"I was disturbed to see one of your pictures...."
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
I believe in 'freedom of picture', sort of like freedom of speech, absent a reasonable expectation of privacy. As in, it's reasonable to expect people not to take pictures through your window, but the outside of your house, available visually to any passerby, is totally fair game.
greedy banker
I have a very large penis
I think we agree with each other you know. So long as "fighting for it" doesn't mean exercising it without due consideration to others' feelings.
Some ninny complaining about house prices should be ignored, my one and only request is that you don't blindly fight everyone that requests a picture be taken down without evaluating their claim
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Seconded.
editor
hiraethified
Good to see you're firmly back on topic again.
If you want to discuss privacy, paparazzi, street photography and similar concerns, it might be an idea to start a new thread about it. Except there's already a long and detailed thread on that very topic here:
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=247084
editor
hiraethified
What 'feelings' should I be looking out for when I'm photographing buildings?
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
I thought one of the best things ever, was the guy with the megaphone, reaming out the security guards who tried to stop him from taking photos in the town high street.
greedy banker
I have a very large penis
I love the way you keep quoting the least relevant, most offhand parts of my posts above your responses. It's hilarious.Good to see you're firmly back on topic again.
If you want to discuss privacy, paparazzi, street photography and similar concerns, it might be an idea to start a new thread about it. Except there's already a long and detailed thread on that very topic here:
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=247084
Thankyou, Number 1, I shall give it a read.
editor
hiraethified
You clearly thought it was 'hilarious' to start banging on about my Welsh nationality and continuing to fill this thread up with your off topic rambles.
Like video filming. And taking pictures of people. And men with crowbars smashing up cars. And TV shows. And two timing lovers. And all the other irrelevant stuff you keep dredging up which has nothing to do with taking pictures of buildings.
editor
hiraethified
What is the point of you contributing to this this thread?Honestly I don't know. But life is strange
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
There are a couple of signs of the slide into totalitarianism. Restriction on speech is one, restriction on the right to record visual images is another, basically because one is a species of the other.
editor
hiraethified
Indeed. That's why I spent so long compiling that piece on Photographers' Rights. People need to know that they can take that picture, even if some jobsworth (or neighbour) doesn't like the fact.
Oh for fuck's sake. Just when I think I can escape I get portrayed in my near-absence as some rambling, xenophobic lunatic!
It was the gentlest of jibes. Are you really so sensitive? I'd like to think not.
I'm sorry if you were offended. ok?
As for the rest, I've said all along that I don't have a problem with the bastard photo!
I don't have a problem with the bastard photo!!!
Does that mean that, on a discussion site, I can't raise questions about related issues in the interests of discussion without you or someone else getting all arsey about it, or portraying me as some kind of dribbling moron!??
I don't even want to hear the reply, I am done!
I like your bloody photos. Can I go now!???
[Gone.]
editor
hiraethified
"..in my near absence". What a delightful piece of invented drama and pathos. LOL.
sheothebudworths
Up the bum - no babies!!!
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.
I don't know what's given you the impression that I give a flying fuck either - I never said I did (cos I don't)!
I was just saying that I can imagine it worrying someone who WAS in the process of selling a house on that street or whatever.
Some people do worry about that sort of thing, apparently.
I wouldn't know myself, not currently being a home owner and not intending to be one at a later date either.
Agree with your general point though (its much the same as my own original point, after all
).
editor
hiraethified
If that was the case - and there's absolutely nothing to support that supposition - then the seller can hardly complain about the truth being represented, and I'm sure the buyer would appreciate an honest representation of the street.
Not that I think the photo would have the slightest, remotest influence on anyone's decision to buy a house there or not. That decision would be made when they've visited the property, not by looking at an 8 month old photo of a single broken window. And if they were that fascinated by looking up the area on the web, they'd see all my other, more positive photos.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
It's a valid point: why is the seller's desire to hide the truth, more important than a buyer's desire to know the truth?
greedy banker
I have a very large penis
To clarify and probe your position.
untethered
For industry & decency
More's the point, you could produce an entirely biased and negative documentary of the area and be well within your rights. Ethics should restrain you from doing so but the law certainly doesn't. It's just the flip side of PR, which paints everything in the most conceivably positive light.
untethered
For industry & decency
Given there's no objective measure of the truth in a case like this and buildings can't be libelled, I fail to see the problem.
Similar threads
