Jump to content
  • 0

Do you have issues uploading images of people that may have negative connotations?


Question

Looking at some of the search results, and usage, I am curious how people feel about uploading images that include people in non positive light, where person is identifiable and image non-released and highlighting it in caption and or kw. (not including when the negative is clearly something person is doing on purpose for attention)

 

 

For example people littering, using single usage plastic or more recently people without mask, or inappropriate (nose not covered) use, in public space where not mandatory, but use generalised

 

 

 

Does you position change is it's a public figure vs general population?

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

For general stock I assume.

I don't photograph people often but my red line would be the suggestion that they had committed an offence..

Not wearing a mask in the street, yes.

Not wearing one on public transport (an offence in the UK), no.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I always cringe a bit where I see a photo of morbidly obese people deliberately taken to illustrate it. It’s not a subject I would capture. Alamy does seem to be a place where people doing things are popular and sometimes I think I need to cover that more. 
 

But then again I do seem to laugh at the photos of people in Walmart that get distributed around the internet, either wearing or doing inappropriate things. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, spacecadet said:

For general stock I assume.

 

 

 

the issue is News one day becomes Stock the next day (or 4 days later last fall), and many of us in markets not really catered by the News desk will upload News through Stock.....    especially with some soft news subjects the line can be grey.  

 

 

The reason i asked is in my search results there was a search for "woman without mask street" (and other variations)- mine was a false positive. 

 

But it made me wonder would i have uploaded that specifically. and next, i do have one image that actually fit, but i purposefully did not tag it as such- but i did for a (male) politician on another one.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I see what you mean about news going to stock.

A public figure on the street would be fair game I think. Of course press guidelines would have been followed.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 08/01/2021 at 15:26, spacecadet said:

For general stock I assume.

I don't photograph people often but my red line would be the suggestion that they had committed an offence..

Not wearing a mask in the street, yes.

Not wearing one on public transport (an offence in the UK), no.

A difficult one. I visit Richmond Park a lot, and know the deer in there suffer because of the human contact - feeding them the wrong things, plastic etc. They're nice to see, but do not touch. Part of me wants to shoot and shame the people who deliberately - or ignorantly - go close to the deer, feed them etc. I've had debates with people before face to face in the park on this and realise it's little use explaining the hurt to the animal when talking to a selfish moron. So the photo shame may work - but the legal angles prevent me doing it. Very frustrating.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
33 minutes ago, Stephen Lloyd said:

A difficult one. I visit Richmond Park a lot, and know the deer in there suffer because of the human contact - feeding them the wrong things, plastic etc. They're nice to see, but do not touch. Part of me wants to shoot and shame the people who deliberately - or ignorantly - go close to the deer, feed them etc. I've had debates with people before face to face in the park on this and realise it's little use explaining the hurt to the animal when talking to a selfish moron. So the photo shame may work - but the legal angles prevent me doing it. Very frustrating.

 

 

i must say i have been tempted to photograph and upload all the pictures of every dog owners with their dogs off leash, in an urban wildlife reserve in break of by-laws, but since the by-laws enforcement have said they don't even care to people who call in, I haven't so far.  so i'll just continue trying to have the current resident owl go after the small ones -and you can be sure i have my camera ready for that, and the owner's face....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.