Talk:Photography policy - Revision history

Johnckirk: Replaced horizontal line with signature (clicked wrong toolbar button before!)

2010-06-18T18:06:41Z

Replaced horizontal line with signature (clicked wrong toolbar button before!)

Johnckirk: A cyclist's view

2010-06-18T16:40:24Z

A cyclist's view

Johnckirk: Attributed previous comment, to separate who is saying what

2010-06-18T16:27:19Z

Attributed previous comment, to separate who is saying what

DesertRat at 14:16, 18 June 2010

2010-06-18T14:16:11Z

DesertRat at 14:14, 18 June 2010

2010-06-18T14:14:47Z

Signe at 01:12, 18 June 2010

2010-06-18T01:12:10Z

Erik Baas: moved down attr. by User:Discarted to keep chronological order

2010-06-18T00:17:26Z

moved down attr. by User:Discarted to keep chronological order

Discarted: /* Policy too restrictive */

2010-06-17T20:08:13Z

‎Policy too restrictive

Discarted: /* Policy too restrictive */

2010-06-17T20:06:07Z

‎Policy too restrictive

Kylem: /* Policy too restrictive */

2010-06-16T04:13:35Z

‎Policy too restrictive

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:06, 18 June 2010
Line 34:		Line 34:
	I think that a lot of this simply comes down to a question of good manners. Would you be happy to act the same way if someone was fully clothed? For instance, if I cycle to work then technically everyone is entitled to take photos of me (since I'm in public), but it would be a bit frustrating if I couldn't move any faster than walking pace because I was surrounded by a crowd of people. Would that be my fault for going out in public, or should the photographers accept some responsibility for their actions?		I think that a lot of this simply comes down to a question of good manners. Would you be happy to act the same way if someone was fully clothed? For instance, if I cycle to work then technically everyone is entitled to take photos of me (since I'm in public), but it would be a bit frustrating if I couldn't move any faster than walking pace because I was surrounded by a crowd of people. Would that be my fault for going out in public, or should the photographers accept some responsibility for their actions?

−	I think that most photographers are decent people, who aren't setting out to torment anyone. So, a lot of the photography policy is simply a way for people to tell you if you're making them uncomfortable; if you don't realise that you're doing it, we can't expect you to behave differently. Once you know, it's up to you whether you continue or not.	+	I think that most photographers are decent people, who aren't setting out to torment anyone. So, a lot of the photography policy is simply a way for people to tell you if you're making them uncomfortable; if you don't realise that you're doing it, we can't expect you to behave differently. Once you know, it's up to you whether you continue or not.--[[User:Johnckirk\|Johnckirk]] 18:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
−	----

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:40, 18 June 2010
Line 27:		Line 27:
	WNBR should bear in mind that they can not enforce their policy other than requesting it be followed. Direct action could well lead to charges being filed, but more importantly those actions would get the media coverage not the ride itself. Consider you goal and act in accordance with it.		WNBR should bear in mind that they can not enforce their policy other than requesting it be followed. Direct action could well lead to charges being filed, but more importantly those actions would get the media coverage not the ride itself. Consider you goal and act in accordance with it.
	:([[User:DesertRat\|DesertRat]], 18 jun 2010 14:16)		:([[User:DesertRat\|DesertRat]], 18 jun 2010 14:16)
		+
		+	Speaking as a cyclist, I do sympathise with photographers: I realise that "anti-terrorism" policies have made people suspicious when you're not doing anything wrong, so I understand that you need to be assertive about your rights to avoid losing them. As "Discarted" said above, there are similarities between both groups, i.e. we are all doing things that are legal but may make other people uncomfortable.
		+
		+	Having said that, I also think that some photographers are overreacting a bit. For instance, the WNBR policy doesn't even mention physical force (or any other kind of physical contact). So, saying that you'll take legal action against anyone who touches you is irrelevant, and it just turns this discussion into a confrontation. Similarly, the policy already states that it may be unlawful to restrict photographers. In return, please could photographers acknowledge that laws vary between countries (this is the '''World''' Naked Bike Ride); in particular, the 1st Amendment doesn't have much authority outside the USA!
		+
		+	I think that a lot of this simply comes down to a question of good manners. Would you be happy to act the same way if someone was fully clothed? For instance, if I cycle to work then technically everyone is entitled to take photos of me (since I'm in public), but it would be a bit frustrating if I couldn't move any faster than walking pace because I was surrounded by a crowd of people. Would that be my fault for going out in public, or should the photographers accept some responsibility for their actions?
		+
		+	I think that most photographers are decent people, who aren't setting out to torment anyone. So, a lot of the photography policy is simply a way for people to tell you if you're making them uncomfortable; if you don't realise that you're doing it, we can't expect you to behave differently. Once you know, it's up to you whether you continue or not.
		+	----

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:27, 18 June 2010
Line 26:		Line 26:

	WNBR should bear in mind that they can not enforce their policy other than requesting it be followed. Direct action could well lead to charges being filed, but more importantly those actions would get the media coverage not the ride itself. Consider you goal and act in accordance with it.		WNBR should bear in mind that they can not enforce their policy other than requesting it be followed. Direct action could well lead to charges being filed, but more importantly those actions would get the media coverage not the ride itself. Consider you goal and act in accordance with it.
		+	:([[User:DesertRat\|DesertRat]], 18 jun 2010 14:16)

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 :Any attempts to physically intercede with a photographer can also be legally construed as Battery and/or Assault, and you can have actual legal charges filed against you. --[[User:Signe|Signe]] 01:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
-Just so everyone is aware of this, several photography advocay sites have picked up on the WNBR policy and are discussing it.  Its not exactly gone viral, but when you make "Photography Is Not a Crime"  (CarlosMiller.com) you have hit the big time for us photo bugs, most of whom know the law on this topic quite well.
+Just so everyone is aware of this, several photography advocacy sites have picked up on the WNBR policy and are discussing it.  Its not exactly gone viral, but when you make "Photography Is Not a Crime"  (CarlosMiller.com) you have hit the big time for us photo bugs, most of whom know the law on this topic quite well.
-WNBR shouild bear in mind that they can not enforce their policy other than requesting it be followed.  Direct action could well lead to charges being filed, but more importantly those actions would get the media coverage not the ride itself.  Consider you goal and act in accordance with it.
+WNBR should bear in mind that they can not enforce their policy other than requesting it be followed.  Direct action could well lead to charges being filed, but more importantly those actions would get the media coverage not the ride itself.  Consider you goal and act in accordance with it.

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:14, 18 June 2010
Line 22:		Line 22:

	:Any attempts to physically intercede with a photographer can also be legally construed as Battery and/or Assault, and you can have actual legal charges filed against you. --[[User:Signe\|Signe]] 01:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)		:Any attempts to physically intercede with a photographer can also be legally construed as Battery and/or Assault, and you can have actual legal charges filed against you. --[[User:Signe\|Signe]] 01:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
		+
		+	Just so everyone is aware of this, several photography advocay sites have picked up on the WNBR policy and are discussing it. Its not exactly gone viral, but when you make "Photography Is Not a Crime" (CarlosMiller.com) you have hit the big time for us photo bugs, most of whom know the law on this topic quite well.
		+
		+	WNBR shouild bear in mind that they can not enforce their policy other than requesting it be followed. Direct action could well lead to charges being filed, but more importantly those actions would get the media coverage not the ride itself. Consider you goal and act in accordance with it.

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:12, 18 June 2010
Line 20:		Line 20:
	:My suggestion is, if you don't want someone photographing your naked body then don't go out in public naked. Also, you continually talk about photographers making WNBR members feel uncomfortable...well, have you ever thought about how WNBR events make the rest of the public feel uncomfortable? Probably not because this all about WNBR's rights and no one else's, including photographers who's actions are protected by the 1st Amendment.		:My suggestion is, if you don't want someone photographing your naked body then don't go out in public naked. Also, you continually talk about photographers making WNBR members feel uncomfortable...well, have you ever thought about how WNBR events make the rest of the public feel uncomfortable? Probably not because this all about WNBR's rights and no one else's, including photographers who's actions are protected by the 1st Amendment.
	:([[User:Discarted\|Discarted]], 17 jun 2010 22:08)		:([[User:Discarted\|Discarted]], 17 jun 2010 22:08)
		+
		+	:Any attempts to physically intercede with a photographer can also be legally construed as Battery and/or Assault, and you can have actual legal charges filed against you. --[[User:Signe\|Signe]] 01:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ==Policy too restrictive==
 This London-style photo policy I think it a bit more restrictive than some would like. Seattle does permit photography before and after people are on their bikes and some photography is allowed at the bodypainting part. But we do have restrictions.
@@ Line 20: / Line 13: @@
 Hate to tell you guys, but you "photography policy" isn't legal. There is not expectation of privacy on city streets. If I see you, I will take all the pictures I want. If you touch me I'll sue you and your organization. If you don't want your dick photographed don't take it out in public.
 --[[User:Kylem|Kylem]] 04:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ==Policy too restrictive==
-"If it makes you uncomfortable, let the photographers know that they don't have permission to photograph you."
+''''''"If it makes you uncomfortable, let the photographers know that they don't have permission to photograph you."'''''
-Sorry, but when you parade your naked body around in public, nobody needs permission to photograph you since there is absolutely no expectation of privacy. Moreover, you can't restrict a photographer's movement or limited their access to public spaces. That imaginary "15 foot rule" you talk about has no baring on where a photograph can go. If you're naked body is in a public place, a photographer can ignore WNBR's pseudo "15 foot rule" and walk right up to you and take your picture. If the camera makes you feel uncomfortable—too bad. You shouldn't have removed your clothes in public.
+Sorry, but when you parade your naked body around in public, nobody needs permission to photograph you since there is absolutely no expectation of privacy. Moreover, you can't restrict a photographer's movement or limited their access to public spaces. That imaginary "15 foot rule" you talk about has no baring on where a photographer can go. If you're naked body is in a public place, a photographer can ignore WNBR's pseudo "15 foot rule" and walk right up to you and take your picture. If the camera makes you feel uncomfortable—too bad. You shouldn't have removed your clothes in public.
 My suggestion is, if you don't want someone photographing your naked body then don't go out in public naked. Also, you continually talk about photographers making WNBR members feel uncomfortable...well, have you ever thought about how WNBR events make the rest of the public feel uncomfortable? Probably not because this all about WNBR's rights and no one else's, including photographers who's actions are protected by the 1st Amendment.

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:06, 17 June 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Policy too restrictive==		==Policy too restrictive==
		+
		+	"If it makes you uncomfortable, let the photographers know that they don't have permission to photograph you."
		+
		+	Sorry, but when you parade your naked body around in public, nobody needs permission to photograph you since there is absolutely no expectation of privacy. Moreover, you can't restrict a photographer's movement or limited their access to public spaces. That imaginary "15 foot rule" you talk about has no baring on where a photograph can go. If you're naked body is in a public place, a photographer can ignore WNBR's pseudo "15 foot rule" and walk right up to you and take your picture. If the camera makes you feel uncomfortable—too bad. You shouldn't have removed your clothes in public.
		+
		+	My suggestion is, if you don't want someone photographing your naked body then don't go out in public naked. Also, you continually talk about photographers making WNBR members feel uncomfortable...well, have you ever thought about how WNBR events make the rest of the public feel uncomfortable? Probably not because this all about WNBR's rights and no one else's, including photographers who's actions are protected by the 1st Amendment.
		+

	This London-style photo policy I think it a bit more restrictive than some would like. Seattle does permit photography before and after people are on their bikes and some photography is allowed at the bodypainting part. But we do have restrictions.		This London-style photo policy I think it a bit more restrictive than some would like. Seattle does permit photography before and after people are on their bikes and some photography is allowed at the bodypainting part. But we do have restrictions.

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:13, 16 June 2010
Line 10:		Line 10:
	::Hmmm... actually I did a pretty drastic overhaul of the whole page. [[User:D\|D]] 22:37, 3 Apr 2006 (PDT)		::Hmmm... actually I did a pretty drastic overhaul of the whole page. [[User:D\|D]] 22:37, 3 Apr 2006 (PDT)
	::I like the overhaul! --[[User:Thedishbench\|Thedishbench]] 09:17, 4 Apr 2006 (PDT)		::I like the overhaul! --[[User:Thedishbench\|Thedishbench]] 09:17, 4 Apr 2006 (PDT)
		+
		+	Hate to tell you guys, but you "photography policy" isn't legal. There is not expectation of privacy on city streets. If I see you, I will take all the pictures I want. If you touch me I'll sue you and your organization. If you don't want your dick photographed don't take it out in public.
		+	--[[User:Kylem\|Kylem]] 04:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)