Author Topic: Post Deleted  (Read 6661 times)

Offline Editor

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4430
  • Karma: 17
    • View Profile
    • Hackensack Now
Post Deleted
« on: May 16, 2012, 11:50:41 AM »
Despite objections from Bob, I deleted an earlier post that showed a picture of a young couple on the front porch of the girl's home (presumably).  I considered this to be a private moment and did not feel comfortable in making it public. Generally, I do not like pictures of people on this site without permission.  I've made exceptions for distance shots and shots with faces obscured.  I fully respect peoples' privacy and personally feel that anyone should be able to go about their business in public without worrying that their pictures will appear on some website without their knowledge or consent.

I welcome any follow up comments.

« Last Edit: May 16, 2012, 12:00:44 PM by Editor »



Offline BLeafe

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4158
  • Karma: 26
    • View Profile
    • Bob Leafe Photography
Re: Post Deleted
« Reply #1 on: May 16, 2012, 12:33:50 PM »
I welcome any follow up comments.

Good - then let's get the facts straight first:

It was a public conversation between two adults in front of a restaurant - not someone's home porch. There was no indication that they were "a couple" - just a man and a woman. They were neither touching nor doing anything suggestive.

Distant shots are OK? I shot this from a block away.

Obscured shots are OK? After your initial objection, I replaced the original photos with ones that blurred the faces beyond recognition and emailed you that I had done so.

Your response was to delete the topic.

Yes, I objected. Censorship tends to cause that kind of reaction.



Like music? Like photography? Step into my office: http://xrl.us/BobL - - - - - - - http://xrl.us/BobsDarkness

Offline Editor

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4430
  • Karma: 17
    • View Profile
    • Hackensack Now
Re: Post Deleted
« Reply #2 on: May 16, 2012, 02:01:25 PM »
How do you know they were adults? Did you ask them? Did you identify yourself in any way? They looked like kids to me.

You were perched up a block away with a zoom lense.  In your first post, you could clearly see their faces. Even after you obscured their faces, they would have been readily identifable by anyone who knew them.  Maybe they don't want people to know they were talking.  We have no idea.  That's why we should ask.

I call them as I see them.  If you are so sure that they won't mind your posting their pictures, THEN GET THEIR PERMISSION and there won't be an issue.  No censorship.

While I might have been made exceptions in the past, the new policy is: No pictures of people without written consent.  Any pictures posted of people without consent will be deleted.

Offline BLeafe

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4158
  • Karma: 26
    • View Profile
    • Bob Leafe Photography
Re: Post Deleted
« Reply #3 on: May 16, 2012, 03:31:42 PM »
I have every right to take photographs of people in public. Written permission is never required unless the intended use is commercial. This site is strictly editorial.

Since I know your side and you know mine, let's let others voice their opinions.

« Last Edit: May 16, 2012, 04:04:08 PM by BLeafe »
Like music? Like photography? Step into my office: http://xrl.us/BobL - - - - - - - http://xrl.us/BobsDarkness

Offline just watching

  • Long-time poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 928
  • Karma: -25
    • View Profile
Re: Post Deleted
« Reply #4 on: May 16, 2012, 04:05:44 PM »

My feelings are that children should not be photographed.  Not sure about adults.  There appears to be some heightened sensitivity on this issue because of the Rutgers incident in which a student committed suicide after being filmed without his permission.  They called that an invasion of privacy. 

However, if it's just casual photos of adults walking around, or perhaps a large crowd that might contain children, I don't see much wrong with it. There's cameras now everywhere.  They are filming red light intersections, they are filming downtown sidewalks in some communities, filming lobbies of apartment buildings, convenience stores, etc.

Here's something I found online.  Might shed some light.

http://www.rcfp.org/photographers-guide-privacy/primer-invasion-privacy

Offline Homer Jones

  • Long-time poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 622
  • Karma: 16
    • View Profile
Re: Post Deleted
« Reply #5 on: May 16, 2012, 05:18:24 PM »
Let Ol' Homer give some thoughts to the photo matter.
 First of all Bob is correct that he has the right to take photos of basically anything he wants. This principle is pretty much defined in cases where photographers have been arrested for taking photos in airports or where there have been altercations between police officers and let's say protestors. I also agree that the subject photo was not intended for commercial purposes. As an example, if a photographer were to take a photo of David Wright leaping into the stands to catch a foul ball and I were sitting in Row 2 and the photo were published in Sports Illustrated, I would have no recourse since I was incidental to the subject of the photo.
Now, here is my problem. These two individuals were clearly the subject of the photo. Bob in turn submitted the photo with the objective of having it displayed publicly in an electronic media format. I do not know of any requirement that any photographic submission has to be published if it has been submitted. Call it censorship if you want, but I believe that the individual who is responsible for the website has the right if not the obligation to impose editorial judgement. If this were not the case what would prevent me from submiting photos of all my neighbors, doing whatever they were doing at the time I took the photo and expecting that these photos be exhibited on the website. Bob still has the right to submit this photo to any medium he wants to and they in turn have the right to publish it if they care to.
So in this case, let's call it a draw and let Bob or anybody submit relevant photos and let the editor exercise his editorial prerogative.
No harm/no foul.

Offline Editor

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4430
  • Karma: 17
    • View Profile
    • Hackensack Now
Re: Post Deleted
« Reply #6 on: May 16, 2012, 06:35:33 PM »
Consider this:

You are walking home from work carrying flowers to bring home to your wife.  You run into an old fling sitting on a porch stoop.  You talk for a while and inadvertently leave the flowers on the stoop and go home.  Before you get there, your wife goes online and sees a picture of you talking to this woman with flowers in your hand.  She recognizes the woman as someone you used to date....  You get the picture. 

Far-fetched, perhaps, but it is not hard to imagine a situation where an image, that to an "outsider" is perfectly innocuous, can cause severe damage.  Weighing the benefit of capturing "life in Hackensack" vs. the harm of what I describe above, I strongly feel that the permission policy is warranted.

Legalities and "rights" aside for a minute, the question you should all ask yourselves is: How would you feel if you were looking at a picture of youself online where:

1. You don't know who took it.
2. You don't know why they took it.
3. You don't know if anyone is making money from it.
4. You don't know how long it will be there.
5. You don't remember anyone asking you if it was ok.
6. You are not necessarily shown in a flattering light.

Would you all be pefectly ok with that? I would not be. A simple permission form covers all of that.

This is a Community website.  I am not after a Pulitzer for journalism.  I want the public to be comfortable with what we are doing.  If they are not, none of this makes any sense.

« Last Edit: May 16, 2012, 10:00:00 PM by Editor »

Offline BLeafe

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4158
  • Karma: 26
    • View Profile
    • Bob Leafe Photography
Re: Post Deleted
« Reply #7 on: May 17, 2012, 01:17:46 AM »
VERY far-fetched, custom-made hypotheticals aside...................

As the site owner, you're certainly free to make up any rules you want for your site, but the post you deleted was in full compliance with all the rules that were in effect at the time of deletion. To delete it retroactively is hardly fair, unless, of course, you delete every other image of any person on the site for whom no written permission exists, as per your dictum.

Like music? Like photography? Step into my office: http://xrl.us/BobL - - - - - - - http://xrl.us/BobsDarkness