No controversy about this award then. :doh:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-20222647
The guy with the cat was my favourite, but they're all pretty humdrum really. Any one of yours ought to wipe the floor with them.
Very kind of you, it goes for everyone else here!
Once again muted Colour seems popular (although I quite like the tonal range in the winning image)
::) :o :D Aah. Chuck in a bit of nudity for slot two; always popular and pleasing for a demanding audience :2funny:
Like snoring, a bit repetitive :(
Most of those, if I had taken them, I'd probably have deleted. No wonder I'll never be a great photographer!
Jeez its like the twilight zone :legit:
If anyone's stuck for a competition theme, what about "In the style of"!
Graham. :)
edit. Though probably without the "Lady parts".
Quote from: Graham on November 07, 2012, 06:15:26 AM
If anyone's stuck for a competition theme, what about "In the style of"!
Graham. :)
edit. Though probably without the "Lady parts".
If you need a few ideas, have a look at this.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-20203475
Here's my take on William Eggleton.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7140/7764154532_fb12ceb248_c.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/cronjie/7764154532/)
Suburban Red (http://www.flickr.com/photos/cronjie/7764154532/) by abers (http://www.flickr.com/people/cronjie/), on Flickr
:uglystupid2:
Good stuff Alan, the only problem for Andy and I is that street photography is now illegal in France (if there are any 'identifiable' people in the picture). Mind you, I'm prepared to wing it most of the time . . .
What? Hows that work then?
I mean, you go to the beach and take pictures of your kids (Say) and someone else is in the background? Or even the street? Madness.
Quote from: anglefire on November 07, 2012, 09:58:42 PM
What? Hows that work then?
I mean, you go to the beach and take pictures of your kids (Say) and someone else is in the background? Or even the street? Madness.
There is no problem taking photographs in public areas for private use. However, if you are publishing them on the Internet etc., other's privacy must be considered.
Quote from: beauxreflets on November 07, 2012, 10:31:36 PM
Quote from: anglefire on November 07, 2012, 09:58:42 PM
What? Hows that work then?
I mean, you go to the beach and take pictures of your kids (Say) and someone else is in the background? Or even the street? Madness.
There is no problem taking photographs in public areas for private use. However, if you are publishing them on the Internet etc., other's privacy must be considered.
I have just done a job for a London Real Estate Company who are selling a Shopping Centre in Preston. I was asked to supply over 100 pictures of the Shopping Centre and surrounding area with plenty of people shots. So how do they sell commercial property in France ?
There are exemptions (journalism, fair comment, the picture being of a scene that might incidentally have people in it); depends how good your lawyer is. Also, lots of people don't give a monkeys. The law was introduced by politicians for the benefit of politicians and dressed up as being for the general good. Oh, and just asking someone if it OK if their picture is published is not good enough - it has to be in writing and in a standard format. Cartier-Bresson would be in jail by now.
That said I was on one occasion contacted by a relative of someone I had posted a picture of on Flickr. The old gentleman had passed away a few months after I took his picture and his grand daughter wanted a print because it was the last known picture of him. I was, of course, happy to oblige. The thing is, if I was a law abiding citizen she would never have had that memory. I have read in one of the numerous photo magazines here that it is generally considered that if a request to remove an image is honoured then that would be the end of it.
As far as I know the law has never been tested on internet publishing on servers located overseas.
As I understand it, crowded street scenes are acceptable as long as no specific person can be identified; which effectively means identifiable beyond doubt (ie. it is a question upon the picture clarity of the people in view). If a person can be clearly identified in a shot then their right to Privacy has to be considered and the tog should seek written permission before publishing the image any public media. As Howard says the exemptions do exist for press togs etc..
As a foot note toward caution - Legal aid is available; So if a UK resident (while they are on holiday) takes a shot of a vulnerable person on the street in Paris (that exploits that persons predicament) and posts said shot on the Internet (in public domain) they could find themselves in very hot water.
Just been reading up on the legal codes (seems to change every time I look at it), it now seems that you can publish pictures of people who are participating in a demonstration or parade, and those two are the only exceptions. For journalist images of people engaged in their public life only may be published. You can even pursue people through the courts for taking pictures of your house. It is very restrictive indeed; the fine is €45,000 and one year in jail.
I am still trying to find some case history involving non journalists; given the popularity of both tourism and sites like Facebook I can't really see how this law has any realistic prospect of being enforced in practice.
It will be interesting to see what happens in the Courts of Law regarding the images, breach in Privacy of the Royal couple a few weeks ago.
In respect to Tourism, my guess is that folk should respect the Laws of the country they visit, or face the consequences!
In regard to sites like Facebook, the picture sharing is usually "friend based" so any breach of Privacy should be traceable; Folk get taken to Court for posting "bad things"on Twitter etc., and as things are all about money these days, I guess it will not be long before the Privacy Law suits start where both Legal Eagles and victims may benefit financially, after all the Internet is part and parcel of "Civistreet".
Just found another exception - group of people where the focus is not on one specifically - ie bunch of mates on Facebook.
Also it looks like following a 2009 ruling the if you have created a public profile somewhere on the web then you can't complain if pictures of you are added to the web - but that ruling was a bit vague and hasn't been further tested.
But for all the rhetoric it still looks like most 'issues' are resolved with the equivalent of take down notices.
Quote from: Hinfrance on November 08, 2012, 10:59:14 AM
Also it looks like following a 2009 ruling the if you have created a public profile somewhere on the web then you can't complain if pictures of you are added to the web - but that ruling was a bit vague and hasn't been further tested.
I think that maybe in respect to, just the pictures you have uploaded being duplicated by others, rather than new photographs or altered imagess of you taken or edited by others being up loaded or re- posted (in the case of re-edited images) by other's without your permission.
A long way from Taylor Wessing. ::)
That's what happens with conversations . . I guess we all quickly lost interest in the aforementioned portraits. ???
This link seems helpful for photography in France and some wonderful images too ;)
http://photothisandthat.co.uk/2012/02/15/the-french-privacy-law/
I must admit I seem to have breached their rules regularly and act same as here - for close up shots I always ask, always concur if they say no and try to show them the results and offer a copy if they give me an email address if they like it. More distant crowd shots are another matter and I suppose it depends on whether people see it and take action. The laws here too do not necessarily mean you can take a picture of someone in a public place and do what you want with it. If you use it to defame or insult in some way you are open to a law suit too.
TW images - everything I have come to expect and limited talent on show there I fear. Reminds me of the shots another person did in that last exhibition I did - all words describing the scenario with no real substance or meaning in the image.
You've got it there jinky - the TW list was mostly space around portraits, not your actual portraits.
As I said in my first post on the French droit a l'image stuff, most people like having their picture taken anyway, so it's only the odd barrack room lawyer who gets narky.