Welf wrote:Can someone explain why this is so bad? After all I think I should have control about something as personal as my picture. In the age of facial recognition every photo makes us more transparent and controllable.
It's bad because my self expression is being squashed by way of tedium. I adore street photography and I like to capture people in a natural setting. I do not sell my photos or publish them in any way that would earn me money. They are posted online for critique and sharing and that helps me strengthen my craft.
Welf wrote:Then don't make photos or above people's heads?
What if someone makes a photo of you while you attend a political demonstration your employer doesn't approve? Or you visit McDonalds too often and your mortgage goes up because your bank thinks you're too fat and die too early? Getting your photo taken and uploaded into the internet can and will lead to cost later on. So I would argue there is good reason why one should be able to control what is done with his likeness.
Words from someone who knows absolutely nothing about photography. Can you prove that what you describe is prevalent enough to warrant this outrageous legislation that makes public spaces private?
There is zero need to get waivers from people if you are not going to make money off of the photo. I took photos during Dragon Con's parade last year. Do you really expect me to get permission from the hundreds of people I photographed before sharing them online with friends and other photographers?
Welf wrote:Can someone explain why this is so bad? After all I think I should have control about something as personal as my picture. In the age of facial recognition every photo makes us more transparent and controllable.
It's bad because my self expression is being squashed by way of tedium. I adore street photography and I like to capture people in a natural setting. I do not sell my photos or publish them in any way that would earn me money. They are posted online for critique and sharing and that helps me strengthen my craft.
Welf wrote:Then don't make photos or above people's heads?
What if someone makes a photo of you while you attend a political demonstration your employer doesn't approve? Or you visit McDonalds too often and your mortgage goes up because your bank thinks you're too fat and die too early? Getting your photo taken and uploaded into the internet can and will lead to cost later on. So I would argue there is good reason why one should be able to control what is done with his likeness.
Words from someone who knows absolutely nothing about photography. Can you prove that what you describe is prevalent enough to warrant this outrageous legislation that makes public spaces private?
There is zero need to get waivers from people if you are not going to make money off of the photo. I took photos during Dragon Con's parade last year. Do you really expect me to get permission from the hundreds of people I photographed before sharing them online with friends and other photographers?
The case of the demonstration seems easy enough. Take the example of: https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/const ... blacklist/
You could be blacklisted for being a union member, enviromental or other such stuff deemed to conflict with being a builder. You could not know you were blacklisted by this private company, nor could you get off it.
"Aid, trade, green technology and peace." - Hans Rosling.
"Welcome to SDN, where we can't see the forest because walking into trees repeatedly feels good, bro." - Mr Coffee
