Toronto Photography Meetup Group

TPMG.CA
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 10:01 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 11:10 am 
Offline
TPMG Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:26 pm
Posts: 3379
Location: Burlington
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 11 times
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/christopherbrian/
New Vermont Bill Would Make it Illegal to Photograph Anybody Without Consent

Actually I kinda like it. I know I'm gonna be the only one but I do like the idea. And let's turn that on surveillance too, not just you street photographers.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 11:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2013 11:44 am
Posts: 148
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Flickr: www.cjsphotography.ca
A problem with politicians is that they spend too much time sitting around thinking up ways to justify their paychecks.

edit - I think it's a terrible idea as I predominantly do street photography.

edit(2) - Doing some more cursory searches and found out the following. This bill is from early February. The attorney for NPPA wrote to the Vermont legislature about it and was told by the committee chair that there are no plans to even consider it. That was Feb. 28.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 11:34 am 
Offline
TPMG Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:26 pm
Posts: 3379
Location: Burlington
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 11 times
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/christopherbrian/
So, if you thought past your own nose and gave it some balanced consideration do you think it's a deserved stride towards privacy? Or can I expect some thin statement about there's no such thing and privacy is an anachronism. Never gave any thought to the invasiveness of street? (trying so hard not to say Creep Photography).... guess I just did.

In the spirit of editing in hindsight - I don't care. Since I have a personal rule of not deleting what I've already said on here (I make tons of edits but it's always to syntax) please ignore my provoking in the above creep photographer statement. I made the mistake of trying to provoke an argument in something I could not care less about partly because I like being a polemic (shit disturber) but I also posted it because I think it's great that someone is thinking about privacy and the invasiveness about street in this way. It's not he sort of thought that comes from the street shooters around here too much. When it gets passed off as some sort of artistic freedom I scoff because that's such a week argument. Street is the most selfish photography there is. To take something from someone without asking and doing so in pseudo-secrecy... icky. I felt better about the world, slightly, until I read Venser's research results, knowing that someone was making that consideration. I'm back to my usual level of cynicism.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 1:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2013 11:44 am
Posts: 148
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Flickr: www.cjsphotography.ca
ions wrote:
To take something from someone without asking and doing so in pseudo-secrecy... icky.
What am I taking from them?
Who says I'm doing it in pseudo-secrecy? I stand two feet from people and make sure they're looking at me. It's about as obvious as you can get without bludgeoning them with the camera outright.

ions wrote:
So, if you thought past your own nose and gave it some balanced consideration do you think it's a deserved stride towards privacy?
Do you always throw in the pompous jabs? How is the bill as proposed a stride towards anything? It's a Monty Python'esque boot coming from the heavens squashing everything underneath it.

ions wrote:
Or can I expect some thin statement about there's no such thing and privacy is an anachronism.
There's such thing as privacy, just not in public. Putting the two together is incongruous. If a person doesn't like the laws in place they should write to their MP or MPP asking for change. Just don't expect me to stop doing something legal because they don't like it.

ions wrote:
Never gave any thought to the invasiveness of street?
Sure I did, I just don't give a shit.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 1:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2013 11:44 am
Posts: 148
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Flickr: www.cjsphotography.ca
It simply sounds like someone took an unflattering picture of Betty, or Photoshopped one. Clearly there was little thought put into this bill when she introduced it to the house for reading.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 4:16 pm 
Offline
TPMG Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:26 pm
Posts: 3379
Location: Burlington
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 11 times
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/christopherbrian/
I'm just going to let those statements stand for themselves. I think you've proven my point far better than I would with my pompous jabs.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 4:40 pm 
Offline
TPMG Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:26 pm
Posts: 1155
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 10 times
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jordanfaust/
Not that I actually want to get into a debate (yes I know I usually do). I just want to add when it comes to freedoms and rights, in all their forms, it is about compromise and balance. In a situation like this it's about balancing a persons right to privacy and a right to freedom of expression. Those balances will change based on the location. Right now in the public environment the balance is toward freedom of expression. That does not mean it won't change in the future. Society as a whole will dedicate this and norms will change as society changes. I do enjoy shooting street photography at times - but if society one day says enough then so be it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 4:45 pm 
Offline
TPMG SUPERSTAR
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:29 am
Posts: 3415
Location: James in RH
Has thanked: 2 times
Have thanks: 2 times
Flickr: http://goo.gl/cahhK
Taking someone's picture in a public space should not be illegal. That is not to say that at times it can be in poor taste. For example I will not get up in someone's face and take a picture. I don't like the government over-governing and this is what is being attempted here. If someone has a problem with me taking their picture I will delete it .. not a problem. But if you had to ask permission before taking anyone's picture in public that would detract from the best street photography photos I've seen imho .. you would be missing and ruining the candid moment we are trying to capture.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 5:49 pm 
Offline
I'm on TPMG way too much
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:07 pm
Posts: 1378
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/vkhamphi/
What about people taking pictures of friends on the street and strangers are in the background, do I have to ask permission too?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 6:02 pm 
Offline
TPMG ARISTOCRAT
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 6:45 pm
Posts: 5371
Location: Etobicoke
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 10 times
Flickr: www.flickr.com/potatoeye/
So would you rather people were banned to look at each other to preserve privacy in public? :)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 9:13 pm 
Offline
TPMG SUPERSTAR
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 12:49 am
Posts: 2012
Location: Leaside
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
No more taking pictures at the CNE, or Beaches Jazz, or any person in public for that matter.

I saw the key word is "distribute" it. I'll just take pictures of people and keep them on my own computer.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 8:05 am 
Offline
TPMG ARISTOCRAT
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 6:45 pm
Posts: 5371
Location: Etobicoke
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 10 times
Flickr: www.flickr.com/potatoeye/
mikefellh wrote:
No more taking pictures at the CNE, or Beaches Jazz, or any person in public for that matter.

I saw the key word is "distribute" it. I'll just take pictures of people and keep them on my own computer.

Don't sweat it, not going to happen here


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 10:08 am 
Offline
TPMG SUPERSTAR
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 12:49 am
Posts: 2012
Location: Leaside
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
PotatoEYE wrote:
mikefellh wrote:
No more taking pictures at the CNE, or Beaches Jazz, or any person in public for that matter.

I saw the key word is "distribute" it. I'll just take pictures of people and keep them on my own computer.

Don't sweat it, not going to happen here


I was using the CNE and the Jazz Festivals as examples IF it were to happen here since I didn't have examples of such activities where they were trying to do this!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 11:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2013 11:44 am
Posts: 148
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Flickr: www.cjsphotography.ca
A response from Betty herself:

This bill, H-233, is BY REQUEST it states it right on the bill, look it up under the Vermont Legislature. What that means is that it is not my bill, it is a bill REQUESTED by a constituent who really wanted it so it is a constituents bill, every Vermont legislator knows this. I do not believe in it but legislators do put in bills that are REQUESTED. This bill is not going to be taken up by the Legislature.

She did it simply to placate some constituent. Good to know she's somewhat sane realizing this bill was ridiculous.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 4:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 08, 2013 9:41 pm
Posts: 57
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
I thought this bill would be doomed from the get go. Considering the immense number of people who currently enjoy photography and growing, most of which are taken in public places, wouldn't it be political suicide to back this bill?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 7:57 pm 
Offline
TPMG ARISTOCRAT
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 6:45 pm
Posts: 5371
Location: Etobicoke
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 10 times
Flickr: www.flickr.com/potatoeye/
Actually it would also make all security and police cameras illegal


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 8:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 7:14 am
Posts: 926
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Dumb idea. I've already been harassed when taking a landscape shit because someone thought I had take. A picture of them on their property, and I hadn't even pointed my camera in their direction. Besides, this would be a slippery slope law, opening the gate to other laws imposing on freedom. Anyone with a logical thought can see that.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 4:11 pm 
Offline
TPMG Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:26 pm
Posts: 3379
Location: Burlington
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 11 times
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/christopherbrian/
See if anyone has enough logical thought to connect some dots to here.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 10:41 pm 
Offline
TPMG SUPERSTAR
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 5:24 pm
Posts: 3379
Location: Yonge-Davisvillish - T.O.
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
PotatoEYE wrote:
Actually it would also make all security and police cameras illegal


Just ones on public land.
Any private space like a mall or business could make entry on their private property conditional upon consent to be monitored.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Apr 24, 2013 7:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 5:35 pm
Posts: 203
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 1 time
This bill would shut down all the newspapers and media outlets with all its implications. No legislators in their rightful mind would consider it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Apr 24, 2013 7:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 2:28 am
Posts: 46
Location: Richmond Hill, Ontario
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
vkhamphi wrote:
What about people taking pictures of friends on the street and strangers are in the background, do I have to ask permission too?

That is actually an old and a very good trick to fool the bystanders. Just make sure, your focus point is on the right subject.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 25, 2013 6:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:38 pm
Posts: 132
Location: Richmond Hill
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Flickr: http://www.youtube.com/ernieontario
If passed, need to ask Boston bomber brothers for permission to take their pics (in the background)!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat May 04, 2013 4:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2013 10:39 pm
Posts: 19
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/71827423@N05/
I wouldn't do it personally.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 06, 2013 9:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 7:48 pm
Posts: 3
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Dumb law


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group