General Discussion

frylock

(34,825 posts)

40. i've already stated i'm not selling the photographs..

Wed Feb 19, 2014, 04:34 PM

Feb 2014

so you've never in your lifetime taken pictures for your own personal enjoyment, pictures that may be appealing not only for the subject matter, but because of certain lighting, or composition? and you've never in turn gone back over those photos because they are visually appealing and thought, damn, that's a nice shot? you've never ever done that? so to reiterate:

a) I am not selling these photos and
b) these photos are for personal viewing

you seem to think I have some ulterior motive, despite the fact that I have explained to you that I don't. yes, great, I get it. YOU don't want your picture taken in public. you go right ahead and do everything in your power to ensure that it doesn't happen. I've also stated that if someone, like yourself were to object, I would remove the photo in question. are we good here?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

61 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Worried about ever growing bans on Google Glass, Google publishes 'how not to be a Glasshole' FAQ. [View all] onehandle Feb 2014 OP

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

vo�yeur 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