Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fun With Flickr!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Fun With Flickr!

    But why only the ladies? Why not the gentlemen or the people in the crowd shot?
    But I'm disturbed! I'm depressed! I'm inadequate! I GOT IT ALL! (George Costanza)
    GrouchyTeacher.com

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Fun With Flickr!

      Does he post other photos? Or just "street candids of unsuspecting women"?

      On one hand, I say, if it's a public street, you can take pictures of whatever you want. Bald men. Asian women. Pigeons. Fire hydrants. I don't care if you're a professional photojournalist or a kid with a $79 digital camera. Fire away!

      On the other hand, if his clear and sole motivation is voyeurism, catering specifically (as lawyers like to say) to "prurient interests," I can see a photo hosting service invoking their TOS and dumping him off their system. You have a right to photograph whatever you like in public (as far as the "privacy" question is concerned). But any private company has the right to say it rather have nothing to do with your content or interests.

      There are thriving communities on Flickr for all kinds of things. (Browse the tag 'wife' for an eye-opening experience. NSFW!) And yes, "street candids" of women, particularly at beaches but just about anywhere, are quite popular. I'd be curious if these focused communities are being allowed to continue to exist, even as an individual contributor is being penalized for his separate photo collection. (Though at least in a community or group, the contributors in most cases will have a wider variety of images in their photostreams.)

      Frankly, all it takes is one angry pedestrian who sees herself objectified and judged on any website, and the hosting provider will balk.

      Your photostream does have cute Japanese tourists standing on the corner in Waikiki. But it also has your Zippy's lunch plate, your students performing science experiments, your friends' graduation parties. Your photography is, I guess, more "well rounded," and less likely to be targeted.

      That doesn't mean that someone seeing your cute Japanese tourist photo out of context (or, say, browsing your conveniently organized "Covert Sightseeing" set) will see it quite as innocuously as you do. Creepy it can be.

      It's a grey area, to be sure. Recall the legal wranglings over the fellow who was taking video of women... er, at an upward angle on escalators at Ala Moana. At the time, there wasn't even anything to charge him with (apart from trespassing). I do think a tweak to an existing law was proposed but I don't even know if it was enacted. Another pivotal case nationally involved a guy who was videotaping youth gymnastics meets. His case hinged not on his using a camera (as there were of course dozens of proud parents with similar equipment), but specifically where he was pointing it and what he was doing with the footage.
      But why only the ladies? Why not the gentlemen or the people in the crowd shot?
      Because it's clear "the people" in the same shot are not the reason you had your camera pointed and focused where it was at that moment.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Fun With Flickr!

        Originally posted by pzarquon View Post
        Does he post other photos? Or just "street candids of unsuspecting women"?
        In his photostream, he has sets devoted to "dudes," couples, cars, flowers, and sculpture. Yes, most of it is of the sort I just described, and his account name is "girl watcher," but I just don't see how Flickr can determine that what he's doing is "creepy," especially when NONE of his shots are up skirts, down cleavage, or otherwise invasive. He doesn't shoot into buildings or through windows, and all of his subjects are in public spaces.

        You have a right to photograph whatever you like in public (as far as the "privacy" question is concerned). But any private company has the right to say it rather have nothing to do with your content or interests.
        Yes, and I made this point here and on the message board of the Flickr group.

        Frankly, all it takes is one angry pedestrian who sees herself objectified and judged on any website, and the hosting provider will balk.
        What I find interesting about this is that if most of these people saw themselves in a background crowd, passing behind a television news reporter, they'd think it was awesome.

        Your photostream has cute Japanese tourists standing on the corner in Waikiki. But it also has your Zippy's lunch plate, your students performing science experiments, your friends' graduation parties. Your photography is, I guess, more "well rounded," and less likely to be targeted. That doesn't mean that someone seeing your cute Japanese tourist photo will see it quite as innocuously as you do. Creepy it can be.
        I totally understand that it might make a few people uncomfortable; I've been uncomfortable with some of the photos of me YOU'VE put up, but the question of whether or not a photo caters to prurient interests is so subjective I don't get how it can be measured. One of the photo pools I belong to and share photos with is called "office porn." It's aimed at people who really, really dig office supplies. Sure, I don't get physically turned on by the images there, but I get turned on in other ways, and when I take a nice close-up shot of a pile of scissors or staplers or stacking trays, I'm trying to inspire that same reaction in others: It's undoubtedly titillating in a nonsexual way.

        I use the Ala Moana escalator guy as a example in my classes all the time. The reasonable expectation of privacy going up escalators is a subjective, social construct, but it's pretty well defined and understood. Plus, of course, the photographer was on private property, so mall management could determine whatever it wanted in the same way that Flickr can determine whatever it wants.

        Because it's clear "the gentlemen or the people" in the same shot are not the reason you had your camera pointed and focused where it was at that moment.
        No way. The gentleman sweeping up glass in front of the broken window downtown is the ENTIRE REASON I took that picture. Same for the crowd awaiting sunrise on Haleakala. They are photographs of people doing things, and I personally think they made interesting subjects. I did take the photo of the tourist women in Chinatown because they were cute women, but in my mind, it's very nearly the same thing. These are not invasive photos AT ALL, except that some might consider it an invasion just that I've posted these photos on the web, just as the subjects of the other photos might.
        But I'm disturbed! I'm depressed! I'm inadequate! I GOT IT ALL! (George Costanza)
        GrouchyTeacher.com

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Fun With Flickr!

          It's most likely the 'privacy' bit in the TOS, the 'wives' category escapes because they are willing participants, the women on the street may or may not be willing to be published. Without a model release specifically saying they agree to the mass viewing (and they're over the legal age) it's in violation.

          Ten to one some folks found themselves on somebody's page and pitched a fit.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Fun With Flickr!

            Originally posted by scrivener View Post
            In his photostream, he has sets devoted to "dudes," couples, cars, flowers, and sculpture. Yes, most of it is of the sort I just described, and his account name is "girl watcher," but I just don't see how Flickr can determine that what he's doing is "creepy," especially when NONE of his shots are up skirts, down cleavage, or otherwise invasive.
            Well, his choice of account name says a lot. As wonderful as his photos of dudes, couples, cars, flowers, and sculptures may be, it seems pretty clear he's got one passion. I suspect his many fans don't spend much time in his other collections.

            Creepy is subjective, you'll get no argument from me at all about that. If you think you're going to find a hard and fast rule that can push cases like this one way or the other definitively, you won't. I'm sure Yahoo! prefers it that way. They need room for discretion, and I support their right to exercise it.

            Mitchell, I love you like a brother. People sometimes think we're brothers. And I've posted my share of beach shots and pretty ladies, some of them undeclared candids. But if you can't see that someone might see your "Covert Sightseeing" collection, or anyone's "appreciation of beauty in its many forms" as creepy, I don't know what to say. I concede, it's a spectrum for me, too. Girl on corner? Photography 101. Girl on TheBus? A touch of creepy. Girl in classroom? Creepy.
            What I find interesting about this is that if most of these people saw themselves in a background crowd, passing behind a television news reporter, they'd think it was awesome.
            C'mon, Mitchell. Don't stretch that analogy too far. Unless the television news reporter was working for Girls Gone Wild News Network, there's a significant difference between being captured by a news crew covering a new library and a cameraman looking for hot babes.
            I totally understand that it might make a few people uncomfortable; I've been uncomfortable with some of the photos of me YOU'VE put up, but the question of whether or not a photo caters to prurient interests is so subjective I don't get how it can be measured.
            Like I said, it's subjective, absolutely. But what if your handle is "girl watcher"? What if your photo collection has "covert" in the title? What can reasonably be surmised about your intent? And again, like I said, even if it's totally innocuous, you just need one person to complain and you'll get tossed. Photo hosting services won't even hesitate. It's not worth the trouble.
            No way. The gentleman sweeping up glass in front of the broken window downtown is the ENTIRE REASON I took that picture.
            Er, I thought you meant the people in the background of the photo of the tourist girls. Never mind.
            These are not invasive photos AT ALL, except that some might consider it an invasion just that I've posted these photos on the web, just as the subjects of the other photos might.
            Context counts for a lot. When I'm looking at your overall collection of photos, the word "invasive" would never pop into my mind. But if I was focusing on just one image, or a curated collection of images fitting a theme? All of a sudden, the very same images carry a completely different message. It is interesting, to be sure, how "random photos of people in Honolulu" can become "voyeur shots of girls" through the magic of tagging.
            Last edited by pzarquon; November 9, 2007, 03:47 PM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Fun With Flickr!

              I only use my Flickr account to hold photos that I need URL's for.
              Like Geocaching pages, etc.

              Really not much interest for others to look at.
              Life is either an adventure... or you're not doing it right!!!

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Fun With Flickr!

                One of my contacts at Flickr is a person that goes by the name of "Asian Infatuation" and he has a ton of pictures taken in Waikiki, elsewhere in Honolulu and around the world of pretty ladies on the street.... just what any other person would see at Waikiki.... except he photographs them all. And that is all his subject matter is. He hasn't been targeted by the Flickr police...... yet.

                I've seen worst pictures than standard street shots on Flickr, and I have wondered how they pass muster given that Flickr is supposedly "family friendly".

                As for photos taken on private property, I was recently harassed at Ala Moana Center one night for trying to take a photo of the full moon from the top deck of their parking lot. No one else was there, it was early evening and it took me only about 5 to 10 minutes at the most to set up the camera, take a few frames and get out of there. Of course one of those security guards on bikes had to come over and push his weight on me. I got into a very short verbal exchange with him but in the end I left. I wanted to get the moon rising between 2 buildings.

                It is funny that they let me and anybody else shoot all kinds of photos at Ala Moana Center including Centerstage concerts, store displays, people, Thunderbird jets, etc., but not alone and not bothering anyone at the center when I am by myself. Hmmmmph!!!
                I'm still here. Are you?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Fun With Flickr!

                  public property or not...if someone takes a picture of my girlfriend without her permission they will get beat up. That stuff is seriously creepy and imo disrespectful. and crrrrrreeeepppppyyyy

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Fun With Flickr!

                    You being alone vs. in a crowded area probably looked more suspicious. They might have suspected your motives were other than getting moon shots. Keep in mind the FBI just released a warning of terroristic threats at our nation's shopping malls during the holiday season. The security at Ala Moana were probably already briefed on this. So naturally a guy alone with a tripod and an SLR on mall grounds would look suspicious, no matter what you look like or who you are. He could have at least let you get the shot, though. At least he's there "supervising" you (witness).

                    As for that threat, that won't discourage me from going to the mall.

                    Post Edit: Mel, I just checked out the link to your moon shot. Just awesome! I'd like to use that for an album cover or other graphical artwork. Damned your camera got some LENS! The shot is so crisp, it almost looks fake. lol

                    Originally posted by mel View Post
                    As for photos taken on private property, I was recently harassed at Ala Moana Center one night for trying to take a photo of the full moon from the top deck of their parking lot. No one else was there, it was early evening and it took me only about 5 to 10 minutes at the most to set up the camera, take a few frames and get out of there. Of course one of those security guards on bikes had to come over and push his weight on me. I got into a very short verbal exchange with him but in the end I left. I wanted to get the moon rising between 2 buildings.

                    It is funny that they let me and anybody else shoot all kinds of photos at Ala Moana Center including Centerstage concerts, store displays, people, Thunderbird jets, etc., but not alone and not bothering anyone at the center when I am by myself. Hmmmmph!!!
                    Last edited by Pomai; November 10, 2007, 10:25 AM.
                    sigpic The Tasty Island

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Fun With Flickr!

                      Attention all Flickr users! Other local Flickr fans are kicking off the new year with a Flickr meetup tomorrow at Kakaako Waterfront Park, home to one of the very first such shutterbug gatherings! It's not too late to join us! RSVP at the Flickr group (with your potluck contribution) and/or via Upcoming.

                      It's good fun, kids welcome, and everyone from photography pros to photography admirers are welcome! Here's a video I made of a meetup in March 2006.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Fun With Flickr!

                        I only just saw this and have signed up, but quite tentatively. There's stuff I need to do this weekend, but this sounds like a lot more fun than cleaning my car and getting my business books ready for the tax accountant, kwim?
                        Bloggin my way to the big time

                        http://skeetsstuff.skeeterbess.com/

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Fun With Flickr!

                          Talkstory fun at a waterfront park potluck with other friendly shutterbugs always trumps taxes and cleaning! I hope you can make it!

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Fun With Flickr!

                            Hi Pzarquon!

                            Um, I wanted to watch your video but the address didn't work!

                            I'm usually out running around (literally) around that time so I'm iffy. I'll try to be sure I'm no too sweaty if I'm in the area. I don't use flikr but maybe I'll figure out why it would be something I should.
                            Aloha,
                            Evelyn
                            Homespun Honolulu

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Fun With Flickr!

                              Like to take photos? Like to blog? Even if you don't use Flickr, I think you'll find a lot to talk about and learn at a Flickr meetup. And who knows, you might decide to give it a shot. I host most of my photos at Flickr, even when I include them in my blog. It's just a great way to organize images (and it doesn't take up my server space or bandwidth).

                              Drop by if you can!

                              As for the video... hmm. How's this link?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Fun With Flickr!

                                It's not working out for me to go today - too much other "stuff" getting in the way. Maybe next time.
                                Bloggin my way to the big time

                                http://skeetsstuff.skeeterbess.com/

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X