Comments on: Gargle Street View chicken pic

By: Devil's Advocate

Devil's Advocate — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 23:11:25 +0000

(Talk about clue-resistant!)

By: Devil's Advocate

Devil's Advocate — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 23:10:54 +0000

“Thanks for deleting my message pointing out how getting the permission of each and every person who might appear in a photo taken in public would be impossible and how this sort of thing happens all the time with news broadcasts…”

In other words, someone spent 10-15 minutes trying to make the same insignificant point that was already made ad nauseum, instead of just looking for themselves to find out there really IS a law about this?
: )

By: Jon

Jon — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 10:17:33 +0000

Hi: Please post it again, if you still have a copy.

Cheers!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 04:41:11 +0000

Thanks for deleting my message pointing out how getting the permission of each and every person who might appear in a photo taken in public would be impossible and how this sort of thing happens all the time with news broadcasts. After spending a good 10-15 minutes editing it, I didn’t really want anyone to read it…

By: Devil's Advocate

Devil's Advocate — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 05:27:43 +0000

“DA, you consistently sidestep the thrust of this argument in every thread…”

I’ve simply been repeating that there are laws about acquiring informed consent when capturing images of people and things. Replying with the same, inaccurate and simplistic “public places are public – end of story” statement is actually side-stepping.

You either look up the laws for yourself, or just keep believing in some smaller, incomplete picture you think I’m avoiding… whichever option makes it easier for you to get through your day.

By: Jon

Jon — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 01:20:03 +0000

^^ “you might have accidentally includes in your photos”

There’s nothing accidental about Gargle Snoop-O-Ramas.

Cheers!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 00:55:21 +0000

DA, you consistently sidestep the thrust of this argument in every thread: “did you make sure to get the permission of each and every person that you might have accidentally includes in your photos?”

Most likely you did not, nor should you have to. Public places are public.

By: Devil's Advocate

Devil's Advocate — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 21:11:25 +0000

“…I can’t understand this warped idea that it’s perfectly fine to be seen in public, but if someone takes a photo that happens to include you, or your house, or your car, without your permission, it’s some great crime against humanity.”

It may not be a crime against humanity, but there are laws that have been around for some time about photographing people without informed consent. People who take pictures for a living are quite familiar with them.
Look it up!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 20:18:36 +0000

“In accordance with strict Gargoyle privacy policies, the faces are blurred so there’s absolutely no way anyone would ever be able to identify the featured individuals, even though the street address is in plain sight and the surrounds are easily recognizable.”

Because sitting in a public place is considered a private activity?

I have another serious question for you, two actually;

When you’ve gone on vacation and visited some tourist attraction, have you ever taken a photo that inadvertantly included other people in the background?

If so, did you make sure to get the permission of each and every person that you might have accidentally includes in your photos?

Frankly, I can’t understand this warped idea that it’s perfectly fine to be seen in public, but if someone takes a photo that happens to include you, or your house, or your car, without your permission, it’s some great crime against humanity.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 00:55:48 +0000

They forgot to blank out the baby’s face.