WARNING: UNAUTHORISED DISTRIBUTION OF PHOTOS!!
-
so now u know why i dun like to be taken.......
-
you shld have long ago...Originally posted by sgboy2004:ok..mi zip up mi gap
-
Its all along our policy for sgForums outing, if you didnt go for that specific outing you will not get the fotos. Further more, jOhO take times and efforts to put the fotos together a plus editing them apart for his work.
-
aiyo...so bad leh..privacy is impt and i hope ppl respect that.
-
at least i've seen some ethics being exercised here.....
-
mi totally agrees...
stalkers suck man... -
ya lor...yandao like BBB shld admire the real him mah...see photos no useOriginally posted by BaByBoY:mi totally agrees...
stalkers suck man...
-
hey..Originally posted by NeonTetra:ya lor...yandao like BBB shld admire the real him mah...see photos no use
anyhow say again..
last time i really scareded sia when homerun posted my `lookalike `pic
i so scared someidiot will post my real pic there...
nxt time i no wanna pose for pics le..
whoever wanna take my pic will get my `peace` sign in front of my face..
kekeke -
thanx erijazz for your understanding and explanation.
-
Who circulate yandao joho pics?
*draw my banana out, ready to kill* -
ahahha thanx, but u got the wrong nick. should be origami!Originally posted by laurence82:Who circulate yandao joho pics?
*draw my banana out, ready to kill*
no need to kill, just find out can liow. -
What??? the WHOLE thing???Originally posted by jOhO:but getting the whole zip file of 140+ phoots (not incl bear's) is a totally different story?
-
to kill or to go up a certain bodily orfice in the rear?Originally posted by laurence82:Who circulate yandao joho pics?
*draw my banana out, ready to kill*
-
den i think alot of gals get origami pictures liao lorOriginally posted by jOhO:ahahha thanx, but u got the wrong nick. should be origami!
no need to kill, just find out can liow.
rofl -
how bout lelonging origami's pics to get some FUNDs for sentosa outing
-
Originally posted by www:"undesirable" is a strong word here.
nevertheless, people who didnt attend the outings are considered as "undesirable" parties in this case, regardless of what they have or have not done to the pictures.
we are trying to be fair to all participants who were involved in the outings organised.
as much as we would like to educate the people here, it is also important that we stress on the consequences of such act.
dun get me wrong folks, i am with u all on the issue of privacy & the privilege of receiving outing photos ONLY by virtue of attendance! Heck i even use this policy for all MTY & Fudge outings!Originally posted by jOhO:TX, in my warning i have stated why this is not something i am happy about, i'm informing and dare i say, educating, about the consequences of such actions. how about u help me think of alternatives to combat this issue if you think i'm not being "educational" enuff?
... think i said too much leow .... brain thirsty .... hope all goes well from here on but rest assured if i know of any ppl engaging in unauthorised traffic of photos, i will not turn a blind eye!
TX
What I'm saying rather; is that because the outings take place in public domain, it's open season for anyone who wants to take photos of outing-attendees - with or without their permission. Not too sure on any legal issues but as long as there is no malicious or indecent intent, can one do anything about it? Enforcing a no-camera ban IMO is kinda draconian & prolly will not lead to a halt of photos being taken at all.
I can't think of any other viable alternatives to combat this issue but again i can only emphasise the following:
- educate & leverage on the personal responsibilities of the attendees. I'm sure no one wants to be caught in an unflattering pose & have that pic circulated right? The "don't do unto others what you don't want done to you" thingy might serve a purpose here?
- vet the attendee list? sometimes newcomers are forumites who attend for selfish reasons & will not heed etiquette or guidelines. I'm sure there are ways to discourage such individuals?
- this is kinda stupid but maybe organise larger scale outings in private locations? It's quite unfeasible & simply makes 'illegal' photography just a little bit more cumbersome! Paparazzi survive to this day so i guess they know the limits of their actions?
best solution IMO is this:
attempt to track down the person(s) or person involved .... make sure the consequences etc etc are explained to him/her & hopefully this will discourage others with the same intentions? After all if you/we can't stop the acts of these individuals .... one can always 'strongly discourage' right? -
thanks. interesting points u got there.
first of all, my legal understandings tells me that the photographer owns the copyrights to the pictures, as long as the pictures taken are decent and not doctored in the wrong way.
it is not wrong to have other attendees taking pictures beside the appointed photographer. the reason for not encouraging so are:
1. be it new or old faces, we do not know the integrity of everyone here. the reason for restricting to only a couple of photographers is a mean of possible damage control.
even for joho, i share my thoughts with him when he first joined me for sentosa trip, equipped with his first nikon camera.
i even requested to browse thru some of the pictures before he went home with it.. not because i doubted his intention, but to make sure people see what they want to see.
2. many of u have seen his work. thus, i can safely say that joho is one of the most skilled photographer around this joint and is armed with the most appropriate equipment.
and since he is already doing the job he does best, i thought others would be better off enjoying themselves than to be snapping away.
3. and the distribution part would be easier if there is only one source.
as for your other suggestions:
- i believe the educating part has already take place for quite a while. the policy around here is that if u didnt attend, u wont get the pictures. period.
to some, we even emphasized about distributing the pictures to the right person before we pass them the link.
- when we start to vet the participants list, it means the situation is getting really severe.
it mean that we have to openly unwelcome certain individual. fortunately, we have not come to this stage yet, and we hope we dont have to.
- i dont know about the last suggestion. firstly, the issue here is about people distributing photos to people who are unauthorised.
secondly, it is not a case of stalking as well.
lastly, i dont know how private can we go when it comes to beach activities.
nevertheless, i do agree that "soft approach" should adopted here as well. it would be done on a case-to-case basis.
for now, we are just trying to lay out some of the appropriate guidelines. -
thanx www for the well-thought out explanation!
just to add, i do apologise if i seem to "stern" in this thread. as www has mentioned, no action has been taken yet, and hopefully none will be.
honestly, PERSONALLY, i don't really mind people "stealing" my photos, becos "pai tiah tum poh" these shots technically don't earn me any money. any leecher could take those photos and try to sell them and won't get any money. (unless www becomes liverpool's soccer player )
the main point here is about privacy. i think there's no need for more explanation on what privacy is. some pple just don't want their photos to be seen by people that don't know them. actually, MOST pple are like that.
and, i think the worst thing i could hear is: "this joho person, the photos he takes always ends up circulating the net one... better not let him take ur photo."
now that would pretty much PISS ME OFF. i'm sure ANYONE can understand this rite? imagine wat it would do to my reputation as a wedding photographer? please, have a heart.
once again, this is just a warning. honestly, most of you out there can just conveniently ignore this, becos i know u will never do such a thing. it's prob just one or two bad eggs.
life goes on, i refuse to let this hinder our successful sentosa (and other) outings, followed by smiles and memories days later when viewing the photos. pple who agree say 'I'!!! -
think the thing here is not that other attendees had their own digi cams or cams with them, but that someone who got the pics from joho, redistributed them to other ppl who din go. Which means that someone is prolly one of the attendees since joho ONLY sends the pics of the outing to attendees.Originally posted by True_Xerion:dun get me wrong folks, i am with u all on the issue of privacy & the privilege of receiving outing photos ONLY by virtue of attendance! Heck i even use this policy for all MTY & Fudge outings!
What I'm saying rather; is that because the outings take place in public domain, it's open season for anyone who wants to take photos of outing-attendees - with or without their permission. Not too sure on any legal issues but as long as there is no malicious or indecent intent, can one do anything about it? Enforcing a no-camera ban IMO is kinda draconian & prolly will not lead to a halt of photos being taken at all.
I can't think of any other viable alternatives to combat this issue but again i can only emphasise the following:
- educate & leverage on the personal responsibilities of the attendees. I'm sure no one wants to be caught in an unflattering pose & have that pic circulated right? The "don't do unto others what you don't want done to you" thingy might serve a purpose here?
- vet the attendee list? sometimes newcomers are forumites who attend for selfish reasons & will not heed etiquette or guidelines. I'm sure there are ways to discourage such individuals?
- this is kinda stupid but maybe organise larger scale outings in private locations? It's quite unfeasible & simply makes 'illegal' photography just a little bit more cumbersome! Paparazzi survive to this day so i guess they know the limits of their actions?
best solution IMO is this: attempt to track down the person(s) or person involved .... make sure the consequences etc etc are explained to him/her & hopefully this will discourage others with the same intentions? After all if you/we can't stop the acts of these individuals .... one can always 'strongly discourage' right? -
I agree with what www n jOhO had said. We all want our privacy. I did feel a little bit disgusted when this happened but I had total faith in our photographers.
It all boils down to individual maturity. Do to others what u would others do unto u. If u want privacy, so do we. Think about how it feels for the other party. Anybody who wants to see the photos just have to attend the outing. Even if ur good friend attended. Simple.
I understand how jOhO feels. For someone else's enjoyment, he gets the brick. C'mon, that's crap! Let's not do this again.
All we wanna do is have fun during the outing rite? N have more fun for future outings too! So why r we doing such silly things to make things sour?
C'mon, let's all be a little wiser n enjoy our next outing!
I for one say 'I'!! -
Wat if my wife sees the photos taken with those bikini clad gals ??
Divorce rate not high enough izit ?? -
From my understanding, Photos taken appear copyrights to organizers and attendees when it comes to use of photographs. On the other hand, no one likes someone else being judge on misuse or making money of out their work. Joho describes his frustration with unauthorized use of his pictures in here, as an photographer artist he not only wants to get appriecation, pharse or paid in some of his work for certain quality level of his photos. On the other hand, Joho embraces the camaraderie of fellow organizers and attendess by authorizing them to view or download the outing photos for leisure viewing and self keeping; it's does not authorise them to redistribute to third parties or post them in any open viewing sites with his or others knowledge or consent.
Unauthorise distribution of photos, these unauthorized downloads often violate laws or the photographer rights. Because of the ease with which digital files can be downloaded, unauthorized distribution of content will not only cause dismay toward the photographer or attendees it also cause the loss of revenue for joho of his rights and trust on his career. Infringer will also tanish the photographer reputation for any future phototaking.
Neverthess I do hope these will be a guide or at least some understanding for the use of outing photos. Maybe next time before you would go around posting or distributing others people photos, spare a tought for the person inside, photographer and attendees feeling. It may be a joke or fun but when comes to photos on the internet; you will never know what impact could a harmless post or distribution.
We wouldnt suggest to watermark, encrypting or otherwise creating identification on each photo to prevent unauthorized distribution or usage of these photos at the moment. But in the event if the photographer deem right or should we sense that there's a need for certain restriction it will be done on the photographer discreet.
Last but not least, do not let this issue hinder you in any other way to join us for future or coming outing!
Enjoy urself & no worries we are a group of friendly, outgoin and sociable Outing-Oriented Owls.
We wont bite just tease!?! -
+1 on all sensible posts above
-1 on all nonsense posts
Agree with what www,cwill and what joho says..
lets all hope this does not happen again.. -
BBB got such experience?Originally posted by BaByBoY:mi totally agrees...
stalkers suck man... -
no leh.. i dun haf...Originally posted by SibeiSuayKia:den i think alot of gals get origami pictures liao lor
rofl