The strange thing is that there is one movement into the direction of more protection of the "right of ones own image", and on the other side much more tolererated with taking and publishing as in the case of aerial photography (now Google and Bing, in future everybody).
Yes. I was always surprised how many houses are blurred in google maps in Germany. But then friend explained me that many thieves are using google maps to look which car you have, how are your locks on the house, do you have "nice" back yard...
Originally Posted by AgX
Well, not that long ago whole Kodak Park was veiled on aerial views.
Google started their Streetview project in Germany, but stopped it after protest. The cities already online stayed there though. Seemingly streets photographed but not yet online were kept off the net.
snapguy, you are in eminent danger of being proposed to. By me.
Originally Posted by snapguy
How very refreshing to read someone in the 'Union' who speaks with both reason and candor. We learn a LOT by selfless observation of matters outside ot the eye of the storm; that privacy issue's importance across the pond is a striking example of how chuzpah (the American style) unfortunately trumps common sense here, and, eminently and too often, nullifies a genuine consideration for others.
'Freedom' is a much abused term in America; one that elevates to become but tailor-made facile expedience of the worst kind. Well said, sir. - David Lyga
I disagree with this ruling. There is no connection to any criminal act. This ruling is a "pre-emptive" court order issued not to stop a crime or correct criminal behaviour, but to soothe someone's paranoia. Referencing "Minority Report" doesn't quite work here because the "pre-cogs" could see into the future. This court is ruling blindly in regard to the future.
The dilemma being discussed is important to me, though. I do have a moral (not a legal) dilemma very similar to the ex-couple in this case. I have intimate photographs of women I have dated or lived with in the past. These photographs were not of paid models or models with a signed release form, those aren't on topic.
I did not coerce or badger any of these women into sitting for these photographs. There was some hesitation occasionally, but I know they were all consensual. My dilemma; an ex-girlfriend asked me to destroy the negatives and prints. There is no release form. The contract was verbal, promises. I promised to keep them private. They could be shown to others but only with explicit permission. We both made this promise. Yes, she has/had nude photographs of me.
I haven't destroyed them. Promises are very important to me, but so are the memories these photographs represent. I keep telling myself the photographs will be destroyed, I just didn't say when. I kind of feel dirty about that.
I read the comment section the Guardian had for the article. According to them, I am a pathetic creep keeping the photos to wank over. Charming.
My ex-girlfriend has no legal claim to these photos (US). She wants them destroyed and I want to keep them. These photos are of a beautiful young woman whom I still love. She was an island of stability during a very turbulent time in my life and these photographs still have the power to distract me with that stability and her confidence and her love of life even 18 years after we parted. The idea of a court ordering the destruction of these photographs is abhorrent.
I have seen, first hand, the destructive power these kinds of photographs can have. This dilemma, both mine and the greater public's, is difficult. Should the rights if one be undercut to protect against the potential violation of someone else's rights if the consequences of that violation are great? In my case, I don't view the problem in terms of private property rights, these are my precious memories. I have so few photographs of her. With these photographs I can smell her perfume, listen to her tease me in French (I don't speak French) and feel the wrestling matches she earnestly fought to win.
I don't know. I thought I might share a different perspective. I may have had a point but I lost it. It must have been profound. I think the language used in the arguments for and against is too simplistic and demonising. From what I've read in the Guardian article and elsewhere, it sounds like the ex-girlfriend is using the current buzzwords to get her way in a situation she otherwise wouldn't get any traction with.
Breaking up sucks, you never get what you want and if you do, you find it wasn't what you really wanted after all.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
The court in question should have read your story.
Thank you for sharing.
I agree with the court on this in the context of the decision. Privacy rights in Europe are supported; in the U.S. the same rights get trampled on.
Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!
Nothing beats a great piece of glass!
I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.
Privacy of whom? Those are the photo takers property, who gives the court the right to come into my home, look at my private things, destroy, or otherwise make decisions about? That's a far cry from respecting privacy.
Originally Posted by Sirius Glass
Especially preemptive action, if I own a gun in my house, should I be arrested for murder or have my gun taken away from me simply because I own it that I might have the intention of using it on someone someday? I don't think that's the respect of privacy or logical, especially if I have no history of taking such action, no record to speak of of any crimes committed.
Originally Posted by StoneNYC
A gun ownership analogy is just about the "least likely to be successful in large parts of the world" argument you could use.
The photographs in question involve (the photographer's) private property, and (the subject's) personal privacy, so you have competing values to reconcile.
“Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”
Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2
If the subject truly cared about her privacy she wouldn't have dragged her images into court for all the Jury Members and lawyers and such to see. And if she cared about her privacy she wouldn't have taken the picture in the first place. I know this is harsh but truly, it's as obvious as, it you don't want to be pregnant, don't have sex till you are sure you want a kid. You KNOW at the time of picture taking (or sex) that there is the POTENTIAL that since the images now exist (or sex happening even with protection) that the images MAY be seen, and MAY BE HELD by the taker of photographs (may be impregnated) then by doing the action, whatever it is, you are risking the consequences... Plain and simple, she regrets an action she took in the past, that was her own doing, and now doesn't want to take responsibility for the action and responsibility for the consequences or potential consequences of the action. No matter what the feelings in the moment, she is not stupid, she knows that the relationship might end and the photos might be exposed, and took the risk and now wants to take it back, life doesn't (or shouldn't) work that way. Plain and simple. If I rob a store, and then years later say "I wish I didn't do that" do I get to be free of the consequences of that action? I could use a hundred analogies, take responsibility for your own irresponsible actions and stop playing the victim...
Originally Posted by MattKing
Sorry the gun analogy wasn't very good for others in the world, you're right.