DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Should you really put in metadata?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 13 of 13, (reverse)
AuthorThread
11/11/2017 03:05:15 PM · #1
Hadn't thought about it from this angle.

think twice
11/11/2017 06:33:15 PM · #2
I take issue with that entire post, especially when they begin the whole reductio ad absurdum with likes on social media and stripping away the exif data. If you are a photographer who makes money from their photography then you should follow any and all laws for the place you take the photos............not hide by stripping exif information. If you are a vacationer and taking snap shots, nobody is going to come after you......unless like the author you photograph yourself breaking a law.......then you deserve what you get in my opinion.

There is seriously no other angle to look at this..........
11/12/2017 01:35:05 PM · #3
I disagree. His point about somebody thinking that he had an illegal campfire points out the fact that people tend to want to be vigilantes. ( The campfire wasn't illegal, but he took the photo down anyway.)

The problem isn't necessarily if you do something wrong and then have your information in the picture, that's kind of stupid and that's on you.

But what if you just did some street photography and photographed person and posted it. If someone has a problem with it they have a way of tracking you down. There's some really strange people out there. I was taking pictures in front of the theater and a guy actually got out of his car came over and started yelling at me for taking pictures.

If a guy is anywhere near a playground taking pictures, everybody assumes that he's a pervert. And now he might have a perfectly fine picture that happens to have a child in it, and some will cause a lot of problems for him. I know a woman who is getting threatening emails just because she didn't want to be on a creepy email list and ask to be removed.

Message edited by author 2017-11-12 13:35:48.
11/12/2017 04:15:56 PM · #4
Wendy got a point here. We live in a suing era and there is money in it.
We take our chances.
Taking pics of children is/was always an understandable problem.
Some 20 years ago the school where my son went called an urgent meeting telling the parents to warn our boys about male predators, perverts and pederasts. The word "predator" is still very much in use but the other two are gone.
Think of Diane Arbus nowadays.
11/12/2017 05:21:26 PM · #5
Originally posted by mariuca:

Wendy got a point here. We live in a suing era and there is money in it.
We take our chances.
Taking pics of children is/was always an understandable problem.
Some 20 years ago the school where my son went called an urgent meeting telling the parents to warn our boys about male predators, perverts and pederasts. The word "predator" is still very much in use but the other two are gone.
Think of Diane Arbus nowadays.

But ... but ... it's in the BIBLE! Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_990577.jpg

Legal terrorism works just like any other kind -- attempt to intimidate the opposition into changing their otherwise legitimate behavior. "They" only win if "we" give in ...
11/12/2017 06:09:49 PM · #6
Originally posted by vawendy:

I disagree. ( The campfire wasn't illegal, but he took the photo down anyway.)


Yes, but the Gov't had decided that commercial photography was a revenue source and mandated permits. Now, $465 dollars per day is asinine.

Message edited by author 2017-11-12 18:10:05.
11/13/2017 08:36:05 AM · #7
I saw this the other day and had been mulling over a response when I just saw an ad for the L16 and it hit me.

The real issues and problems with photography isn't the taking of the photos, it's the publishing of the photos. And for all intents and purposes, issues and problems with taking photos mostly stem from people concerned with not being able to control how they are going to be published.

First, let's define "publish". When talking about a photo, it means putting it anywhere that it can be seen by someone other than the person who put the image where it can be seen, be it a print in a window, a postcard, a calendar, a book or magazine, a canvas in a gallery, and other places in the real world. It also means anywhere in the digital world: any website, any web gallery, any social media. It doesn't matter if it is a commercial image or a personal-use-only image: if it can be seen, it is published.

And crossing that line - from keeping an image for yourself to publishing - that is the problem.

That line represents a complex barrier of permissions:
* Did/do you have permission to be where you were taking the photo?
* Did/do you have permission to photograph your subject, be it someone capable of giving permission or something owned by someone else?
* Did/do you have permission to publish the photo?
* Did/do you actually own the photograph?

Most people seem to think that because they own a device that can capture what their eye can see that they inherently have the right to record/capture everything that they can see, no matter where they are.

Maybe so. Even if not, given the escalating advances of technology, it is going to be harder and harder to prevent people from recording/capturing the things in their lives, regardless of where they are.

However, the issue still comes back to publishing. If you can't check off all the permissions, you should probably keep it to yourself. Follow the adage "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." Even if you didn't have permission, if no one knows you took it, you're probably safe.

Unfortunately, most people, especially those that have paid for gear meant to capture glorious imagery in all sorts of unimaginable conditions, just can't seem to contain themselves. Somehow, they assume that a universal permission slip is printed on the back of the warranty card, giving them the right to publish anything they record and capture. And they just have to prove to the world their and their gear's capabilities.

And they are wrong.

And, as the point of that article, they could find themselves facing unforeseen consequences.

So, what does this mean to you? Simply, proceed at your own risk. Take time to get permissions. Or keep it to yourself. Or be prepared...

---------------------------------------------------

As a side note to those who want to fight the man, the system, the government: I'm sure that if you are serious, you'll probably make history, one way or another.
11/13/2017 09:27:49 AM · #8
Originally posted by Skip:

As a side note to those who want to fight the man, the system, the government: I'm sure that if you are serious, you'll probably make history, one way or another.

It's not a matter of "fighting the system" -- it's upholding the rights the "system" grants us.
11/13/2017 07:32:18 PM · #9
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Skip:

As a side note to those who want to fight the man, the system, the government: I'm sure that if you are serious, you'll probably make history, one way or another.

It's not a matter of "fighting the system" -- it's upholding the rights the "system" grants us.

semantics, paul ;-)

when the occupants of city hall abuse their power and decimate your "rights" to the point that you want them back, you are 'fighting city hall'. words are interchangeable, but the reality is a somebody-vs-somebody situation.

------------------------------------------

One other note related to the original post: As far as fees go, I'm all for them. If you are a *professional* photographer, play by the rules, like them or not. If you are a *professional* you are charging enough to cover all cost of doing business, "asinine" fees included. If you aren't a *professional*, then play by the rules: take the photos you are allowed to, but don't post them anywhere you aren't allowed to. That is, unless you are ready to handle the consequences.
11/13/2017 07:55:37 PM · #10
Originally posted by Skip:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Skip:

As a side note to those who want to fight the man, the system, the government: I'm sure that if you are serious, you'll probably make history, one way or another.

It's not a matter of "fighting the system" -- it's upholding the rights the "system" grants us.

semantics, paul ;-)

when the occupants of city hall abuse their power and decimate your "rights" to the point that you want them back, you are 'fighting city hall'. words are interchangeable, but the reality is a somebody-vs-somebody situation.

I'm not so concerned with government restrictions -- it is the stories of private individuals filing inappropriate complaints or frivolous lawsuits I'm more worried about.

Some years ago I was taking photos of one of the many refineries in the area from a public sidewalk when I had a pleasant chat with a security guard who came over to see what I was doing. I told him we (here, online) were in constant discussion about the ongoing tension between freedom and security, and reassured him (apparently) that I was (legally) taking photos for artistic purposes, and that they were likely useless for plotting harm.
-------------------------
If you are not infringing on a park's use by others (blocking a path with your tripod and lights, special access, etc.) but only shooting "in the same manner" as any other park visitor, I think (additional) fees/permits are inappropriate and unnecessary.
11/14/2017 02:47:16 PM · #11
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Some years ago I was taking photos of one of the many refineries in the area from a public sidewalk when I had a pleasant chat with a security guard who came over to see what I was doing. I told him we (here, online) were in constant discussion about the ongoing tension between freedom and security, and reassured him (apparently) that I was (legally) taking photos for artistic purposes, and that they were likely useless for plotting harm.


A few years ago, I was wandering through Old Town in Pasadena, Ca taking architectural photos when a woman came out of a store and indignantly asked me if I was, "Perving with my camera."

"No, I am taking pictures of buildings."

THis was the killer: "Oh, OK, look do you work as a Bodyguard? I need a Bodyguard."

I sometimes wonder what would have happened if I had said yes?
11/14/2017 04:17:20 PM · #12
Originally posted by rgrenaderphoto:

THis was the killer: "Oh, OK, look do you work as a Bodyguard? I need a Bodyguard."

I sometimes wonder what would have happened if I had said yes?

Could you have fulfilled the responsibilities of a bodyguard by shooting back at the paparazzi?
11/14/2017 05:12:48 PM · #13
Originally posted by rgrenaderphoto:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Some years ago I was taking photos of one of the many refineries in the area from a public sidewalk when I had a pleasant chat with a security guard who came over to see what I was doing. I told him we (here, online) were in constant discussion about the ongoing tension between freedom and security, and reassured him (apparently) that I was (legally) taking photos for artistic purposes, and that they were likely useless for plotting harm.


A few years ago, I was wandering through Old Town in Pasadena, Ca taking architectural photos when a woman came out of a store and indignantly asked me if I was, "Perving with my camera."

"No, I am taking pictures of buildings."

THis was the killer: "Oh, OK, look do you work as a Bodyguard? I need a Bodyguard."

I sometimes wonder what would have happened if I had said yes?

Yes to the "perving" question or yes to the bodyguard thing? Both would have yielded interesting results I think.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 11/21/2017 01:56:29 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2017 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 11/21/2017 01:56:29 AM EST.