D7100 @ the City (SB-700)

Started May 11, 2013 | Discussions thread
ZorSy Veteran Member • Posts: 3,482
Re: not in this case

Mako2011 wrote:

ZorSy wrote:

PepsiCan wrote:

Daisy AU wrote:

MrIchiro wrote:

Pretty girls in bikinis? What's not to like!? Keep posting OP! To be frank, they're only pictures, I don't know why some people get their panties bunch over harmless photos. It's not like they're engaging in lewd acts or behavior.

I'm in Asia and we love these sort of photos, and its just something not really worth getting upset over. The only times you might refrain from taking photos are in red light districts, but even then that's up for debate.

Yes?  They are only pictures?  How would you like to see a photo of your daughter's/wife's/sister's bum plastered on the internet?  I think we all know how some men think about women ... you are a perfect example!  For your information, to most women, THEY ARE NOT ONLY PICTURES!!  They are a form of invasion of ones private space and are a reflection of some men's disregard for the opposite gender.  Would you like the OP that took these photos to visit your usual beach / swimming pool, etc and focus his attention on your daughter/wife/sister while they are going about their life?  I seriously doubt it!

There is no 'private space' in a public area.

Actually, there is something everybody should be aware: a photograph cannot be used for a commercial purpose without the consent of the people recognisably and prominently presented in the photograph giving their approval. Similarly the 'owners' of the objects prominently represented in the photograph may need to give their consent.

In the specific case here though, no consent required in that regard.

May I know why? Fair use policy because they are "fairly good looking"? Editorial use? Educational or charity purposes?

The lawmakers had their take  few years back here in Sydney on famous Bondi Beach. There is a sign indicating photography not allowed. People still take photos and no problem at all. Beach, despite what appears not to be the case, is policed (heavily), plain clothes of course, for many reasons, not only illegal photography. This whole system operates on the principle of common courtesy - mind your business and you are OK. Stick your telephoto lens and get noticed, be sure "no cameras" will be imposed swiftly. technically, all images taken on Bondi Beach are illegal.  All this was done to protect "private space" in "public area". Public is still owned by the Government (not as many think by the people). Police is "public" servants, still getting us caught for speeding and we have to pay, right? They look after their employer's interests. The same with beaches, the same with forests, air space....Try to fly drone with the camera in your "public air" - you aren't allowed. Why, isn't it "public"? Stop being delusional about democracy, freedom, public,big "me" - it's all within the Law. People often confuse democracy and anarchy.

If these photos were taken at the Bondi Beach, they would be considered as "snatched" - illegal, fullstops. Even if you want to bring your own model on that same beach and you are working pro photographer, you still have to pay hefty fee to the local Council - ask pros if you don't believe me. Why would you have to pay this if it was "public" ? Because it's not.

Of course, laws vary from country to country. So do the moral standpoints too. Perhaps we in Australia are more law abiding citizens and, despite broad democracy, we are more weary of laws  than the others - who knows. My freedom may reach far and high, yet I get stopped by police at least twice a week for "random breath test" - just in case, they say.....

 ZorSy's gear list:ZorSy's gear list
Nikon D80 Nikon D7100
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow