Why is Ireland living in the Dark Ages ?

AnCatDubh · 26-11-2008 7:54pm

Anouilh wrote: »

I tried, and failed to make a neat <a href link, but it did not work. Apologies for the untidyness.

If you go into the advanced mode of the editor highlight the text and click the

button. Paste in your link and hey presto! Tis done.

AnCatDubh · 26-11-2008 8:17pm

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Its a moot point anyway, seeing as the Flickr servers aren't even in the same jurisdiction :cool:

Tis a good point, mind you does that mean that every photographer should be registered as data controllers with the data protection commissioner.

Then if uploading to flickr, picassa web albums, etc.. take a read of this;

From the Data Protection Commissioners Website

Transferring Personal data Abroad

An area of concern for many data controllers are the requirements necessary for the transfer of data abroad. There are special conditions that have to be met before transferring personal data outside the European Economic Area (all EU countries plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein), where the importing country does not have an EU approved level of data protection law. This is termed a finding of adequacy. In such a case, one of the following conditions must be met if a transfer is to take place. Either the transfer must be:
consented to by the data subject; or

required or authorised under an enactment, convention or other instrument imposing an international obligation on this State; or

necessary for the performance of a contract between the data controller and the data subject; or

necessary for the taking of steps at the request of the data subject with a view to his or her entering into a contract with the data controller; or

necessary for the conclusion of a contract between the data controller and a third party, that is entered into at the request of the data subject and is in the interests of the data subject, or for the performance of such a contract; or

necessary for the purpose of obtaining legal advice; or

necessary to urgently prevent injury or damage to the health of a data subject; or

part of the personal data held on a public register; or

authorised by the Data Protection Commissioner, which is normally the approval of a contract which is based on EU model contracts or the transfer is by a US company which is certified as what is known as Safe Harbor compliant.1

As the legislation on the transfer of data abroad is complex, where doubt arises it is advisable for persons to contact this Office in order to seek guidance on specific cases.

1. This is a certification programme overseen by the US Department of Commerce which allows certain US based companies to self certify as having an adequate level of data protection that meets US standards and consequently personal data can be transferred without the need for recourse to the EU Model contracts

Are flickr a 'safe harbour'??????

I think there are practical limitations here but does it mean that subjects in what the law (copyright) considers your photographs now has some power that they may exercise should they come across their image on your page?

All very complicated methinks.

democrates · 27-11-2008 6:32am

AnCatDubh wrote: »

Tis a good point, mind you does that mean that every photographer should be registered as data controllers with the data protection commissioner.
...
Are flickr a 'safe harbour'??????

I think there are practical limitations here but does it mean that subjects in what the law (copyright) considers your photographs now has some power that they may exercise should they come across their image on your page?

All very complicated methinks.

Tricky ok. Ianal but let's say it's only a matter of time before the face of a non-consenting subject is taken from say a flickr photo and misused. If the injured party seeks redress, who is to blame?

The party who misused the photo may or may not be traceable, but regardless or what happens there, the prosecution may also seek to establish who has been negligent in exercising a duty of care.

The photo hosting company may be covered by t&c's even though they don't exercise as much care as stock photo hosters who demand model release forms.

Again regardless of that the prosecution may also go after the photographer who let's say is also the person who posted the image online. The defence I'd imagine (concocted based on points made here more precisely) would be that the chances of misuse are miniscule, no harm was intended, and the alternative of never doing this was not considered to be a reasonable restriction of liberty. A landmark ruling may be followed by legislation that changes the situation.

As for safe harbour, rate my teacher seems to be surviving ok, but while that may protect the content has it protected the posters against any libel cases does anyone know?

Anouilh · 05-12-2008 1:01pm

I have started thinking about the gender issues involved in this subject.

Women are usually not seen as threatening, even with a zoom lens, whereas I read that many news photo-journalists, male, get into scrapes on the street.

I walk around quite happily with my camera, snapping scenes that seem to express the moment or capturing a nice outfit on the street. Some men have explained that they tend to carry their cameras low down, often hidden by a coat, to avoid public scrutiny.

I have to admit I find much of this very entertaining.

asdasd · 05-12-2008 1:09pm

I dont want to throw a spanner in the works guys, but as a non-photographer I welcome the data protection act. otherwise CC footage could be posted on the internet for snoopers to watch what people are doing around the city. We could snoop on each other. And cc footage is mostly privately owned as far as I can see.

That cant be allowed.

Paulw · 05-12-2008 1:16pm

asdasd wrote: »

I dont want to throw a spanner in the works guys, but as a non-photographer I welcome the data protection act.

CCTV is very different from photography.

I'd say that the majority of photography is either artistic or it's editorial, and hence it's outside the Data Protection Act. Also, since there is no case law on this issue, it's still open to interpretation.

John · 05-12-2008 1:19pm

This isn't CCTV footage though, that's a different kettle of fish entirely. This is about being able to take photos (i.e. an artform) and possible problems with shooting in certain places (even if you're not taking a picture of someone but a building they are walking by for example).

asdasd · 05-12-2008 1:24pm

This is about being able to take photos (i.e. an artform) and possible problems with shooting in certain places (even if you're not taking a picture of someone but a building they are walking by for example).

sure i understand. just pointing out that in general the Data protection act has some merit.

Cabaal · 05-12-2008 1:27pm

Anouilh wrote: »

I have started thinking about the gender issues involved in this subject.

Women are usually not seen as threatening, even with a zoom lens, whereas I read that many news photo-journalists, male, get into scrapes on the street.

I walk around quite happily with my camera, snapping scenes that seem to express the moment or capturing a nice outfit on the street. Some men have explained that they tend to carry their cameras low down, often hidden by a coat, to avoid public scrutiny.

I have to admit I find much of this very entertaining.

Have to agree with aspects of this, men are certainly more likely to be question when taking photos out in public, streets etc

democrates · 05-12-2008 1:32pm

Anouilh wrote: »

I have started thinking about the gender issues involved in this subject.

Women are usually not seen as threatening, even with a zoom lens, whereas I read that many news photo-journalists, male, get into scrapes on the street.

I walk around quite happily with my camera, snapping scenes that seem to express the moment or capturing a nice outfit on the street. Some men have explained that they tend to carry their cameras low down, often hidden by a coat, to avoid public scrutiny.

I have to admit I find much of this very entertaining.

Anouilh, long may you have an easy time of it, I'm sure you wish the same for all.

Fajitas! · 05-12-2008 1:39pm

asdasd wrote: »

I dont want to throw a spanner in the works guys, but as a non-photographer I welcome the data protection act. otherwise CC footage could be posted on the internet for snoopers to watch what people are doing around the city. We could snoop on each other. And cc footage is mostly privately owned as far as I can see.

That cant be allowed.

Apart from the fact you can see a lot of CCTV cameras online... I've seen myself go home on traffic cameras before (They refresh every ten minutes)...

Anouilh wrote: »

I have started thinking about the gender issues involved in this subject.

Women are usually not seen as threatening, even with a zoom lens, whereas I read that many news photo-journalists, male, get into scrapes on the street.

I walk around quite happily with my camera, snapping scenes that seem to express the moment or capturing a nice outfit on the street. Some men have explained that they tend to carry their cameras low down, often hidden by a coat, to avoid public scrutiny.

I have to admit I find much of this very entertaining.

Might try heading out and shooting in drag...

Anouilh · 05-12-2008 1:39pm

Of course I do, democrates.

I think that life is difficult enough without splitting hairs on this subject.

Many of the best photographers of the 20th Century would not be able to do the work that brought them fame if they were trying to manage in today's society I think.

My amusement (BTW) is not at the expense of people who are seriously trying to document social issues. It is a very demanding job.

Dragan · 05-12-2008 1:39pm

Paulw wrote: »

Oh you're permitted to take photos in public, that's not being disputed. But, how you use the images then falls under the Data Protection Act, and you seemingly can't use an image where someone is identifiable, without their expressed consent.

I'd love to have a legal (solicitor's) view on this issue. Usage as opposed to the right to take the photo.

But this makes no sense when you have crowd reaction shots in newspapers and news items on tv from the street with people walking along in the background. It all seems a bit grey area to me.

I have had one or two bad reactions when i was out with my camera.

One day on O Connell Street i was happily taking some shots and a guy walks up to me and tells me i can't take his picture. I told him i wasn't taking his picture, there is no problem.

He then told me he wanted my camera, i told him know. He told me to prove i had not taking his picture and i told him he was out and about, if he ended up in one of my shots simply by being out and about it was not my problem.

He then became quite aggressive and reached for my camera. At his point i just slung it back under my arm out of his reach. He then grabbed my shoulder which was my breaking point so a quick arm lock later he was desperate for me to let go. I told him i felt under threat and that he was trying to take my camera i would need to perform a citizens arrest.

He wanted none of it and apologise, i let go of his arm and off he went. He obviously had his reasons for reacting in such a manner but **** him.

If anyone asks me politely to delete something they are in I will happily do it. The above is the wrong tactic to take, especially with me.

I tend to push back.

Anouilh · 05-12-2008 1:42pm

Might try heading out and shooting in drag...

[/QUOTE]

I wear jeans most of the time. There's more to the feminine
mystique than meets the eye, y'know.

Fajitas! · 05-12-2008 1:43pm

Brave man to be taking you on Dragan, I wouldn't be so quick to step up to you

Anouilh · 05-12-2008 1:45pm

Dragan wrote: »

I told him i felt under threat and that he was trying to take my camera i would need to perform a citizens arrest.

That is a truly frightening story.

O'Connell Street seems safer these days than it used be, but I tend to move quickly there.

Paulw · 05-12-2008 1:45pm

Dragan wrote: »

But this makes no sense when you have crowd reaction shots in newspapers and news items on tv from the street with people walking along in the background. It all seems a bit grey area to me.

TV, newspapers, etc are exempt, due to editorial clauses.

It's a very interesting situation indeed.

Anouilh · 05-12-2008 1:46pm

Paulw wrote: »

TV, newspapers, etc are exempt, due to editorial clauses.

It's a very interesting situation indeed.

One good reason to join the Freelance Branch of the NUJ, perhaps?

Dragan · 05-12-2008 1:52pm

Fajitas! wrote: »

Brave man to be taking you on Dragan, I wouldn't be so quick to step up to you

Well the average person will tend to falter in the face of agression, and i can only assume he had his reasons to not be seen anywhere, even accidentally in a photograph?

Besides, you can safely bet on very few people being willing to come to your aid in a situation like that on the street so the advantage is normally with the agressive party.

He just picked the wrong photographer!

Calina · 05-12-2008 1:53pm

I'd value TJM's input to this to be honest.

As it happens, while Flickr's servers are outside the jurisdiction, it is my understanding that pix.ie's are not so Marcus might have a view on the subject

There have been a couple of high profile cases involving the misuse of Flickr photographs, a) in Australia on a mobile phone ad and b) in America on a DVD cover (at work so details on that one I can't go into).

There are issues relating to the posting of party photographs - for example - on services like FaceBook that would have an impact also.

Anouilh · 05-12-2008 2:00pm

Calina wrote: »

Flickr's servers are outside the jurisdiction

There have been a couple of high profile cases involving the misuse of Flickr photographs, a) in Australia on a mobile phone ad and b) in America on a DVD cover (at work so details on that one I can't go into).

There are issues relating to the posting of party photographs - for example - on services like FaceBook that would have an impact also.

In fact, Flickr is very strict.

Anybody who breaks the law in their own jurisdiction is liable to have their Flickr account terminated.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/flick_off/discuss/72157594460647749/

Phototoxin · 05-12-2008 5:28pm

Well the average person will tend to falter in the face of agression, and i can only assume he had his reasons to not be seen anywhere, even accidentally in a photograph?

Besides, you can safely bet on very few people being willing to come to your aid in a situation like that on the street so the advantage is normally with the agressive party.

He just picked the wrong photographer!

Fair play, GO FOR THE EYES !!

The only photo I ever had to delete was one of a security station in the EU HQ. I've happily snapped pictures of the BNP though with much glee.

Latchy · 05-12-2008 5:34pm

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

They're (perhaps deliberately) confusing the terms here. There's a lot of private property thats currently being sort of re-branded as 'public space' by gentle and caring developers and corporations. The 'Square' in the new 'Dundrum town centre' for example is a case in point. Its been given all the trappings of a 'town centre', and some effort has been made to appropriate the terminology (I actually cringe when I hear it refered to as 'dundrum town centre' on the Luas) in order to try and grab all those warm homely associations that we all have. Most decidedly a private space though, try demonstrating there, or taking pictures after someone in authority tells you to stop.

I actually on a vist last year to the Dundrum shopping centre took some digi pics of the place and was informed by security i had to ask for permission to do so ( which i was unaware of ) .I had taken my quota by then anyway so left alone ( I did post a couple in the bar on here a while back ) .

mehfesto2 · 05-12-2008 5:50pm

latchyco wrote: »

I actually on a vist last year to the Dundrum shopping centre took some digi pics of the place and was informed by security i had to ask for permission to do so ( which i was unaware of ) .I had taken my quota by then anyway so left alone ( I did post a couple in the bar on here a while back ) .

I had the same problem in Stephens Green Park before.

But the worst was on Grafton Street when that RTE programme Annonymous, where they dress people up as 'auld wans' etc. It was being filmed outside Bewleys and I saw this orange bloke who was quite obviously that camp Irish lad from Big Brother years back and I lifted my camera only to be shouted at by a woman with a headset on the otherside of the street. I got a bit embarrassed and walked off. I was so pissed off when I copped they'd no right to do so.

Thoie · 05-12-2008 6:32pm

Dragan wrote: »

I tend to push back.

I'm such a girl - I don't push back - I just scream incredibly loudly instead. Whoever said that people don't pay any attention to screaming just isn't doing it right. Of course, sometimes when you're screaming you can accidentally break someone's nose. But that's a whole other story. The last three people who tried to mug me (separately) were ultimately unhappy with their choice of victim. I can't imagine I'd be any happier if they were "just" trying to take my camera.

democrates · 05-12-2008 7:07pm

Thoie wrote: »

I'm such a girl - I don't push back - I just scream incredibly loudly instead. Whoever said that people don't pay any attention to screaming just isn't doing it right. Of course, sometimes when you're screaming you can accidentally break someone's nose. But that's a whole other story. The last three people who tried to mug me (separately) were ultimately unhappy with their choice of victim. I can't imagine I'd be any happier if they were "just" trying to take my camera.

I could could scream like Ned Flanders before I smoked, could probably still stave off attackers with my rendition of Delilah though.

You bring a good dose of perspective, the solo female photographer likely feels a lot more vulnerable than solo guys. I tend to be conscious of potential danger on night shoots, the back path up killiney hill when I forget the torch and could see bog all being the most recent. You don't know who's lurking around the shadows at that hour.

Phototoxin · 05-12-2008 8:11pm

But the worst was on Grafton Street when that RTE programme Annonymous, where they dress people up as 'auld wans' etc. It was being filmed outside Bewleys and I saw this orange bloke who was quite obviously that camp Irish lad from Big Brother years back and I lifted my camera only to be shouted at by a woman with a headset on the otherside of the street. I got a bit embarrassed and walked off. I was so pissed off when I copped they'd no right to do so.

yeah they think that they are the only ones able to point a camera in my limited experience.

Anouilh · 05-12-2008 10:13pm

People are generally very pleasant in public places and, judging from this thread, not shy about having their photos taken.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/streetphotography/interesting/

There is one nice aspect to Dublin life.
We must have the most good humoured street performers in the World:

http://moderntwist2.blogspot.com/2008/12/sunday-afternoon-in-town.html#links

RCNPhotos · 05-12-2008 10:20pm

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

??!? This is, afaik, completely untrue. Not only can I upload them to flickr, I can do off a bunch of prints, hold an exhibition, and even SELL the things without once even INFORMING the people involved that they're involved, let alone granting them rights with regard to the work. Or is my understanding completely skewed in this regard ????!?

Actually it's fairly true. There was a big discussion on the radio about this recently. Without their permission you can't upload them to say flickr etc. You can however sell em to a newspaper to be splashed everywhere. It's mad but it's the law.

Anouilh · 05-12-2008 10:33pm

There are plenty of links to discussions that clarify the situation:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/candidphotos/discuss/72157604615431667/

http://www.flickr.com/groups/yorkuk/discuss/72157604140527333/#comment72157605428252922

It's not worth getting too neurotic.

Why is Ireland living in the Dark Ages ?

Comments