Posting photos of A2K members: let's talk about guidelines.

speechless here

0 Replies

Ack, that was perhaps worded too harshly, sorry. Anyway I think my take is clear enough as well as rather irrelevant, so I'll give y'all a break now - instead, read this nice anecdote for more of a comic relief ;-)

0 Replies

When we all calm down, I suspect it will be agreed that photographers have the right to make decisions,
as do prospective photographees,
that nobody need stay away from gatherings for fear of photographs of them being posted when they do not wish them to be,
and that we have greatly appreciated the efforts of photographers so far.

0 Replies

That all sounds good to me.

For what it's worth, I'll add that as a frequent clamorer for pictures, I adore word-pictures as well -- a gathering with no photos but lots of well-told stories would be lovely, too.

0 Replies

I agree with Deb.

To digress slightly....I've been thinking about how long photos should stay up on A2K. I'm not entirely comfortable with some of them being on here permanently, particularly those of children. I wonder if there's an easy way to take them off later, since we can't edit posts once someone has replied. And I certainly wouldn't want us to add to the site administrators' workload by constantly asking them to delete old pics. Perhaps if we delete our photo from photobucket or Raven's Realm or whatever site we used originally, the link here would then become inactive? Would that work?

0 Replies

That's what I typically do. Use Photobucket, and delete the photo from my album there after a while. (I haven't been able to do it with ImageShack 'cause I haven't been able to find 'em again to delete, but I think you can if you're a member.)

0 Replies

Flickr.com lets you manage photos pretty easily also

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

That all sounds good to me.

For what it's worth, I'll add that as a frequent clamorer for pictures, I adore word-pictures as well -- a gathering with no photos but lots of well-told stories would be lovely, too.

Oy indeed!!!!!!!!!!!!

0 Replies

The internet really complicates things, doesn't it?

Shocked

0 Replies

Synonymph wrote:

The internet really complicates things, doesn't it?

No, PEOPLE complicate the internet.

:wink:

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
I'm not going to send out some hundreds of PM's for 650 photos to x-people to ask them individually.

You're shamelessly exaggerating what would be involved, Walter. You're not going to post 650 photos anyway, I assume, and with all the people who've said they're OK with any pic or with none, the number of people you'd have to PM is more like a dozen, at the most. And its just a question of pasting an image URL that you have to copy/paste anyway into a PM as well. If you already invest so much time and effort into the photos like you say this is at most an extra 2%. <shrugs>

Yes, I exaggerated.

I've made something like 900 photos altogether, about 180 with A2k'ers on them.

Out of this number, I think, some 80 aren't posted, for various reasons.
(Plus perhaps about 100, I've deleted already "in the camera".)

It would be easy to do it the way you'd suggested.

This doesn't change my decission not to take pictures of meetings anymore. :wink:

(My last ones, some dozens, are already [generally] "member free" Laughing

]

0 Replies

J_B wrote:

Eva wrote:

I wonder if some people didn't come expressly because they knew cameras would be there....? Hmm.

I can think of a couple people this might apply to.

If we're thinking of the same people, one of them had his private homepage discovered by someone who then posted his picture from there. That's certainly unacceptable, but it's also a different matter. (Waving back to Eva.)

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

If we're thinking of the same people, one of them had his private homepage discovered by someone who then posted his picture from there. That's certainly unacceptable, but it's also a different matter.

Hacking a private homepage? Shocked

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Thomas wrote:
If we're thinking of the same people, one of them had his private homepage discovered by someone who then posted his picture from there. That's certainly unacceptable, but it's also a different matter.

Hacking a private homepage?

No -- looking at the URL of an image, noticing it's coming from the poster's homepage, checking out what other images are on that homepage, and finding the poster's picture. The homepage itself wasn't hacked.

0 Replies

Diane wrote:

There seems to be two groups that are at odds; those who refuse to ask permission or to take the time to make deletions and those who hate seeing pics of themselves. .

(1) Nobody refused to ask permission, it's just that nobody (in Chicago) asked. But I explicitly remember Walter ask permission in London, so I find your point about a refusal to ask implausible.

(2) "Those who hate seing pics of themselves" aren't the right antipode. That would be "those who don't speak up". These unpleasantries don't happen when prospective picture-poster asks for permission, but they also don't happen when prospective picture motives ask that their picture not be posted. Is there anybody in this thread who asked that their picture not be posted, and who had it taken and posted anyway? I don't think so.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
Thomas wrote:
If we're thinking of the same people, one of them had his private homepage discovered by someone who then posted his picture from there. That's certainly unacceptable, but it's also a different matter.

Hacking a private homepage?

No -- looking at the URL of an image, noticing it's coming from the poster's homepage, checking out what other images are on that homepage, and finding the poster's picture. The homepage itself wasn't hacked.

I think one should not use ones on personal site unless they want people snooping around?

0 Replies

As I said -- it's a different matter than the one this thread is about.

0 Replies

bm bum

0 Replies

My two cents worth:

A camera is not an unobtrusive thing. (in Walter's case it's as big as his head, but I will not refer to particular cases here) People are aware when photos are being taken.

When A2Kers meet, what do they have in common? Primarily, A2K.

So is it unreasonable for the photographer to assume, unless he/she receives a request to the contrary from his/her subjects at the time, that some pictures may be posted on A2K in due course?

I submit it is not unreasonable. Doubly so, since other members strongly request pictures of people to be posted, above all.

There is an implied assumption that since we are "among friends", no sneaky pictures will be taken and no unflattering or offensive images will be used (unless they are screamingly funny :wink: )

And in any case, although this is a side issue, since most posters are identified by pseudonyms only, where's the harm?

0 Replies

A sensible question, McTag.

When at an A2K meet make your feelings known or forever hold your peace.

Joe(hold still, dammit, I'm recharging)Nation

0 Replies

Posting photos of A2K members: let's talk about guidelines.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know