If someone asks you to delete an image of them, do you oblige?

By 'imaging' I assume you mean 'photographing'. I can't, as I'd have caught their likeness indelibly* on film, but if someone asked me not to share it or upload it I'd probable accede to their request.

*well, not 'indelibly' but it'd be a little difficult to 'delete' the one shot from a roll of film without screwing up the entire roll...

I shoot digital and I would certainly delete a photo if asked in a polite way.

Last time I was asked it ended up me bringing the offended person to O'Connell Street Garda station and them getting run out of the building.

So simple answer?

No.

GarIT wrote: »

Why do photographers have so much power? IMO it should be a criminal offence not to delete images one is requested to. If it was me I would always delete them. Could you not just take a picture of the same thing again without the person in it?

what if your picture is of the person ??

humberklog wrote: »

I'm a bit out of the debate as I only use film, however could you begin to imagine the amount of pictures of historical and social importance that simply wouldn't exist if a person in the frame had a say in whether the picture was destroyed or not. And what of the pap and gossip mags? And what of newspapers? Blank...an important tool in society rendered half meaningless.

Swans and sunsets and milky water. No more reveal.

The photographers would just have to learn to wait until an area was clear to take a picture. I don't think they shouldn't be able to take pictures with people in them, but they shouldn't be able to keep a picture when someone in it wants it deleted. I don't think I've ever seen an important picture, some may look nice but I don't see what we would lose without them.

Paparazzi are bad and generally gossip mags are too, newspapers would still have the words that actually mean things and they could still use pictures too just not ones where someone objects to it. If you think about the pictures that any morally correct newspaper uses they wouldn't be affected at all.

Also taking pictures that include anyone under 18 should be completely illegal without the prior consent of the parents.

mdebets wrote: »

And how do you think journalism would work then without pictures?
And celebrities would be the first ones to complain if there weren't any pictures of them in the papers and on TV.

They can use pictures where nobody in the picture has an objection to it. They won't go without pictures, the majority of photographs have consenting people in it. Also with modern technology people can be cropped out of a photograph, or you can cut off the edges to get rid of people you don't need.

Celebrities would generally consent to their picture being used, but they would also have the power to have a picture destroyed if someone takes a picture up their skirt.

GarIT wrote: »

The photographers would just have to learn to wait until an area was clear to take a picture. I don't think they shouldn't be able to take pictures with people in them, but they shouldn't be able to keep a picture when someone in it wants it deleted. I don't think I've ever seen an important picture, some may look nice but I don't see what we would lose without them.

Paparazzi are bad and generally gossip mags are too, newspapers would still have the words that actually mean things and they could still use pictures too just not ones where someone objects to it. If you think about the pictures that any morally correct newspaper uses they wouldn't be affected at all.

Also taking pictures that include anyone under 18 should be completely illegal without the prior consent of the parents.

so you are saying if a paedo or child porn merchant or rapist doesn't want his/her photo taken they should have the right to have the photographer delete it .... ha !

or to use your own suggestion ... a"morally correct newspaper" image ... lets say a sports person doesn't want their image used because they lost a fight or behaved like an idiot (wreckless challenge or ran after the ref with a corner flag) .... should they not have their image printed ??

or at what point do they stop the image - sometimes images are sent from ringside/pitchside seconds/minutes after they are taken ... should a GAA/Football player run around to every photographer and say dont use a pic of me !!

Absolutely, delete, no questions asked.

One exception if asked to by a Garda in the course of their duty. Then I wouldn't.

If you take a picture of any person in a public place that picture is your property.

GarIT wrote: »

Yes, not by any random photographer. The Gardaí should issue pictures of any convicted criminals though for public safety.

but what about sports personalities, musicians, business execs, politicians !!

I agree that the Gardai should issue images to the media on conviction of ALL criminals.

I have to alter what I said after the discussion here. I think that it should be illegal to be in possession of a picture where someone who is clearly visible and is alive has formally objected to the existence of the picture.