|
DJExile posted:It's more a sticky issue because you're not posting them to a personal page, you're posting them to [Your Name] Photography, which may as well be a business as far as the school's concerned. I was going to say this, first, i sont know thr laws but my view as a parent. posting some pics as a parent that include your kids with others in the frame is okay. Posting them in a way that could be seen as promotional without a consent form can be pretty sticky / possibly illegal, and I wouldn't do it.
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 16:17 |
|
|
rio posted:Not sure where to ask this so I'll put it here. The short answer is no. You don't have to take down photos of anyone taken in public, even minors, at parents request. As a rule, it's the polite thing to do. Putting them on a commercial photography site expands the answer a bit, and you'd have to know your local law to give a real answer, and I do not know where you are, and wouldn't know that aspect of your local law anyway. For instance, if you were selling the photo of the kid in question as an "art" photo, that is, not representing that it was a paid for portrait shoot, you'd be in the clear for the most part. So, where it is on your website could have a role in whether you're ok or not. Best advice, not knowing your specifics? Don't use candid photos of unknowing subjects to advertise your business. torgeaux fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Oct 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
rio posted:Not sure where to ask this so I'll put it here. Obviously I'm not a lawyer, but: My understanding is that a model release is needed whenever you are publishing a photo of an identifiable person for commercial intent. By putting them on your photography business Facebook page, you're publishing them with the intent of advertising for your photography business, which constitutes a commercial use. This makes you liable for them, and you should have a signed model release to publish them. The difference is that when a parent posts a photo of their kid with other kids in the frame, they're posting it on their personal Facebook page for, essentially, editorial purposes. They're just sharing photos, without any commercial intent. Now, if Suzy Sewsalot posts a photo of her neighbor kid Billy wearing a hat that Suzy sewed and posted it with a caption like "Check out these adooooorable knit hats! I'm selling them for $5 this fall, go to my Etsy page to buy them!", or is publishing them to show what she can sew on her Suzy Sews Facebook business page, then that crosses into the realm of commercial use.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
dakana posted:Obviously I'm not a lawyer, but: Depends on how you define "commercial intent." If I take a (god forbid) street art photo, it doesn't matter if the people in it are recognizable. I can put it on my photo site, advertise it for sale, and sell it, all without their knowledge or consent. This is the leading case (NY case, but good discussion of artistic expression). http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_50171.htm
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:Depends on how you define "commercial intent." If I take a (god forbid) street art photo, it doesn't matter if the people in it are recognizable. I can put it on my photo site, advertise it for sale, and sell it, all without their knowledge or consent. Yeah, this is a good point -- selling a photo as a work of art doesn't require a model release when there isn't a reasonable expectation of privacy (photo taken in a public space) So, you could theoretically post those field trip photos to your photography Facebook page for the purpose of selling prints of them as artwork without a model release.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
Almost related - about a year ago I was sitting around with my coworkers (I'm a post-doc and I work with a bunch of grad students, most are around 25 years old) and we were talking about times we'd called 911. Sally (not her real name) told me she'd only ever called 911 once, to report a creepy criminal guy near the children she was helping to supervise at a playground. She called the police because he was taking picures of children. Outdoors, mid-day, plenty of parents and other adults around, in public. I tried to tell her that the subject doesn't matter for taking pictures for non-commercial purposes (I didn't get into the part about candid street photography and model releases and so forth), that taking pictures of somebody else's child is not a crime. It might be rude, especially if the child and/or their parents/teachers tell you to not do that, but it's not illegal. She insisted that it must be against the law to take pictures of children, or if it's not it should be. I don't think I got through to her. The exchange with the school sounds like it was resolved reasonably well. But you might get bushwacked by some deeply mistaken rando (aka Idiot) who sees a photo of a child and immediately thinks "PAEDOPHILE!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
This is why, in real estate photography at least, when I have take a photo of a community amenity like a pool or playground, I ask that the seller accompany me if they can (and it's a must if they want me to be able to get into the pool because I won't have access usually). Otherwise I'm totally aware that I look like a creepy dude taking photos of kids at a playground or pool and I'll be hosed if I'm going to deal with a huffpo mommy who thinks it's totally unacceptable for me to be taking photos of a playground or pool her kids happen to be near because it must mean I want to have the photos "for my own personal use." Had this happen twice at two different neighborhoods, nevermind the fact I was dressed professionally and had on a name tag identifying myself.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
This is all really useful to hear. There are a few friends who don't mind if I (and like me to) take pictures of their kids. They frame them and whatnot - it makes me feel good that they like it and the kids are friends of my daughter. So I will shoot "portrait" style pictures of them here and there if I catch them doing something cute or whatever. But kids of parents I don't know I will not do that. The only time there would be a kid I don't know in a picture is if they were near my daughter or if it were a picture of a group of kids - the same as you would see from any other parent posting about having fun on a field trip/birthday party/whatever. They are recognizable but just as much as any other parent posting pictures of kids with their kids. So, like, today for example these were people I did not know. I have family who are on Facebook who never get to see my daughter and like seeing what their niece/stepgrandaughter whatever is up to, which is one reason I like to take pictures of what is happening around us - so they can feel a little more involved even though they are not. I also like to do it because I like to see context around pictures of kids faces. So these   for example, are what I take of other people I don't know. I don't know who they are and after having taken these I could not pick them out from a crowd. I won't go and just take a portrait of some kid and try to market with it if I don't know them. (assuming I marketed) As for the Facebook page, it is a *photography* page but I don't have any prices up or anything like that, and I am certainly not selling images that I post there. I do hope that someone might see my lovely photos and think "maybe I would like him to take pictures of my family since he has a *photography* page" but I am not doing it exclusively for marketing. I post most of my poo poo there if I put any thought into the picture.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
life is killing me posted:Had this happen twice at two different neighborhoods, nevermind the fact I was dressed professionally and had on a name tag identifying myself. Well, it's not like perverts can't buy nice clothes and name tags.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
tk posted:Well, it's not like perverts can't buy nice clothes and name tags. True, though if I was a pervert I'd think a fake name tag would be more appropriate than one with my real name and a giant magnet on my car advertising the company I'm with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
life is killing me posted:True, though if I was a pervert I'd think a fake name tag would be more appropriate than one with my real name and a giant magnet on my car advertising the company I'm with. Sounds like something a pervert would say. I asked in the gear thread so a bit of a disconnect, sadly my work changed the way they dole out taking some online health class rewards.. It use to be you finished as soon as open enrollment ended you got your $300 amazon gift card (x2 for spouse).. this year it's $50 per quarter per person 1 class per quarter. I was going to get a lens and keep some for xmas.. now I"m just going to pack what I earn away for xmas.. I can do a few other things to earn some bucks but my max will be like 200 by christmas so...
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
The law in Australia is that you can take photos of whoever you want, provided its somewhere an average person wouldnt expect privacy. You also cant use the photo to sell anything but the photo itself without written consent. I'm fairly sure that means you can't advertise your photography work in general using street shots, just the actual picture itself. As in, you can't advertise your photography business with those shots. If you just display a portfolio its ok though. That law apparently came to be because some company hired a dude to take candids of people walking round the city and the company stuck them on a billboard. underage at the vape shop fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Oct 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
life is killing me posted:True, though if I was a pervert I'd think a fake name tag would be more appropriate than one with my real name and a giant magnet on my car advertising the company I'm with. Maybe you just look like a creepy pervert and there's nothing you can do about it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 07:24
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:Maybe you just look like a creepy pervert and there's nothing you can do about it? Lol nice av, karloff. 
Father O'Blivion fucked around with this message at 09:05 on Oct 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 08:53
|
|
|
Here in Norway you can TAKE pictures of anyone in "public spaces" but not necessarily PUBLISH* said photos. Public spaces means anywhere that the general public have access and reason to be. You can TAKE a photo of 1 person walking on the street but you cannot PUBLISH said photo. If you want to publish photos of public spaces with people in them there needs to be a reasonable amount of people in the photo so you don't single out someone and so that a person is not the subject of the photo. -Some dude without kids photographing children at a playground is not in the clear and can neither publish nor take photos of the kids; as he has no business being there. Neither can he lean over the fence at a kindergarden and take pictures there, as a kindergarden is not a public space. -Some dude WITH kids, photographing at a playground can do so if THEIR OWN kid is clearly the subject of the photo and publish that photo. -You can't photograph people in their own private spaces, e.g. their backyard or whatever, as long as there is no public usefulness in said photo. -If you see the minister of recycling (we have such a minister) burning car tires in their backyard then that is of public interest and you are allowed to take and publish the photo. *By publishing i mean any kind of uploading to facebook or whatever. If you want to earn money on a photo you likely need model releases, permits to photograph, accreditation from newspaper etc, depending on the photo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 10:23
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:Maybe you just look like a creepy pervert and there's nothing you can do about it? Good one, you're a fat huffpo mommy aren't you? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
life is killing me posted:Good one, you're a fat huffpo mommy aren't you? You're a lovely poster, gently caress off (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
life is killing me posted:Good one, you're a fat huffpo mommy aren't you?   Please contribute more quality posts like this one, we're really lacking in high level discourse from noted pedophiles and creepers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:You're a lovely poster, gently caress off Evilkiksass posted:
You're right. Next time I'll just ignore those sick burns on me, because clearly there's a hierarchy here that I've failed to see, where I respond to lovely posts from lovely people and I'm the one getting piled on by two posters who weren't even involved in the discussion--one of whom is not even involved in the entire loving thread, or barely. Nice way to selectively post, only when you see an opportunity to tell someone they are lovely. Next time I'll respond to someone's lovely, petty post in a manner more fitting to however you two would like me to respond. You can both gently caress right off. Quit trying to make a benign exchange into an ego inflation for yourselves.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
oh my god dude it's the internet re: liabilitychat, I just have a standard model release built in to all my wedding & portrait agreements to cover my rear end when I publish photos and build portfolios.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
life is killing me posted:You're right. Next time I'll just ignore those sick burns on me, because clearly there's a hierarchy here that I've failed to see, where I respond to lovely posts from lovely people and I'm the one getting piled on by two posters who weren't even involved in the discussion--one of whom is not even involved in the entire loving thread, or barely. Nice way to selectively post, only when you see an opportunity to tell someone they are lovely. Next time I'll respond to someone's lovely, petty post in a manner more fitting to however you two would like me to respond. Lol says the guy who doesn't post photos in the photography forum but loves to drone on and on about his work as a serious real estate photographer, while at the same time asking/saying plenty of poo poo that makes it sound like you aren't in any position to give anyone advice on anything, and throw some fat shaming on top of it all to boost. This is a good sub forum because people have a low tolerance level for loving idiots, which is you; you're the idiot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
life is killing me posted:You're right. Next time I'll just ignore those sick burns on me, because clearly there's a hierarchy here that I've failed to see, where I respond to lovely posts from lovely people and I'm the one getting piled on by two posters who weren't even involved in the discussion--one of whom is not even involved in the entire loving thread, or barely. Nice way to selectively post, only when you see an opportunity to tell someone they are lovely. Next time I'll respond to someone's lovely, petty post in a manner more fitting to however you two would like me to respond. Nice meltdown. Why are you so sensitive about a joke about looking like a creepy pervert? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:Lol says the guy who doesn't post photos in the photography forum but loves to drone on and on about his work as a serious real estate photographer, while at the same time asking/saying plenty of poo poo that makes it sound like you aren't in any position to give anyone advice on anything, and throw some fat shaming on top of it all to boost. 1. This is the General Photography Questions Megathread, not the Post Your Photos Megathread. 2. Show me some of your photos, guy, if you're going to go that route; you don't get to act like you're a loving paragon of photography and make vague references to posts I made you thought were bad advice or stupid questions, and then fail to demonstrate how you're such a great photographer and poster as to be in any position to judge either. 3. You called someone's photo "garbage" so you're obviously an absolute joy to speak with, and you spent the rest of your posting from that point forward being a sarcastic rear end in a top hat when I said it was lovely to call someone's photo garbage--and you're calling ME an idiot. 4. Oh sure you win. You get to lay down a mic drop statement about fat shaming because there's no way anyone could possibly respond to that, when you were the one who made an unfunny lovely comment in the first place. But because it was funnier than my retort I guess I totally deserve to continue being poo poo on for responding, all because of a loving post I made mentioning something that has happened before when shooting real estate. Get off your loving high horse. What are you possibly contributing to this thread in any way other than making unfunny comments about a post I made and being generally lovely to people? Any other truth bombs you want to drop on me so you can feel better about yourself and great internet posting? Or are you on your way to finding other posters you can try to poo poo on because that's apparently all you do?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
life is killing me posted:1. This is the General Photography Questions Megathread, not the Post Your Photos Megathread. 1. Have you ever posted a photo in any thread in this subforum? 2. There's a convenient "post history" button. 3. He was right. 4. It was pretty funny. Also funny was how personally you took it for a throwaway joke on the internet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Why are you so sensitive about a joke about looking like a creepy pervert?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Nice meltdown. Why are you so sensitive about a joke about looking like a creepy pervert? I sent a short reply to the initial joke and that was where I really intended it to end and I planned on moving on--now I'm a lovely unfunny poster because someone thought it'd be hilarious to practice being goons in the time-tested "pile on one dude for no reason other than it's hilarious and we're goons" manner. You're right. I shouldn't have engaged past my reply. MrBlandAverage posted:1. Have you ever posted a photo in any thread in this subforum? See above. I retorted and thought nothing else of it until a couple of guys who don't even post ITT decided to further the dumb flaming. What I'm taking personally (and shouldn't be) is the continued piling on me because of, from what I can tell, was just the short reply I typed out. -I actually have posted photos here in this thread, but have yet to see Ranger Scum post one. -I know about the post history button, but the thing is, I was talking about actual valuable contribution, not the probably large quantity of posts where he shits on people. -So what if he was right about the photo? I didn't defend the poster because I thought it was an amazing photo, I said what I said because the point of the post wasn't to ask "lol is this a good photo gaiz?!" it was to ask if his camera was doing something he didn't want it to do, and he chose the photo as an example. It missed the entire point of the post and was apropos to absolutely nothing, because the answers to his question had absolutely nothing to do with how awesome or lovely the photo was and didn't contribute jack loving poo poo to anything other than to make one guy feel good about getting to trash someone's photo. life is killing me fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Oct 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
life is killing me posted:I'm a lovely unfunny poster. A harsh but true self evaluation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
life is killing me posted:I sent a short reply to the initial joke and that was where I really intended it to end and I planned on moving on--now I'm a lovely unfunny poster because someone thought it'd be hilarious to practice being goons in the time-tested "pile on one dude for no reason other than it's hilarious and we're goons" manner. You're right. I shouldn't have engaged past my reply. dude, please stop
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
life is killing me posted:1. This is the General Photography Questions Megathread, not the Post Your Photos Megathread. 1. Yeah I know, I looked at your post history to determine your lack of photo posting. I too, do not post photos in the general thread. 2. Look at my post history, like 95% of what I post on this photography forum are photographs. 3. That photo was a garbage photo. This isn't Facebook or Flickr where it's socially unacceptable to actually criticize someone's photo or tell them that it's bad. People post here to improve, and there is nothing redeemable about that photo of sheets. It's not an attack on the person who posted the photo; I don't think he's an awful person or anything like that. But taking long exposure photos of sheets while you are starting out with photography is a bad path to go down. I have taken so many absolutely terrible photos in my life, especially in the first 4-5 years of photography (continuing on to today in many cases I am sure), and it's really useful to have someone sit you down and say "Look man, that is a poo poo photo" so you can move out of that phase in a hurry. Some photos require a long explanation on why the photo fails, but a long exposure shot of some moving sheets is not one of those shots. It would be the same if he had posted an insanely over processed HDR shot (the types of photos that I used to take when I first started out). I don't care why he asked the question, he was pixel peeping a bad photo which is a bad idea. 4. I'm sorry that you got called out about fat shaming on the internet? Is that what you want me to say? Do you expect me to apologize for or express remorse for that or something? Stop being an rear end in a top hat about overweight people. As for what I am contributing to this thread, at this point in time I'm hoping that it's that you stop posting in it because I don't think you are nearly as helpful as you think you are. Which is to say not at all. Or keep feeling sorry for yourself and thinking that you're being bullied because we're all just meanies on the internet, and not that it's because you are making this forum worse.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
life is killing me posted:See above. I retorted and thought nothing else of it until a couple of guys who don't even post ITT decided to further the dumb flaming. What I'm taking personally (and shouldn't be) is the continued piling on me because of, from what I can tell, was just the short reply I typed out. All of the people who flamed you (justifiably) have posted in this thread plenty, including myself. You can avoid being piled on by not replying so defensively or at all and by taking jokes on the internet as just that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:dude, please stop this but it's not a polite request
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
Mods, please change my name to fat huffpo mommy Edit: or give me one of those weird neutral tone label things that says the same
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
"Fat Huffpo Mommies" could be the Dorkroom gang-tag.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
Soopafly posted:Any advice on sticky aperture blades? I have a cheapo Minolta lens from the 70s that I'm not afraid to take apart and do something about, but I'm not sure what to use on the blades to unstick them, or what the best environment to actually do the assembly / disassembly in. Trip report - Disassembly was easy, and not at all hard to get to the aperture blades. I work in a lab environment and just used the cleanest space I could find and wore gloves. Lens came apart in easy sub-assemblies and in retrospect, only actually required 4 screws to get down to where I needed. Took a q-tip and rubbed some napthalene on it and after a few opens/closes the aperture immediately loosened up. All in all, a 5 minute job that worked great, minus the fact that I lost a miniscule ball bearing that loosely sat in a pocket to give the aperture ring "clicks." It still glides smoothly, but no longer locks into specific apertures. I'll probably fix it one of these days, but I'm good with what's working now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
So I just bought my first camera and I'm not sure where or if I should post anything I took, all the threads seem to be people yelling at each other? Also what do you guys use for online storage, there doesn't seem to be a lot of cheap options.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
Drythe posted:Also what do you guys use for online storage, there doesn't seem to be a lot of cheap options. Online storage of what? Google Photos is free and unlimited for compressed full-res images, which I like for my final output (also makes it a hell of a lot easier to pull up images and perform search queries from the Android app). If you want to archive all your raws, that's a lot more data, but you likely won't be accessing it all that often either, so "cold storage" options like Amazon Glacier are a lot cheaper than normal cloud sync stuff like Dropbox or OneDrive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
I'm currently paying $0.73/mo to store stuff in Glacier, which I guess works out to about 100 GB of pictures at $0.007 per GB per month? The only problem is all Glacier clients suck poo poo, although there's a Linux program which is probably your best bet because 1) scriptable and 2) they're not walling useful features behind a paid version (*cough* fastglacier)
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
Oh, neat! That sounds like the best option then
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Drythe posted:So I just bought my first camera and I'm not sure where or if I should post anything I took, all the threads seem to be people yelling at each other? Just post in whatever appropriate thread fits your pictures. Say you're new and ask for tips and people will give advice. As long as you don't expect anyone to tell you that your pics are good and you check your ego at the door you'll be well on your way to being the next master of photography.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 16:17 |
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:I'm currently paying $0.73/mo to store stuff in Glacier, which I guess works out to about 100 GB of pictures at $0.007 per GB per month? The only problem is all Glacier clients suck poo poo, although there's a Linux program which is probably your best bet because 1) scriptable and 2) they're not walling useful features behind a paid version (*cough* fastglacier) Glacier is officially $0.01/GB/mo, although it stores the index data in S3 which is a few fractions of a cent more but nothing you'd care about. It costs money but Arq for osx is one of the best Glacier clients I've seen (it does S3 too if you use that.) Also bear in mind that Amazon does surveys roughly every year that get you $20 account credit so lol it's effectively free for 150GB or so.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 22:50
|
|