First of all, about the past court rulings, remember, courts don't make law, they interpret existing laws. At least that's how it's supposed to be. And, as of now, there is not law curtailing such activity, so those decisions are correct. It's like how at first the Courts ruled that upskirt photography was legal, then the state legislature wrote a law banning it, and THEN the courts ruled in favor of the upskirt victim. That's why I'm advocating for a NEW LAW. What you're doing is like arguing that a new law can't be put in place because no such law is currently put in place. It's a circular argument.
I'm not sure how my words "cripple ... part of photography" became your words "cripple part of society", but never mind...
Yes, I misread that. Sorry. But you still didn't get my point. Crippling photography isn't the issue. Some of you seem to think that if your activities are curtailed, it would have a crippling effect on society. I'm saying that's a bit delusional.
Where do I give you the impression that I have this fear? I have had sufficient positive feedback from strangers as well as non-strangers that personally I'm not worried in the way you think. As far as I'm concerned, I already get verbal or non-verbal consent from most people. However, requiring written consent is a whole different ballgame, and changes the dynamic considerably. And on principle, I simply don't think that freedom of expression should be removed.
There's no other way to say this: I simply don't believe you. I doubt Dan Nikon would either, unless you have some kind of "magic touch," or something. Again, do celebrities love being photographed by the paparazzi and then having that image published? I'm not a celebrity, but that's certainly not what I hear! So, then, you think that celebrities don't like this type of thing, but non-celebrities are fine with it? Let's be real here. You're doing the same exact thing to non-celebrities as the paparazzi do to celebrities. You're work is better/more artistic than theirs? I'm sure it is, but that's not the point. It's the same relationship. I guess one could say that the paparazzi are to celebrities as street photographers are to ordinary people. Anyway, if you're so sure you have their permission, what makes you think they won't put it in writing? What do people have against writing? I would hypothesize that maybe you're not quite as sure of their consent as you claim.
That's a terrible example. It's already covered by the expectation of privacy. Or are you saying that all public places should be treated like the restroom??
I know it's already covered. That's not the point. You can't seem to comprehend how one can be seen by at least one other person in a place which happens to be accessible to everyone (a public place), but still not be able to seen by the whole world. A public restroom is such a place. It's like you think that because anyone CAN be there, it's just like the whole world IS there. That's ridiculous. And no, I don't want everywhere to be like a public restroom. In a public restroom, as far as I know, you can't even take a picture of someone else. Everywhere else, you would just have to get permission. See the difference?
That's what the proposed UK law would do. It's terrible. They're probably going to lose the election.
And you think this issue is why? They're just feeling the wrath of the street photographers?
Yeah, I guess I don't see the widespread abuses that you do, just the paranoia. I'm sorry if in fact you had a bad experience. If not, then maybe you'll tell us what lit the fire under you.
Thanks to Dan Nikon, you've even been SHOWN some of this abuse today, and he's told you about others. Why can't you accept this? Are celebrities just "paranoid" because they don't want to be photographed by the paparazzi? And again, the world "sociopath" is running through my brain. It's like you think the only reason someone would object to this kind of thing is paranoia. You can't seem to relate to most peoples' feelings.
XandXor, you know what? You seem somewhat more reasonable than some people here, but as pointed out in my paragraph about getting permission, I do think you are somewhat in denial, so my conversation with you is getting pointless. I actually don't mean that in a "mean" way. It's just true.
