Like Tree173Likes

Fury and anger over not being able to photo D&G

Closed Thread
Page 6 of 23 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 14 ... LastLast
  1. #51

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Tuen Mun
    Posts
    6,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Satay Sue:
    No paeds in Asia then?

    Maybe it's better to agree to disagree on this one.
    SS, I'm going to disagree with you I think. In HK it is perfectly acceptable for a man to take a cute photo of a kid. Actually I respect them for this refusal to let the abhorrent motives of a few spoil it for everyone else.

    As a kindergarten teacher I hate the way I feel uncomfortable and want to cringe if children want to cuddle me and this feeling just gives me another reason to despise paedophiles.
    HowardCoombs likes this.

  2. #52

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    3,377
    This might be useful to some to read.

    There has been a lot of debate in the UK since the introduction of the Data Protection Act (which is very similar to the Data Protection Ordinance here). A good article to read is here, a summary of which is below:

    The Data Protection Act is sometimes wrongly cited as a law that can prevent photos being taken without the subject's permission.

    For example, last Christmas, amateur photographer David Elder said that an Edinburgh council official stopped him taking photos of the city's Winter Wonderland event on the grounds that he would be in breach of Data Protection laws.

    The ICO spokeswoman confirmed that the Data Protection Act does not prevent someone taking photos in the street without the subject's consent, provided that the images are for 'personal use' and the camera is not being used to harass people.

    The spokeswoman also confirmed that the ICO treats images published on social networking websites, such as Facebook, as 'personal use' - in a similar way to 'family albums'.

    However, the ICO urged photographers to adopt a 'common sense' approach.

    The spokeswoman stressed that, although background shots of passers-by will not normally breach the Data Protection Act, images of a small group of clearly identifiable people, sent for publication to a newspaper for example, may be considered an infringement.
    And for SS/Coombsey:

    The watchdog said that images of children taken in a public place fall under the same rules. Photos that happen to include children, yet taken without a parent's or guardian's permission, do not normally breach Data Protection guidelines.
    Still, I would never consider taking photographs of another's children without their parents' permission. It's creepy.
    nobby15 likes this.

  3. #53

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,772

    More here on the discrimination issue. ALL protesters were there because of that, it was not about the right to take pictures publicly really:

    (english subs)
    The Truth Behind “Hundreds protest at D&G photo ‘ban’ in Hong Kong” | Dictionary of Politically Incorrect Hong Kong Cantonese


  4. #54

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    13,099
    Quote Originally Posted by luckycat:

    And for SS/Coombsey:
    The watchdog said that images of children taken in a public place fall under the same rules. Photos that happen to include children, yet taken without a parent's or guardian's permission, do not normally breach Data Protection guidelines.
    Still, I would never consider taking photographs of another's children without their parents' permission. It's creepy.
    LC - no disagreement.
    A lot of the general public believe otherwise, that it is somehow illegal. It is not!
    There should be no expectation of privacy on a public street.

    Rude and creepy? Depends on the culture and circumstances, but definitely not illegal.
    climber07 likes this.

  5. #55

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    7,471
    Quote Originally Posted by beachball:
    That was wrong the first time you said it and it still is. Stop posting misinformation.
    Beachball... when you put the word 'surely' at the beginning of a statement it is not posting misinformation. In fact, it usually implies that the statement isn't true but you think it should be.

    Surely you can grasp that
    Fiona in HKG likes this.

  6. #56

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    7,471
    Quote Originally Posted by luckycat:

    Still, I would never consider taking photographs of another's children without their parents' permission. It's creepy.
    Talking of creepy photography, how's melancholy Fred? Haha

  7. #57

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,561

    [/QUOTE]

    And for SS/Coombsey:

    Still, I would never consider taking photographs of another's children without their parents' permission. It's creepy.[/QUOTE]

    ..."Photos that happen to include children" - are not photos intentionally taken of children in my book. If the kid is the the background that is one thing. If you are shoving a lens in a little one's face, without the parent's permission, and particularly if the parent has asked you not to, is NOT right, regardless of what the law says. I am generally very tolerant of other cultures, but taking pictures of my kid in some circumstances is where I draw the line.


  8. #58

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Hong Kong.
    Posts
    1,355
    Quote Originally Posted by justjoe86:
    Beachball... when you put the word 'surely' at the beginning of a statement it is not posting misinformation. In fact, it usually implies that the statement isn't true but you think it should be.

    Surely you can grasp that
    Wrong.

    Again...

  9. #59

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    7,471

    Yeah I think people are getting confused. Some of us are stating we think certain things are wrong despite being legal. We're not claiming they are ILLEGAL.

    E.g. satay sue thinks it's wrong (not illegal) to take photos of someone else's child in swimming trunks, or use a telephoto lense to take photos of people at home.

    I think the content of a photo should be (not is) more important than its viewpoint.

    We all agree d&g is a rubbish brand, and we have no idea why people would want to take a photo of its stupid shop front. So at least we are somewhat unified. Tonight I will take my camera out and take photos of beautiful ladies extremely conspicuously, to mock the law. In no way will I enjoy or be aroused by this activity.


  10. #60

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    7,471
    Quote Originally Posted by justjoe86:

    Surely you can grasp that
    ...

    Quote Originally Posted by beachball:
    Wrong.

    Again...
    Thank you for clarifying my point.
    Last edited by justjoe86; 09-01-2012 at 11:27 AM.

Closed Thread
Page 6 of 23 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 14 ... LastLast