen year old girl flashing tits.

Or maybe this guy.

That's people, though, not buildings.

 

[greedy banker]

That's people, though, not buildings.

Yup, but they might have been visible in the building.

I don't think any reasonable person can have a problem with this image unless there's something we're not being told. The only point is that it's not an absolute principle and it's best to evaluate each instance on a case by case basis.

 

[editor]

Two-timing partner caught on camera? Erm... struggling for other concrete examples, to be honest. No matter. It's the general sense of invasiveness - which I know I'd feel if people were taking photos of me and mine without permission - that I'm not comfortable with.

Um, the question was about taking pictures of buildings, not about exposing two timing lovers (unless they're shagging on the rooftops or performing oral sex clinging to the wall), rampaging hordes with crowbars smashing up cars or any of the other off topic nonsense.

But to make one thing clear: I don't need your permission to take your photograph in a public space.

same principle...dickwud.

No, it's not. I'm not going around photographing the buildings used by serial killers. Your argument is ludicrous.

Yup, but they might have been visible in the building

Any chance of a remotely intelligent and relevant argument from you here?

 

[Detroit City]

But to make one thing clear: I don't need your permission to take your photograph in a public space.

you don't need anyones permission.

thats how the paparazzi get away with it, otherwise they'd all be in jail and we would all be getting professional photo equipment for almost nothing.

 

[editor]

The only point is that it's not an absolute principle and it's best to evaluate each instance on a case by case basis.

Yes it is. If I'm in a public place I am free to take pictures of what I want*. And that's a valuable right worth fighting for.

(*subject to other laws)

 

[Hi-ASL]

Um, the question was about taking pictures of buildings, not about exposing two timing lovers (unless they're shagging on the rooftops or performing oral sex clinging to the wall), rampaging hordes with crowbars smashing up cars or any of the other off topic nonsense.

You're Welsh aren't you, ed?

How's your grasp of English?

Kidding. No offence.

I don't have a (huge) problem with your picture. It's a nice picture. I like it.

It's especially nice, and I especially like it, and it makes by far the most aesthetic sense, in context with all it's siblings, which are also nice and which I also like.

My concern, really, is with the 'off-topic nonsense' that stems from this issue of taking pictures of stuff, or videoing stuff, without the subject's permission.

Sorry for briefly hijacking your thread.

(You were right to tell her to mind her own business.)

But to make one thing clear: I don't need your permission to take your photograph in a public space.

Then you are fully legally protected to take any picture that the law permits.

On that we can agree 100%.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You're Welsh aren't you, ed?

How's your grasp of English?

Kidding. No offence.

I don't have a (huge) problem with your picture. It's a nice picture. I like it.

It's especially nice, and I especially like it, and it makes by far the most aesthetic sense, in context with all it's siblings, which are also nice and which I also like.

My concern, really, is with the 'off-topic nonsense' that stems from this issue of taking pictures of stuff, or videoing stuff, without the subject's permission.

Sorry for briefly hijacking your thread.

(You were right to tell her to mind her own business.)
Then you are fully legally protected to take any picture that the law permits.

On that we can agree 100%.

This is just a single aside, but when I see your moniker, it looks to me like 'Hi, Asshole', said quickly, with a bit of a slur.

As you were...