View Poll Results: Is it okay to post/publish unflattering photos of strangers without their permission?

Voters
69. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    19 27.54%
  • No

    50 72.46%
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 61 to 74 of 74

Thread: Is it okay to post/publish unflattering photos of strangers without their permission?

  1. #61
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    hErE lAh
    Posts
    975

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Newman
    And why do such websites have a negative image? It's because photos were taken of their 'victims' in compromising situations and posted without their permissions.
    yeah that & I remember reading some of the unsavoury remarks made by other posters on the gals there.

  2. #62
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    hErE lAh
    Posts
    975

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by snappist
    The facts speaks for itself.

    It is tiring to follow this thread and replying to salvos and salvos from defensive followers of a person they assumed I am attacking.
    Btw, please dun any ol' how label us as "followers" just because we choose not to have the same view as you.
    Last edited by lavenderlilz; 23rd October 2003 at 03:44 PM.

  3. #63
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Khatib - Singapore
    Posts
    299

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by snappist
    Let me tell you an account I personally went through. This is not a scenario.

    Not long ago, I went with a group of photographers to an island for photoshooting...

    As B was answering nature's call, I quickly took my DSLR to take a few snaps of B....
    ... When B finished, my friend and I taunted B that we have a shot of a fireman fighting fire in the forest to show the rest.
    .
    It was brave of you to have posted your personal experience of 'taunting photographic actions.' Were you guilty, then? Especially that B hadn't reacted 'violently'. Perhaps it would be different if B did protest. I'm no psychie, but could it be that there's still no closure for you w.r.t the incident?

    Could it be, this was what that had driven you to pressure this CS community to adopt a certain viewpoint advocated by you. The result, Some agreed, some disagreed, some partially agreed/partially disagreed and some abstained.

    As I mentioned before, there are intimate friendship bond in this forum, just as intimate as the friendship between you & your friend that celebrated your success in capturing 'the fireman' and enjoined you in the taunting of 'the celebrity' of the moment.

    If only, photographer B was your role model, things need not end up this way. As voiced by others, I share their stand that in this issue, there is no need for a polarised camping between you & Azure (i used his name for the first time in my reply). Throughout this whole discussion, I don't remember him defending his actions. It could have been that he had long thought about his actions.

    Perhaps, you'd like to seek closure and have a personal discussion with Azure & maybe also B. Just a suggestion though. As for me, I advocate responsible posting just as I advocate responsible protesting. A negative action doesn't equal a negative personality.

    Regards

  4. #64

    Default

    I had been forced to come out of my silence to voice this out. I have my right to correct misconceptions and misquotes.

    Pls do not psycho-analyse. What seeking closure and all that??
    It is not so complicated as what you mentioned. I or anyone do not need any personal discussion with anyone as it is an objective open topic left for all to ponder and reflect. It is not directed at any individuals now, though I had to admit that I am repulsed twice by the posting of images from the same individual. Intimate friendship bonds and all that is interesting. If you have a close friend who had murdered someone and is hiding at your house, will you defend him all out as there is intimate friendship bonds, despite knowing that murder is wrong? Blind loyalty is a real thing as can be seen here.

    Yes, the actual intent of the photo was to taunt and display the photo to others to poke fun at the expense of others. The last stage was not carried out! THis is similar to posting a photo for all to see. I had shot an untoward photograph at the spur of moment and fun. I had decided against using it for personal satisfaction and display.

    Anyway, the issue remains as it is.
    This poll has raised awareness of what I feel is important.

    I do not want to change anyone's opinion. YOu are entitled to yours. But then, when you exercise your right to post any photograph. Pls consider any adverse impact. Simple as that.
    Period. Good night!

  5. #65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Obzervr
    It was brave of you to have posted your personal experience of 'taunting photographic actions.' Were you guilty, then? Especially that B hadn't reacted 'violently'. Perhaps it would be different if B did protest. I'm no psychie, but could it be that there's still no closure for you w.r.t the incident?
    :
    :
    :
    Obzervr, let's not make this a personal attack and concentrate more on the topic. I guess snappist used that scenario as he learnt a good lesson from it. I guess many of us will take things for granted until we learn the hard way. Take myself for instance, I said earlier that I received negative feedback from friends and family about shooting them in their eating posture. I was quite stubborn initially and continued to do so for a while and sometimes I still do take unflattering shots of friends just to intentionally poke fun at them. Then I realised that people would avoid me when they saw me with a cam. And this was making me more difficult to do what I like to do. Seems like I became a papparazzi photog which they want to avoid. So now when I happen to take unflattering shots, I will delete them and not show them to anyone. And my friends have commented my work has improved and I had more opportunities to shoot them. Although some still do avoid me, I tell them doing so would only make themselves look awkward if I happen to catch them in my shots. And it doesn't mean that if you are not born photogenic, you can't have a pleasant photo taken right? In that case, most of us would be better off wearing masks.
    I would like to add that those who polled yes to this thread would probably change their minds if they learned a lesson from life. I believe our local papers practise a code of conduct for the reporters/photographers as they have an image to uphold. Sometimes this code might be broken or disagreeable with the public which is why you get feedback in their forum pages. There is some code of conduct here in Clubsnap for its members to follow as her main aim is to advocate excellence in photography. Maybe the Mods/Admins would like to elaborate more on this to minimise such issues from becoming a furor in future?
    /* Newman sees beads of sweat on mods' foreheads */
    Last edited by Newman; 24th October 2003 at 04:12 AM.

  6. #66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Newman
    I believe our local papers practise a code of conduct for the reporters/photographers as they have an image to uphold.

    That depends on whether you are ruling party or opposition.

    But I digress.

  7. #67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by StreetShooter
    That depends on whether you are ruling party or opposition.

    But I digress.
    That I respectfully agree.

    As for other comments, I'd say that too many assumptions are being made here.

  8. #68
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Khatib - Singapore
    Posts
    299

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zerstorer
    Lets see it this way:

    The resultant emotional response evoked in the viewer depends on his/her own innate bias and prejudices.
    For my previous post, I was kinda of reflecting on Zerstorer's reiterated words. And of course snappist's own self disclosure. Ironically, it just clicked.

    Although Snappist keep mentioning about objectivity in this thread, references were tied to the previous one, which unfortunately, personal attack towards Azure was hurled in that thread. I anticipated for Azure's reply, but he chose to abstain. (Azure, Azure where are you... I know you're on the net).

    Anyway, to Snappist, I apologise should my interpretation strays from your intention.

    Whatever it is, I still think (and this is my opinion) a private discussion would have been better, At least, "there is no need to ASSUME that Azure really did post the photo to TAUNT". I think Azure deserves the benefit of the doubt.

    Personally, I used to think handicaps are extraordinary in a community of able bodied ppl (positively that is), until I had to settle on a wheelchair (fortunately it was temporary), then I learnt that while moving around in it, the thought of being a handicap was not much of an issue, I felt as able as when I was standing on my own two feet. Now, I learnnt that 'handicaps' don't really want undue attention. Yesterday's episode Extraodinary People was one good example. Will I be led to act with aggresive protest should any CSer post a photo of a handicap? I'll think about it....

    regards
    Last edited by Obzervr; 24th October 2003 at 12:36 PM.

  9. #69
    Deregistered
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    6,601

    Default

    even when i shot the picture of the aftermath of someone who committed suicide, my conscience kicked in and told me to preserve the dignity of the dead. some of you may have seen the post on CS already.

    i'm on the fence myself, can't exactly settle into either "camp". one thing i think that may be crucial, is what the shooter decides to give a subject that ever debatable TITLE...

  10. #70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by StreetShooter
    That depends on whether you are ruling party or opposition.

  11. #71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Obzervr
    For my previous post, I was kinda of reflecting on Zerstorer's reiterated words. And of course snappist's own self disclosure. Ironically, it just clicked.

    Although Snappist keep mentioning about objectivity in this thread, references were tied to the previous one, which unfortunately, personal attack towards Azure was hurled in that thread. I anticipated for Azure's reply, but he chose to abstain. (Azure, Azure where are you... I know you're on the net).

    Anyway, to Snappist, I apologise should my interpretation strays from your intention.

    Whatever it is, I still think (and this is my opinion) a private discussion would have been better, At least, "there is no need to ASSUME that Azure really did post the photo to TAUNT". I think Azure deserves the benefit of the doubt.

    Personally, I used to think handicaps are extraordinary in a community of able bodied ppl (positively that is), until I had to settle on a wheelchair (fortunately it was temporary), then I learnt that while moving around in it, the thought of being a handicap was not much of an issue, I felt as able as when I was standing on my own two feet. Now, I learnnt that 'handicaps' don't really want undue attention. Yesterday's episode Extraodinary People was one good example. Will I be led to act with aggresive protest should any CSer post a photo of a handicap? I'll think about it....

    regards
    A private discussion may have been more subtle but I think this serves as a good topic to teach all photogs a lesson on a different aspect of photography. It has not crossed my mind that Azure's posts were meant to taunt either. Well, maybe some do to his close acquaintances.
    Handicap or not, everyone is unique. Able bodied people may take certain things for granted whereas those with handicaps probably would appreciate more of life. I had been 'handicapped' in the sense of losing a parent when young. But I believe as with any other kinds of handicaps, you learn to move on. You have to know that being wheelchair bound doesn't make you less human than anyone of us. It's your actions that speak, not your state. If a CSer post a photo of you, what would be his intention? That I would question. I've met many able bodied persons who probably show less zest for life than the handicapped. At least those that I've seen on shows like Extraordinary People. And this reminds me of the lady on Ripley's Believe It or Not who only has her upper torso intact and still bore a child. As all parents know, raising a child able bodied is already tough enough.

  12. #72

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sehsuan
    even when i shot the picture of the aftermath of someone who committed suicide, my conscience kicked in and told me to preserve the dignity of the dead. some of you may have seen the post on CS already.

    i'm on the fence myself, can't exactly settle into either "camp". one thing i think that may be crucial, is what the shooter decides to give a subject that ever debatable TITLE...
    Yep I saw your post too. You handled that one well IMHO. This reminds me of how the kin of the victim would react when they see similar reports in the papers. But I believe everyone gets over their grieve somehow.
    Yes, a title to a decent shot can be very debatable as well. Everyone would question the intention of the photographer just like questioning the intention of a thread starter.
    Last edited by Newman; 26th October 2003 at 02:17 AM.

  13. #73
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Clementi
    Posts
    6,580

    Default

    That photo which I have viewed very vividly captured the way ordinary S'poreans eat in public. It may not put the people in there in the best light, but there is nothing offensive to the sensibilities generally. Hence I would not object to something like that posted on the net. But I would object to what Snappist mentioned in his recount.

    So I will not vote cos as has been metioned, what is unflattering, to what extent such an 'unflattering' shot affects the moral sensibilities of society must be judged on a case-by-case basis and not using a blanket statement in the poll. I believe that here we are talking of the gray areas and not the clear cut obviously offensive pictures. So I decline to vote but voice my opinion. And gray areas are always difficult to judge and require a case-by-case analysis to judge its merits and demerits.

    Anyway, another comment about freedom to vote. In any "freedom" given in any area, there must be personal responsibilty. That includes evaluating if the picture u take and maybe polling friends to ask if they think that picture is 'decent' enough to post online.

    I always take candid uflattering shots of friends, but I always show them the photo first. They are free to keep that shot if they dun want it shown to others... and I do not develop another copy for others to view (btw, I shoot exclusively in film)

  14. #74
    ClubSNAP Admin Edmund's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    2,340

    Default

    Personally, I feel the thread has outlived its initial purpose. Initial references for illustrations were ok but this has now in parts digressed from a generic discussion of ethics to something else for some of the posters.

    Thread is now closed. Attempts to continue online in any other public thread will be dealt with similarly without prejudice.

    Edmund
    ClubSNAP Admin

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •