If you insist on thinking that "straight", then I cannot care more to explain to you. You have clearly extrapolated my analogies to beyond what I've meant.
The photographer has been bestowed a right a convey visual information to the masses. Think war photography, photo journalism - media: Magazines/Internet/exhibitions. The ethics of the photographer in these cases has always been debated, I sure u know.
The photographer should also understand the medium in which his photos are distributed. Images are duplicated the instant they are viewed on the Internet.
Thousands of users hit Clubsnap every day. Even if CS becomes a paid-only exclusive site, where ppl are sworn not to pirate images, you will still see them reposted elsewhere.
In your analogy of a thief breaking in, it would likened to a hacker trying to break in. Whose fault? The hacker's of course.
But if you leave your door open 24/7, the thiefs will come and take whatever they like. Whose fault? The owners : why did they not secure their homes in the first place, knowing that there will be itchy-fingers dying to repossess your items?
Do you listen to mp3? If you do, then you have spoken for me already. As long as there is the Internet, and there are tools to convert CD songs to mp3, digital music piracy will always be rampant. Prove me wrong.
Originally posted by Wolfgang And your argument would hold water the way a piece of paper with holes would.
Yup. That very piece of paper caused more than 200 deaths in Nigeria. Justify this with your analogy.
Barely two weeks after the contestants arrived in Nigeria for rehearsals, during the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan, came a provocative editorial in a local newspaper, which said that the Prophet Muhammad would not only have approved of the beauty parade but would also have picked one of the contestants as his bride.
That touched off deadly riots that have led to more than 200 deaths.
Malicious content aside, the editor is well-versed in the distribution of information via various media. So the 200 deaths, is none of his fault? His story may first be jovial reporting on first read, but it touched a nerve among the muslims (44% of Nigeria).
Had he first understood the consequences of his editorial and how the article would be intepreted as blasphemous, perhaps the 200 would not have died.
Back to us: If anyone of us post pictures of chio women and wives thinking that it is only reserved for photographic critique, how wrong can he be?
The very reasons why female photos are so sought after is the very reason why pornography is the no 1 industry on the Internet: Men's lust.
I believe you're this uptight over piracy of the photos is because the subject are girls, and especially well-taken ones. Had the images were cars, then only copyright infringements would matter. But we're talking about morals here. If one feels angry over their pictures being misrepresented in sleazy sites, then I would ask,
How did the photos first end up on the Internet?"
The photographer can post all he wants. But because there are immoral people out there, he should be aware that such things would happen. In this sense, your note is only as effective as the percentage of well-behaved, law-abiding people reading it.
Originally posted by Wolfgang
How can that be?
So we now have to let other people, especially socially and morally irresponsible ones, to dictate what we can or cannot do? And whats worse, the fact that you say that the photographer is equally culpable in this case that really takes the cake.
I fail to see why this has to be the case.