firefly212: Waldo Pepper: firefly212: MNguy: I understand, if you step outside of your house you are likely on camera. I don't have to like it.I don't think anyone expects you to "like" it... but your attitude of "why does the big office building have pictures of me, if not to masturbate furiously to them?" is quite bewildering. Your picture is taken hundreds of times a day, in big groups, even more... think about the Boston Marathon Bombing, when they did the investigation there... the guys were there for a few minutes, but they were captured in literally tens of thousands of still and moving images. It wasn't because the surrounding crowd was all planning on masturbating to pictures of them later, like dirty pervs... but because they had the ability to take pictures when/how/where they wanted, and the bombers made themselves available to be photographed. Your argument about privacy indicates that none of those photographs should have existed, everyone should have asked the people in their photos, including the bombers themselves, if they had consent first.By all means, if someone is stalking, harassing, or attempting to get underskirt or in house photos of you and your family, report it to law enforcement so it can be dealt with appropriately. That said if someone is taking pictures of the public park, and you and your family stroll through, no... you don't get to tell them they have to destroy the pictures or anything like that. When I lived in NYC, some of my favorite spots to hang out were in Central Park, and often photographed, it would be insane of me to think that I had some sort of privacy right to tell other people that they were not permitted (or should not be permitted) to photograph the bridge merely because of my presence.when I go to the beach I feel everything is free to shoot but not everything is free to post online. A lot of what photographers are shooting is just learning their craft, also candid street photography is a well known and accepted art f ...
MNguy: You're not an attorney, stop trying to be.
MNguy: Really, you're a jackass.
Noticeably F.A.T.: MNguy: You're not an attorney, stop trying to be.That really wasn't as clever as it sounded in your head.MNguy: Really, you're a jackass.That may be, but I'm also correct. Again, I can still see what you've typed. I don't have to make shiat up to show that you've been incorrect, inconsistent and antagonistic. I just have to scroll up and copy & paste. If you don't like people pointing out that you can't put together a decent argument to save your life, the internet is a really poor place to argue. Try your local local hospital, I'm sure they have some coma patients who won't counter your arguments.
MNguy: You're right, but the line gets drawn where? Can anyone just start taking pictures and fapping?
Noticeably F.A.T.: MNguy: You're right, but the line gets drawn where? Can anyone just start taking pictures and fapping?Yes, as long as the fapping doesn't take place in public (though that has nothing to do with privacy laws). Don't like that? Talk to your local lawmakers and get the laws changed. But don't come here and say that it's illegal to do something just because you think it should be, especially when it so easily proven that you're wrong.
DirkTheDaring: Waldo Pepper: I can take a photo of a gorgeous girl at the beach but once I try to sell it I'm violating her rights to her image, unless I have her permissionIf that were true, TMZ wouldn't exist.
Noticeably F.A.T.: CAPS LOCK DOESN'T CHANGE LAWS.
phyrkrakr: DirkTheDaring: Waldo Pepper: I can take a photo of a gorgeous girl at the beach but once I try to sell it I'm violating her rights to her image, unless I have her permissionIf that were true, TMZ wouldn't exist.It's not exactly true. What you guys are talking about are "publicity rights" which are a tricky area that has a lot of caselaw behind it. There's no standard nationwide as far as what constitutes publicity rights, and there's also first amendment questions which enter into the analysis. A quick example: I take a picture of a gorgeous girl at the beach, then frame it and hang it in my photography gallery - I'm probably fine. I take a picture of a gorgeous girl at the beach and use it in an ad for whatever beach-related crap I'm hawking - I'm probably violating her publicity rights by falsely implying she's endorsing my product.In other words, people have a (property) right to their own image, but I also have a copyright to art I create capturing that image. There's a balance between the two that's pretty complicated. And it's also how EA gets away with putting college kids and old athletes in its games without paying them, like when Jim Brown sued them over using a black running back wearing #32 on the All-Browns historic team in Madden and lost.
MNguy: derp derp derp.
MNguy: Oh, your pretty little face couldn't come up with an ad .hominem, but I'm sure you tried
MNguy: Look, there is public and private. If you're going to defend the exploitation of the private there's nothing I can do for you.
Sin_City_Superhero: MNguy: Look, there is public and private. If you're going to defend the exploitation of the private there's nothing I can do for you.Too bad you can't seem to figure out that when you're in PUBLIC, you have no expectation of PRIVACY.
MNguy: Sin_City_Superhero: ad hominem attacks.Show me one.
MNguy: You're not an attorney, stop trying to be. Really, you're a jackass.
Waldo Pepper: MNguy: Waldo Pepper:are you saying taking a photo of child who isn't your own kid is child pornography..I'm saying you shouldn't take a picture of a kid who isn't yours, yes. Are you saying that you should?you have no clue what child pornography is do you?
Sin_City_Superhero: MNguy: Sin_City_Superhero: ad hominem attacks.Show me one.MNguy: You're not an attorney, stop trying to be. Really, you're a jackass.There's one right there. Not to mention the countless accusations you've made that everyone in here is a pedo or a rapist.
MNguy: Well, how about fark off, and you'd best not start snapping pics of me and my family creep
MNguy: You are an attorney? No, you are not, and you are trying to come across as one.
Sin_City_Superhero: MNguy: Well, how about fark off, and you'd best not start snapping pics of me and my family creepOr what? You'll cry about it on the internet? Woooo!
MNguy: I don't doth nothing except I'd rather not have my kids be exploited. But hey, to each their own
MNguy: What did I say that was wrong?
MNguy: farking right her privacy was violated. It's like taking upskirt videos at the mall.
MNguy: F.A.T has kind of argued that it's ok.
MNguy: You are defending child pornography,
MNguy: You seem to be in favor of really disgusting practices.
MNguy: F.A.T may be the biggest jackoff I've ever seen on here.
Waldo Pepper: from wiki The Hollywood Chamber of Commerce claims trademark rights over the sign's image and demands license fees for commercial use
MNguy: I'm sorry that F.A.T is a moran.
Waldo Pepper: I understand editorial and I agree except if she lands on the cover as it could be argued that her likeness is being used to sell the magazine (think non famous person on the cover of time).
Waldo Pepper: it might be difficult to get that model release from MN to clean for his taste
Noticeably F.A.T.: MNguy: I'm sorry that F.A.T is a moran.More ad hominem, huh?
MNguy: that was the first one, tard
Guadior42: DirkTheDaring: Repetitive attack ad hominem does not make a clever troll. It just makes a boring one.This is why I ignored him quite some time ago. You can only take so much repetitive idiocy.
Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Man, this is one of the worst Fark meltdowns I've seen year.
Waldo Pepper: fanbladesaresharp: Guadior42: DirkTheDaring: Repetitive attack ad hominem does not make a clever troll. It just makes a boring one.This is why I ignored him quite some time ago. You can only take so much repetitive idiocy.Yes but I'm sure he'll try and one-up you on that. He states in his profile that his ignore list is up to 1000 people now. Because that's serious business, and you farking pedos need to be informed!!!!Look MN, are you going to troll EVERY thread this week, or just this one? We need to plan our boredom around that.I'm surprised he didn't join the pixar threads and accuse those who go to pixar movies without having kids as being pedo
Want to see behind the curtain? Try
It's how we feed the squirrel
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Oct 17 2017 13:41:53
Runtime: 0.481 sec (480 ms)