Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

MineralMan

(151,301 posts)
38. No, you see, I'm not telling you what you're doing with them.
Wed Feb 19, 2014, 04:25 PM
Feb 2014

I'm asking you. You know what you're doing with them. I don't. And neither do the people you are "snapping." I don't have to THINK about what you're doing with them. If you photograph me, I will ask you directly what you are planning to do with them. Won't that be a surprise? And then, you'll be surprised to find that I do not want you to do anything at all with a photograph of me. I do not want you to hang it in your living room. I do not want you to post it on your Facebook page or anywhere else. I didn't want you to take it in the first place.

I will ask you, politely, to delete it from the memory on your camera in my presence, and I will expect you to do so. These days, Google will go and look for photos that are similar to another photo. I can, if I wish, find most photos of myself on the internet these days, by asking Google to compare a photo I have and see if it can find others.

So, I ask why you are taking photos of individuals you don't know and what you intend to do with them. You said "art." Well, what will you do with your "art?" Will you exhibit it? Sell it? What? If you do any of those things you need a release. Will you publish it on the Internet? Well, if I find a photo of me, I will ask that you remove it. And you'll need to do that, because you do not have permission to use my image to make money, promote yourself, or for any other reason.

Nor do you have permission from any of those people you "snap."

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Explorers? upaloopa Feb 2014 #1
voyeurism? how so? frylock Feb 2014 #4
It's a camera you can share what you see upaloopa Feb 2014 #5
do you have this issue with photographers? frylock Feb 2014 #6
Really? And nobody has ever objected to that? MineralMan Feb 2014 #8
nope, nobody has ever objected.. frylock Feb 2014 #9
If someone were to object, how would you respond? Orrex Feb 2014 #12
i would respect their objection, and try to engage them in dialogue to better understand.. frylock Feb 2014 #14
If you a snapped a super-duper picture and someone objected to being in it... Orrex Feb 2014 #19
while that is true, i also record some of my rides on a GoPro.. frylock Feb 2014 #24
Probably not if it's inadvertent. Orrex Feb 2014 #46
When I have been aware, I have objected. MineralMan Feb 2014 #13
have you ever heard of this thing called art? frylock Feb 2014 #15
That's rather a famous photo, actually. MineralMan Feb 2014 #22
nice dodge. you can do better than that.. frylock Feb 2014 #26
No, that assessment is not correct. MineralMan Feb 2014 #32
why do i have to be doing ANYTHING with those shots? frylock Feb 2014 #37
Why would you take photos you will do nothing with? MineralMan Feb 2014 #39
Yes upaloopa Feb 2014 #10
voˇyeur frylock Feb 2014 #17
That definition is problematic Orrex Feb 2014 #21
and you're conflating innocent cityscape photographs with peeping toms frylock Feb 2014 #29
You said you liked to "snap" photos of people, not cityscapes. MineralMan Feb 2014 #42
holy fucking fuck.. frylock Feb 2014 #43
Dude, you specifically said photos of PEOPLE. MineralMan Feb 2014 #45
PEOPLE in the CITY frylock Feb 2014 #47
I won't give it another thought, I promise... MineralMan Feb 2014 #50
And why are you taking photos of individuals? That's my question. MineralMan Feb 2014 #23
i'd be curious to know what you THINK that i'm doing with those shots.. frylock Feb 2014 #35
No, you see, I'm not telling you what you're doing with them. MineralMan Feb 2014 #38
i've already stated i'm not selling the photographs.. frylock Feb 2014 #40
Are we good? Does that matter in some way? MineralMan Feb 2014 #44
tl;dr.. frylock Feb 2014 #49
LOL! MineralMan Feb 2014 #51
They don't have to be nude. upaloopa Feb 2014 #25
Taking surreptitious photos of strangers is an invasion of privacy. MineralMan Feb 2014 #28
I agree with you upaloopa Feb 2014 #30
Yes, and thanks. MineralMan Feb 2014 #33
look of anguish? i can say without equivocation that i have not.. frylock Feb 2014 #34
There's no fellow there. MineralMan Feb 2014 #48
The difference is that these things can be always on, recording in all situations. onehandle Feb 2014 #41
It's perfect for creeps jsr Feb 2014 #18
No no no. It's "art." Didn't you read up-thread? Orrex Feb 2014 #20
clearly you can't read.. frylock Feb 2014 #31
Nor did you distinguish Google Glass from art. Orrex Feb 2014 #52
Newsflash - enlightenment Feb 2014 #2
disagree The Green Manalishi Apr 2014 #56
How delightfully rude. enlightenment Apr 2014 #57
"rude"? The Green Manalishi Apr 2014 #58
Yes, rude. enlightenment Apr 2014 #59
better rude than a luddite. Better a 'glasshole' than having my head in the sand. The Green Manalishi Apr 2014 #61
You can give away your own privacy in any way you like. kiva Apr 2014 #60
Google Glass is a pox IMO whatchamacallit Feb 2014 #3
+1 cinnabonbon Feb 2014 #11
Oh christ... its a hands free camera, not the fucking Fourth Reich. phleshdef Feb 2014 #54
I suspect that it will mostly be "glassholes" who wear Google Glass. MineralMan Feb 2014 #7
More eyes and ears for the constant surveillance industrial complex jsr Feb 2014 #16
That's what I think. Feeding info to the borg on the micro level. El_Johns Feb 2014 #27
Other companies have made one too Ichingcarpenter Feb 2014 #36
Golden Tate just released a bunch he recorded through google glasses at the Super Bowel. icymist Feb 2014 #53
I guess there are somethings I'm to old to understand........... wandy Feb 2014 #55
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Worried about ever growin...»Reply #38