Off Topic Chat. (MOD NOTE post# 3949 and post#5279)

tudderone

Too much law and not enough common sense in Ireland these days.

BattleCorp

tudderone wrote: »

Too much law and not enough no common sense in Ireland these days.

Fixed that for you there.

Bog Trotter99

When you think about though if I were filmed playing music in the street for example. Then why should people make money from me performing? That could be the Youtube channel. The media it was sold to. Or the news/tv channel it appeared on. They all have made money.

The Youtuber and Youtube selling ads on video. The media doing same attracting viewers to show ads. The news/tv channel doing same.

This is why pop stars and music is so complicated and everybody is having a cut from it and sometimes the performer gets nothing and so many arguments.

If I had been filmed in a 'bad light' and didnt want that made public. Then should I have rights?

Complicated isnt it.

Rows Grower

Why people continue to live in a country they don't like or even despise baffles me, surely there must be some other country that will provide the same benefits with less of the laws you don't agree with.

It would surely be common sense to go somewhere that makes you happy.

Bog Trotter99

Rows Grower wrote: »

Why people continue to live in a country they don't like or even despise baffles me, surely there must be some other country that will provide the same benefits with less of the laws you don't agree with.

It would surely be common sense to go somewhere that makes you happy.

Who?

otmmyboy2

Rows Grower wrote: »

Why people continue to live in a country they don't like or even despise baffles me, surely there must be some other country that will provide the same benefits with less of the laws you don't agree with.

It would surely be common sense to go somewhere that makes you happy.

Perhaps because immigration, at least legal immigration, to a lot of countries outside the EU isn't that easy...

I don't despise the country, but I sure as hell despise the government, a lot of the laws, the lack of freedom, our insane economy, the housing bubble, our ridiculous insurance rates, fuel costs(petrol would be ~52c/L with no taxes), the overall culture of legislating morality, etc.

Couple that with it is bloody difficult to find either a libertarian(as opposed to authoritarian) inclined or even a Y axis neutral country and a lot of people are just stuck, and rightly angry about it.

Finally a lot of folk's entire family structure, friends, job, etc is here.
And most who would like to move to escape the things they disagree with are loath to leave that.

It's surely common sense to realize most cannot just up sticks and bugger off if you don't like it here. :P

Rows Grower

otmmyboy2 wrote: »

Perhaps because immigration, at least legal immigration, to a lot of countries outside the EU isn't that easy...

I don't despise the country, but I sure as hell despise the government, a lot of the laws, the lack of freedom, our insane economy, the housing bubble, our ridiculous insurance rates, fuel costs(petrol would be ~52c/L with no taxes), the overall culture of legislating morality, etc.

Couple that with it is bloody difficult to find either a libertarian(as opposed to authoritarian) inclined or even a Y axis neutral country and a lot of people are just stuck, and rightly angry about it.

Finally a lot of folk's entire family structure, friends, job, etc is here.
And most who would like to move to escape the things they disagree with are loath to leave that.

It's surely common sense to realize most cannot just up sticks and bugger off if you don't like it here. :P

Our understandings of what common sense means must differ.

Bog Trotter99

Rows Grower wrote: »

Our understandings of what common sense means must differ.

Things change. What can be acceptable now can change when those who are in power change things to suit themselves without any thought or consideration towards the people they are supposed to be serving.

For instance if a today government introduces new taxes to pay for their follys and the population en-mass of a large percentage do not agree.

Then by your saying of 'leave'.........A million people pack their bags.

This country would collapse and where would they go?

By staying they can vote against such an idiotic dictatorship and stop those people.

I think that is called democracy.

Of course those in charge will try and screw the system by postal voting, lowering the voting age, shifting voting areas and electronic voting. But its just a game of catch-up.

One should always remember that 'happiness' is a short lived experience because nothing stands still.

Rows Grower

I see Donald Trump is back in the news again....

https://news.sky.com/story/donald-trump-among-worst-us-presidents-of-all-time-survey-of-historians-finds-12346660

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/07/02/politics/donald-trump-organization-indictments-january-6-committee/index.html

tudderone

otmmyboy2 wrote: »

Perhaps because immigration, at least legal immigration, to a lot of countries outside the EU isn't that easy...

I don't despise the country, but I sure as hell despise the government, a lot of the laws, the lack of freedom, our insane economy, the housing bubble, our ridiculous insurance rates, fuel costs(petrol would be ~52c/L with no taxes), the overall culture of legislating morality, etc.

Couple that with it is bloody difficult to find either a libertarian(as opposed to authoritarian) inclined or even a Y axis neutral country and a lot of people are just stuck, and rightly angry about it.

Finally a lot of folk's entire family structure, friends, job, etc is here.
And most who would like to move to escape the things they disagree with are loath to leave that.

It's surely common sense to realize most cannot just up sticks and bugger off if you don't like it here. :P

If i score on the lottery tonight, i'll be gone in the morning

Bog Trotter99

Rows Grower wrote: »

I see Donald Trump is back in the news again....

https://news.sky.com/story/donald-trump-among-worst-us-presidents-of-all-time-survey-of-historians-finds-12346660

Written by someone who isn't old enough to know any president before Obama. So yes a trustworthy reporter. Internet based. Small office in his bedroom amonst the Karl Marx books on capitalism.

Rows Grower wrote: »

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/07/02/politics/donald-trump-organization-indictments-january-6-committee/index.html

CNN......Can't believe anybody went there to read their stuff.

Mellor

Bog Trotter99 wrote: »

I think you may be wrong there Mellor. Even if you can get away with taking sombodys image publicly in Ireland, what you do with it afterwards is problematic.

Taking somebody’s picture is permitted, not something you “get away with”. That’s well established.
What you do with it afterwards is another matter. The above doesn’t imply it free to do as you wish.

I think if cameras on private record on public. Then that can be an issue. Also I think you are restricted on what you record on private property regards third party persons. This refers what you do with and how you store that data (vid/pics). I think that is how it goes here in nutty land.

The vast majority of public building will be recording you when you are on that property.

Anyway forgetting all that the universal world law I think states that if somebody poses or acts for you in a photograph or video then you need to get them to sign a 'model release' agreement. This gives you permission to do whatever agreed with such video/pics. If you do not get this signed then you could be open to costs.

1. What world law?
2. You are again confusing taking a photo, and what you do with it. Two separate acts.

So if you are using members of the public as your actors or models then is there a line being crossed?

Even so showing someone in what they may is 'not an acceptable light' by 'their' terms may possibly go the wrong way for the pic/vid taker.

That is all usage. Taking a photo and publishing a photo are not the same.

I think also buildings/structures can have copywrite applied to them. Which means I think you would have to pay the copywrite owners royalty's for using such in photos and videos.

Nope.
Buildings copyright applies to the design. You are free to photograph buildings and public space.
When a movie is filmed on location, the architects of the background don’t get a penny.

Mellor

Cass wrote: »

This is a messy one, and one I know little about.

There was concern about dashcams some time back and does the person become a data controller as the dashcam footage can be used to idenitfy a person or if the footage constitutues commercial use.

The photgraphing of people, according to data commissioner Helen Dixon, is permissible in public and even for sharing in private or on social media. However commercial use of the picture is a different ballgame and if you capture the image of someone (purposefully or by accident) and share it online (in a household networking setting) then you're still fine, but she said common sense and decency means if the person has a problem with it, they or it should be removed.

Correct.
Taking the photo is permitted (as I said).
Publishing or otherwise using it commercially is where you run into issues.

So I can take a photo of streetscapes, capturing people in them without issue.
But if I publish those photos on a website called “ugly people of Dublin”. Then now it’s an issue.

But yes, it’s complicated. As a photo of a person, zoomed in, where they are the subject. Is clearly different to a somebody briefly crossing the frame of a video of my dog.

GDPR has been a confusing nightmare since its introduction a few years back. Even now its hard to know what is and is not "safe" to the extent Ive been told and heard of schools and other such facilities simply banning photography in an attempt to keep, legally, safe.

I suppose the best approach is in public work away, but be mindful, and if you intend to use it for commerical purposes then you need consent.

Agree. Also utilise DoF to minimise people being identifiable. Make the subject clear, and not others.

Trail cams would not fall into this, in my opinion. The lands we would place them on are not always public, but if they are the images are for private use.

100%
It’s clearly private, non commercial use.

Bog Trotter99

Mellor wrote: »

Taking somebody’s picture is permitted, not something you “get away with”. That’s well established.
What you do with it afterwards is another matter. The above doesn’t imply it free to do as you wish.


The vast majority of public building will be recording you when you are on that property.


1. What world law?
2. You are again confusing taking a photo, and what you do with it. Two separate acts.


That is all usage. Taking a photo and publishing a photo are not the same.


Nope.
Buildings copyright applies to the design. You are free to photograph buildings and public space.
When a movie is filmed on location, the architects of the background don’t get a penny.

I am not disagreeing with what you say Mellor except buildings. Some buildings which are old have appeared to claim copyright on pics. So the architect may be long dead.

Taking pics is ok I have never said other but even your storage facilities are subject to rules and regs. It even says so on EU based website privacy laws and businesses have to have secure storage. So my point is what happens to the pics when they are loaded to your pc is?????

Universal world accepted law/rule whatever it is of model release that is used everywhere. For instance on location in Sahara desert. I think you would still need a model release signed even though you are based in Ireland but the pics are taken there in desert.

Bog Trotter99

Trail cams or security cams.............If a person is captured on them whether they be innocent or up to no good and you shared or uploaded those pics. Then problems can occur even if they are criminals.

Cass

Bog Trotter99 wrote: »

I am not disagreeing with what you say Mellor except buildings. Some buildings which are old have appeared to claim copyright on pics.

It even says so on EU based website privacy laws and businesses have to have secure storage. So my point is what happens to the pics when they are loaded to your pc is?????
.

On these two points, the "household use" would cover these, would it not? As I mentioned above the Data Protection Commissioner said that even sahring such pictures on social media is covered, mostly. IOW I photograph a family member outside a historical building and upload it to Facebook, I'm covered. If I use a model in the same picture for advertising, then i've GDPR issues?

As for the second point only, if its a business/commercial use then there are GDPR issues as its not private use or in public area/land but still for private use.

This is what I was saying about a mess.

Cass

Bog Trotter99 wrote: »

Trail cams or security cams.............If a person is captured on them whether they be innocent or up to no good and you shared or uploaded those pics. Then problems can occur even if they are criminals.

Again I don't know so bear with me.

How so?

If someone is on a trail camera then they're on land you own/have permission to be on (otherwise you're in trouble yourself for putting it there). If its public land they have no right to privacy, but on private land, perhaps. However I suppose it depends on whether the person has the right to be there in the first place, and to what extent their image is shared.

You put the image on social media, well that seems to be ok. You put them on an advertising or other commercial site then you have issues.

As for security cameras that has to be a different ball of wax altogether. Those images, by the very definition of the camera, security, are designed to monitor private lands so you have no right to be on it and hence expectation of privacy on it?

All the above are more question orientated than statement of fact, btw.

Bog Trotter99

Cass wrote: »

Again I don't know so bear with me.

How so?

If someone is on a trail camera then they're on land you own/have permission to be on (otherwise you're in trouble yourself for putting it there). If its public land they have no right to privacy, but on private land, perhaps. However I suppose it depends on whether the person has the right to be there in the first place, and to what extent their image is shared.

You put the image on social media, well that seems to be ok. You put them on an advertising or other commercial site then you have issues.

As for security cameras that has to be a different ball of wax altogether. Those images, by the very definition of the camera, security, are designed to monitor private lands so you have no right to be on it and hence expectation of privacy on it?

All the above are more question orientated than statement of fact, btw.

I think because it is very simple and very complicated. That was then. But I think there is more data protection laws which are being discussed at moment and that is the big or bigger problem. I was told if they go through then it knocks a lot of camera related stuff on the head.

Regards whether anybody is supposed to be there or not. I think they still have rights. Dunno why if they are a crim.

Cass

Project Veritas released a three part expose on CNN in April of this year (their second in a few years). The interesting part was CNN top execs saying on [hidden] camera that they would push "climate fear" as it would last for years and fear sells.

A couple of days ago CNN had the US energy secretary on their show discussing the condo collapse in Florida and CNN poised the question "could climate change has contributed to the buildings collapse". The energy secretary tried to side step the question with vague/non commital answers.

Needless to say people were not impressed and the "news" agency was flooded with angry calls and complaints for politcising the tragedy.

Richard308

Rows Grower wrote: »

Why people continue to live in a country they don't like or even despise baffles me, surely there must be some other country that will provide the same benefits with less of the laws you don't agree with.

It would surely be common sense to go somewhere that makes you happy.

Being honest I’d like a better climate, after that we all whinge about governments, no matter what country you live in.

We have just and balanced laws. (Right obviously there are exceptions). But compared to other countries I think we do ok.

Plus I’m very lucky I’m from Cork. ðŸ˜

Rows Grower

Cass wrote: »

Project Veritas released a three part expose on CNN in April of this year (their second in a few years). The interesting part was CNN top execs saying on [hidden] camera that they would push "climate fear" as it would last for years and fear sells.

A couple of days ago CNN had the US energy secretary on their show discussing the condo collapse in Florida and CNN poised the question "could climate change has contributed to the buildings collapse". The energy secretary tried to side step the question with vague/non commital answers.

Needless to say people were not impressed and the "news" agency was flooded with angry calls and complaints for politcising the tragedy.

Never heard of Project Veritas before now, I'd say CNN are bricking themselves.

Grizzly 45

Rows Grower wrote: »

Never heard of Project Veritas before now, I'd say CNN are bricking themselves.

Planned Parenthood,CNN and a few others certainly are.:)


https://www.uncoveredtruth.org/what-is-project-veritas/

Cass

Rows Grower wrote: »

Never heard of Project Veritas before now,

Perhaps you just don't remember is all. There was discussion of them 2 months ago, 7 months ago, and a year ago. You thanked a post almost directly after the mention of them from 2 months ago, and posted almost directly after the mention of them from 7 months ago.

I'd say CNN are bricking themselves.

Doubt it. Nothing came from their previous exposé so I doubt anything will come from this other than a further reduction in viewing numbers.

Rows Grower

Cass wrote: »

Perhaps you just don't remember is all. There was discussion of them 2 months ago, 7 months ago, and a year ago. You thanked a post almost directly after the mention of them from 2 months ago, and posted almost directly after the mention of them from 7 months ago.

Doubt it. Nothing came from their previous exposé so I doubt anything will come from this other than a further reduction in viewing numbers.

Not sure how you're confused but as I said never heard of them before now.

You seem to be quite a fan of them.

Cass

Rows Grower wrote: »

Not sure how you're confused but as I said never heard of them before now.

Fair enough if you don't remember. Its no biggie.

You seem to be quite a fan of them.

M'eh. Only really hear of them when something like this hits the headlines of other, more established, media.

Grizzly 45

Bog Trotter99 wrote: »

I think you may be wrong there Mellor. Even if you can get away with taking sombodys image publicly in Ireland, what you do with it afterwards is problematic.

You do not have an expectation of privacy in a public place, nor is there any comeback on it being used commercially. As nowadays anyone with a camera and a YT or FB can claim "citizen journalism" and can put it up for public viewing.

I think it all now falls under the data protection act.

I think if cameras on private record on public. Then that can be an issue. Also I think you are restricted on what you record on private property regards third party persons. This refers what you do with and how you store that data (vid/pics). I think that is how it goes here in nutty land.

To a point,if your CCTV is covering your neighbours property or the like,then yes you are violating privacy.If it is covering your entranceway off a public road and your yard and the area around a private residence, you are good to go. IF your property is open to the public but semi-private.IE you are running a garage out of your backyard,then it is a requirement to inform anyone that enters that there is CCTV on the property.

Putting up a covert cam to catch a crime being committed is also good irrespective of the location.Be it outside as a trailcam for poaching,a covert cam in an old folks home to catch elder abuse,or a nursery cam. Provided you have suspicion of abuse,or a crime being comitted.

Anyway forgetting all that the universal world law I think states that if somebody poses or acts for you in a photograph or video then you need to get them to sign a 'model release' agreement.

For financial gain on both parties part ASFIK.

This gives you permission to do whatever agreed with such video/pics. If you do not get this signed then you could be open to costs.

Its also a good escape clause for being caught with an escort.Italians have been using it for decades. you will find plenty of " amateur adult models" in Italy ,no call girls. Any money changing hands is for "acting in an amateur adult film";)

So if you are using members of the public as your actors or models then is there a line being crossed?

The definition is "actors" IE people agreeing to play a part in some film or whatever, usually for financial gain. A street scene of the public going about their business isn't acting, likewise a demonstration in a public place inst "acting" unless it's choreographed for a film or the like. Like getting groups of kids to hug each other after a school shooting, by offering them 300 Euros as happened in Germany in Winniden:mad: Drove the townspeople nuts that the Press sank that low to try and get some sort of dramatic pics on that tragic event.

Where it gets tricky is where minors are involved.as you cant film or photo a minor without a parents consent.Its why RTE usually shows kids feet walking about the place if it comes to some reports about children in schools etc.

So say,you are doing an insurance investigation as a PI here. and the parent is claiming some sort of injury,and you spot them heaving their kids about at a burger joint party. You wait until they come outside with a group and video them playing on the swings.Job done! Nope!!! now you have to go and pixillate out all the non-involved parties faces and minors faces and any irrelevant car registrations in the lot they might have passed,as this is now going to be court evidence of a possible crime, non-parties are and have to be excluded from the evidence footage.
Another reason I quit working as a PI here,the legislation on this is becoming more and more convoluted and a double edged sword for and against fraudsters,privacy advocation groups and people employed to detect and investigate crimes on a non LE level.

Even so showing someone in what they may is 'not an acceptable light' by 'their' terms may possibly go the wrong way for the pic/vid taker.

I think also buildings/structures can have Copywrite applied to them. This means I think you would have to pay the Copywrite owners royalties for using such in photos and videos.

The owners of such buildings have to state such publically, and it is pretty difficult if not impossible to enforce from the outside,or above these days with Google Earth,and with some in Google 3D.

IE you taking a pic of the Fam outside Buckingham palace on your hols in London. You'll be more likely harassed by the Plod,as it "might be of use to a terrorist organisation" under Sect 50 of the UKs prevention of Terrorism act" if they wanted to be cnuts about it..This applies more if you are off making say a video or the like and using a famous,or a not so famous place as a backdrop or inside shots.

It's been a long time since I did photography and extra laws apply in certain countries etc. So I am not 100% on this stuff. So you had better check things out

.

That's always advisable,esp in some countries where anything govt or military or otherwise sensitive is best not photographed overtly.

Good rule of thumb is;
If it involves kids,tread very carefully or walk away.
If it is being done for money on your and /or someone else's part, make sure you have the legal bits right.
Photographing/filming someone in a public place is providing you are not blocking the subject from going on their way is legal

Photographing/filming a private house, etc from a public road is legal. Hiring a cherry picker to look in over their 14-foot privacy hedge or flying a drone into their property to peek in the curtains is not.
You also can photograph from a public place anyone[bar minors*] in PLAIN VIEW of the public place in a compromising position or state. IOW if famous you and missus decide to get it on in full public view in front of your house,you cant expect to claim your privacy was violated if the pics make the Screws of the World tomorrow.:)

* Unless it happens to be that you are recording for evidence of a crime against said minor on a happenstance basis. [IE a parent walloping the Hell out of a kid ,or sexual abuse,etc ]

Grizzly 45

But if I publish those photos on a website called “ugly people of Dublin”. Then now it’s an issue.

You owe me a new keyboard Mellor!Snorted my beer all over it reading that!:D:D:D

Grizzly 45

Bog Trotter99 wrote: »

Things change. What can be acceptable now can change when those who are in power change things to suit themselves without any thought or consideration towards the people they are supposed to be serving.

For instance if a today government introduces new taxes to pay for their follys and the population en-mass of a large percentage do not agree.

Then by your saying of 'leave'.........A million people pack their bags.

This country would collapse and where would they go?

By staying they can vote against such an idiotic dictatorship and stop those people.

I think that is called democracy.


"A people get the Govt they deserve"
Ben Franklin


Now there’s one thing you might have noticed i don’t complain about: politicians. everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well where do people think these politicians come from? They don’t fall out of the sky. They don’t pass through a membrane from “another reality”. They come from American parents, and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses, and American universities. And they’re elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It’s what our system produces: Garbage in. Garbage out. If you have selfish ignorant citizens… If you have selfish ignorant citizens, you’re going to get selfish ignorant leaders. And term-limits ain’t going to do you any good. You’re just going to wind up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So maybe… maybe… MAYBE, it’s not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here like: “THE PUBLIC”. Yeah the public sucks. There’s a nice campaign slogan for somebody: “the public sucks, **** hope”. **** hope. Because if it’s really just the fault of these politicians, then where are all the other bright people of conscience? Where are all the bright, honest, intelligent Americans ready to step in and save the nation and lead the way? We don’t have people like that in this country.

George Carlin

Bog Trotter99

Here is one for the mess of photography laws.

What if your trail cam or security cam catches someone, a person, uninvited in an uncompromising situation on your property, say relieving themselves with their bits on show.

Work that one out.

Bog Trotter99

Ever since I was a kid they have been banging on about the sea levels rising.

Since that time.........I haven't seen the sea levels rise an inch or any islands disappear or any towns and cities washed away.