LittleKitty wrote:
It's prob worth mentioning that I have shared pictures with someone who I don't *implicitly* trust.
I trust him but I know he has shared pictures with me, that didn't have the consent of the third party (as far as I'm aware) which means he could do this to me too, but my face isn't in it!!
Plausible deniabilty ey?External Media
I won't start another debate within the same thread by asking how much responsibility you hold if he did share.External Media
LittleKitty wrote:
Ahh, but perhaps you're more open.
What happens if you didn't want your picture to be sold regardless of hardship? How would you feel then?
Absolutely not the case - he's obsessive about privacy!
Seriously, most obsessive I've ever known. Hates having his photo taken, hates me putting his photo on my FB page (though I'm allowed, because they're my photos, but most of them don't get put up because I know how he feels) etc. etc.
Adx
WandA wrote:
LittleKitty wrote:
It's prob worth mentioning that I have shared pictures with someone who I don't *implicitly* trust.
I trust him but I know he has shared pictures with me, that didn't have the consent of the third party (as far as I'm aware) which means he could do this to me too, but my face isn't in it!!
Plausible deniabilty ey?External Media
I won't start another debate within the same thread by asking how much responsibility you hold if he did share.External Media
Do you mean how much responsibility I would share if he decided to share pictures of me to other people?
WandA wrote:
LittleKitty wrote:
It's prob worth mentioning that I have shared pictures with someone who I don't *implicitly* trust.
I trust him but I know he has shared pictures with me, that didn't have the consent of the third party (as far as I'm aware) which means he could do this to me too, but my face isn't in it!!
Plausible deniabilty ey?External Media
I won't start another debate within the same thread by asking how much responsibility you hold if he did share.External Media
Do you mean how much responsibility I would share if he decided to share pictures of me to other people?
Alicia D'amore wrote:
LittleKitty wrote:
Ahh, but perhaps you're more open.
What happens if you didn't want your picture to be sold regardless of hardship? How would you feel then?
Absolutely not the case - he's obsessive about privacy!
Seriously, most obsessive I've ever known. Hates having his photo taken, hates me putting his photo on my FB page (though I'm allowed, because they're my photos, but most of them don't get put up because I know how he feels) etc. etc.
Adx
Fair enough!
I'd like to think that I'd not want someone else to face hardship but in reality I don't think I could get over the shock, shame and poss indignity of people I know and work with seeing me in a vulnerable position all because someone decided that they would sell them which is out of my control.
Perhaps makes me selfish?......
WandA wrote:
But what is dignity in a grander scheme? If you sell something at a stupid price or buy something well below the value because that person is hard up is that not stripping them of dignity?
If someone wants to buy a photo of a naked woman, either get the express permission of the woman in question or find another woman who is willing to sell a photo of her naked self. I say that a little tongue in cheek for 2 reasons;
1. I like my philosophy to be grounded in reality. The liklihood of my ever being able to sell a photo of a naked ex for a ridiculous sum of money so that I can help a person in dire need is slim-to-none.
2. There are always choices. The choice to take away someones privacy or dignity is not one for me to make. That's up to them. And I don't accept that they made that decision the day they gave you the photo. I would still consider such a photo has an implied "for your eyes only" condition attached to it.
LittleKitty wrote:
Perhaps makes me selfish?......
Absolutely not! Its your right to protect your own privacy.
Yoko wrote:
WandA wrote:
But what is dignity in a grander scheme? If you sell something at a stupid price or buy something well below the value because that person is hard up is that not stripping them of dignity?If someone wants to buy a photo of a naked woman, either get the express permission of the woman in question or find another woman who is willing to sell a photo of her naked self. I say that a little tongue in cheek for 2 reasons;
1. I like my philosophy to be grounded in reality. The liklihood of my ever being able to sell a photo of a naked ex for a ridiculous sum of money so that I can help a person in dire need is slim-to-none.
2. There are always choices. The choice to take away someones privacy or dignity is not one for me to make. That's up to them. And I don't accept that they made that decision the day they gave you the photo. I would still consider such a photo has an implied "for your eyes only" condition attached to it.
This is what I was trying to say only Yoko said it better External Media
I shall take a step back now and let someone else get a word in edgeways.....
LittleKitty wrote:
WandA wrote:
But is intent not a complex thing? If naked photos of me would save someone serious hardship I'd have no issue with them selling them without my permission, I may not like it but I'd prefer it to them starving to death for example...
Ahh, but perhaps you're more open.
What happens if you didn't want your picture to be sold regardless of hardship? How would you feel then?
If I didn't then I obviously wouldn't like it! The point is that when there is a transfer of ownership there are unwritten, well unspoken conditions that we must work out. What are the consequences of mistakes in these cases?
Yoko wrote:
But what would be the intention behind your showing a nude photo of a girlfriend to your best mate? Not so your best mate could see what lovely slender fingers she has, right?
Wouldn't the intention be bragging, boasting, look-what-I've-got-that-you-haven't-got? A good old fashioned ego-boost, i.e. personal gain? Is that really crossed wires then?
As an aside, it occurs to me that had I ever consented to nude photos in the past I would have expressely said "for your eyes only" and there would be no question in my mind that if they'd been shown elsewhere it would have been against my express wishes.
I'm not sure its an "informal contract" as you put it. Is there an informal contract between you and your best friend if (for instance) he tells you he has ED? Or is it just common human decency to respect his privacy and keep that information to yourself?
At what point do you stop trusting people to behave respectfully towards others? Isn't that the issue here? Do you want the law telling us what is and what is not acceptable in every sphere of our lives?
Simply because something is self serving doesn't mean intent cannot be misinterpreted.
I think when you are told something 'in confidence' it quite obviously comes with some conditions.
naughty pics can be used as a symbol of trust, ie, i sent you some pics for your use, dont send them to someone else cos i dont want you to, and you have to trust them that they wont.
Although on the topic of pics, i saw in the news that a programer has written a bit of software that will automaticaly delete photos if they are not used within a set period of time. Potential use, getting rid of that bad drunken photo on FB that no one looks at but a potential emyloyer might see
LittleKitty wrote:
Perhaps makes me selfish?......
A wider point means we can apply selfish to anything in the right conditions. I.e I'm currently spending my time eating a bacon sarnie when I could be building African schools! That however detracts from this issue in my opinion.
Yoko wrote:
WandA wrote:
But what is dignity in a grander scheme? If you sell something at a stupid price or buy something well below the value because that person is hard up is that not stripping them of dignity?If someone wants to buy a photo of a naked woman, either get the express permission of the woman in question or find another woman who is willing to sell a photo of her naked self. I say that a little tongue in cheek for 2 reasons;
1. I like my philosophy to be grounded in reality. The liklihood of my ever being able to sell a photo of a naked ex for a ridiculous sum of money so that I can help a person in dire need is slim-to-none.
2. There are always choices. The choice to take away someones privacy or dignity is not one for me to make. That's up to them. And I don't accept that they made that decision the day they gave you the photo. I would still consider such a photo has an implied "for your eyes only" condition attached to it.
1. But reality is not the point, this is a reductio ad absurbum, you logically follow the concept through to highlight it's inadequacies.
2. But if you own the images it can be argued it is your decision to make, when allowing snaps people must be aware that they may end up in cyberspace (burgelry ot broken trust). If you make a decision to allow photos to be taken then do they not own them? In normal circumstances you would say the man who took the picture of the tree owns that image, the man who took the image of his OH sipping a coke innocently owns the image but ownership to me implies you can use them how you wish... What is so abhorrent or worthy of protection that these pictures have special conditions that can be applied even if the person is unaware. If you can't do what you want with the pics you do not own them, unless it is made clear at the time.
I think when we utter sentences there is plenty of other meaning and conditions to them, I think it in necessary but it still allows mix ups and mistakes, I don't think mistakes can be morally wrong.
WandA wrote:
LittleKitty wrote:
Perhaps makes me selfish?......
A wider point means we can apply selfish to anything in the right conditions. I.e I'm currently spending my time eating a bacon sarnie when I could be building African schools! That however detracts from this issue in my opinion.
but you cant build a school without eating a bacon sarnie (or some food)
WandA wrote:
2. But if you own the images it can be argued it is your decision to make, when allowing snaps people must be aware that they may end up in cyberspace (burgelry ot broken trust). If you make a decision to allow photos to be taken then do they not own them? In normal circumstances you would say the man who took the picture of the tree owns that image, the man who took the image of his OH sipping a coke innocently owns the image but ownership to me implies you can use them how you wish... What is so abhorrent or worthy of protection that these pictures have special conditions that can be applied even if the person is unaware. If you can't do what you want with the pics you do not own them, unless it is made clear at the time.
sorry for double post, but thought i might add, unless its been changed, facebook own ant pics you put on there, read the small print, and keep them even if you delete them. Although the time for which they can keep them is limited under the data protection act.
Doug wrote:
WandA wrote:
2. But if you own the images it can be argued it is your decision to make, when allowing snaps people must be aware that they may end up in cyberspace (burgelry ot broken trust). If you make a decision to allow photos to be taken then do they not own them? In normal circumstances you would say the man who took the picture of the tree owns that image, the man who took the image of his OH sipping a coke innocently owns the image but ownership to me implies you can use them how you wish... What is so abhorrent or worthy of protection that these pictures have special conditions that can be applied even if the person is unaware. If you can't do what you want with the pics you do not own them, unless it is made clear at the time.
sorry for double post, but thought i might add, unless its been changed, facebook own ant pics you put on there, read the small print, and keep them even if you delete them. Although the time for which they can keep them is limited under the data protection act.
I too remember hearing something of an uproar about this but I'm not sure on the specifics.
Doug wrote:
WandA wrote:
LittleKitty wrote:
Perhaps makes me selfish?......
A wider point means we can apply selfish to anything in the right conditions. I.e I'm currently spending my time eating a bacon sarnie when I could be building African schools! That however detracts from this issue in my opinion.
but you cant build a school without eating a bacon sarnie (or some food)
It may detract from the original issue but was my opinion in response to the questions you've asked!!
It was merely my musings.... although in fairness quite a leap there from bacon sarnies to building an African School compared to me losing my dignity because someone needs some money. But thats just my opinion! External Media
I guess you also have to wonder how many times this sort of thing has happened and the photographee just doesn't know about it? I think the special conditions are simply because of the emotive subject. A tree is unlikely to cause you harm or distress.
What's acceptable to one person isn't to another and feeling are hard to fathom!!
Having thought long and hard about this I think whoever is in a photo has a sort of ownership of it whether it's of a naked or clothed individual and is of face/body/bodypart. I think the only way it can be someone elses property is if some kind of contract has been signed stating otherwise.
I think it was last year ... I was on the beach doing some circuit training on my own when I started feeling weird like I was bring watched but there didn't seem to be anyone around. Then sudenly a guy appeared a few meters away and walked really close past me ... it was a bit odd but I assumed I was just being paranoid. I carried on doing my squats when I heard a "click" of a camera phone right near me. I turned round and it was the same guy, no more than a meter away, with a big disgusting grin on his face and he walked away looking at his phone and grinning back at me. FUCKING FREAK! Technically he didn't do anything but take a picture of, I assume my bum, but I felt toatally violated and wish I'd punched him in the face and smashed his phone!
xxKPxx
LittleKitty wrote:
Doug wrote:
WandA wrote:
LittleKitty wrote:
Perhaps makes me selfish?......
A wider point means we can apply selfish to anything in the right conditions. I.e I'm currently spending my time eating a bacon sarnie when I could be building African schools! That however detracts from this issue in my opinion.
but you cant build a school without eating a bacon sarnie (or some food)
It may detract from the original issue but was my opinion in response to the questions you've asked!!
It was merely my musings.... although in fairness quite a leap there from bacon sarnies to building an African School compared to me losing my dignity because someone needs some money. But thats just my opinion! External Media
I guess you also have to wonder how many times this sort of thing has happened and the photographee just doesn't know about it? I think the special conditions are simply because of the emotive subject. A tree is unlikely to cause you harm or distress.
What's acceptable to one person isn't to another and feeling are hard to fathom!!
Oooo sorry. I wasn't trying to say stay on this topic. I was replying to lots of posts so tried to keep myself directed at the topic at hand rather than distracted by the many debates it spawns. The point I'm making about selfishness is that almost everything we do can be taken as selfish. The fact we all have lives, possessions and time to ourselves does not make something selfish. If we take 'self serving' to be what we define as selfish are we not selfish every time we don't give our wages to Oxfam? Even if we did give all our money to Oxfam would it be self serving in a way etc... I was highlighting that it doesn't necessarily imply you are selfish.External Media
Indeed it is hard, and we all have different conceptions of acceptable, charity, love, sharing and selfishness. The lack of harm caused if someone is unaware is another issue, many of us would still say it is wrong even if no harm is caused? I assume this is based on a 'slippery slope' argument.
KittyPurry wrote:
Having thought long and hard about this I think whoever is in a photo has a sort of ownership of it whether it's of a naked or clothed individual and is of face/body/bodypart. I think the only way it can be someone elses property is if some kind of contract has been signed stating otherwise.
I think it was last year ... I was on the beach doing some circuit training on my own when I started feeling weird like I was bring watched but there didn't seem to be anyone around. Then sudenly a guy appeared a few meters away and walked really close past me ... it was a bit odd but I assumed I was just being paranoid. I carried on doing my squats when I heard a "click" of a camera phone right near me. I turned round and it was the same guy, no more than a meter away, with a big disgusting grin on his face and he walked away looking at his phone and grinning back at me. FUCKING FREAK! Technically he didn't do anything but take a picture of, I assume my bum, but I felt toatally violated and wish I'd punched him in the face and smashed his phone!
xxKPxx
That situation is obviously very different to consenting to photos being taken.
Once again, in my opinion, it is what is not said that is more important than what is said. You did not explicitly state he could be such a twat but most of us would agree it was wrong of him to do so. Interaction with others brings about certain unwritten rules we abide by.
If that person does have a sort of ownership over a picture what else does this apply to? Anything you have ever written (from shopping lists to diaries)? Is it anything you have ever touched or owned? Why is a representation of your appearance given a stronger claim than one of the above examples?
And sorry for you KP.External Media
Ok sorry for you KP but it does raise a point about other people taking non concenting photos
celebs have to put up with the paparazie (spelling?) all the time and they clearly dont have ownership over those photots otherwise they wouldn't be in the mail or sun. (excluding those who have gagging orders on them)
Just becasue they are famouse doesn't mean that they aren't people in their own right does it?
Yep I think it also applies to anything (original) you've ever written, from shopping lists to diaries. Copywrite is automatic I believe. I think images are (or rather should be) in the same category as written stuff. For example if I wrote a poem for DD and gave it to him - the copywrite would still be mine. He can look at it sure and write it out or whatever but it wouldn't be "his" to sell or publish. I think of photos in the exact same way.
And yes sorry for me...it was RUBBISH! I do tend to attract a disproportionate amount of psychos...apparently sociopaths can pick out potential victims/prey based on just their walk...explains a lot (including why I am now practicing a "badass" walk to trick them!)
xxKPxx
