Open Board group posting on GLOBOsapiens

Globo policy to observe rules of restriced access Tourist sites.

Postings 11 - 20 of 36

Page: 1 2 3 4

marianne Premium account Joined: Sep 03 Points: 20248 Posts: 349 Posted: 2005-12-30 09:38:00    Hugh wrote: [quote]I think it is broader than a ban on "copy and paste" since it includes the phrase "or otherwise violate the rights.[/quote] This would also mean that pictures of people that were taken without the person knowing this and therefore without the person's permission cannot be published on this website. Ta-shy, the photos you took of restricted places are your intellectual property but as Hugh says they infringe on the the intellectual property rights of the owners / controllers. In other words it is the same as 'copy' and 'paste' (in a way). They are your responsibilty if action against your pictures were to be taken, not the responsibilty of GLOBO. This is different from 'copy' and 'paste' of texts or photos that were published on a website which is not one's own website. This is simply plagiarism. These should always be removed from GLOBO. This is the way I understand things. Maybe we could ask Andy's opinion. Marianne <p>[ This Message was edited by: marianne on 2005-12-30 09:38 ] [ This Message was edited by: marianne on 2005-12-30 10:07 ] --- “I travel not to go anywhere, but to go. I travel for travel’s sake. The great affair is to move.” Robert Louis Stevenson Reply    Reply with quote    Contact marianne   horourke Premium account Joined: Sep 04 Points: 11274 Posts: 142 Posted: 2005-12-30 12:23:00    [quote] On 2005-12-30 01:22:00, ta-shy wrote: So, what is the exact question your posing? I have pics posted of border crossings in Haiti, a UN military base in Dakhla and the presidential palace in DR.. do you want Globo to remove from the site because they are restricted places? I have 2 pics of Elvis Presleys cars taken in the museum as well as his airplanes (pics are not allowed in the museum).. I also have pics taken inside the Museum of Egypt... yes, I realize they are not allowed to be taken but I have them and feel it is worth it to show to people.. If I'm barking up the wrong tree here let me know. tashi [/quote] Dear Tashi The exact question I am posing is that of the restricted areas I mentioned where continued access might be put at risk due to publishing pictures taken without required permissions. I have no wish to see the rule applied to any particular member sites. I had no knowledge that any of your pictures were in any way in breach of such rules. The question arose from someone presenting a picture where the description drew attention to the forbidden nature of the image. It was also a picture of no particular qualitiative merit and the only reason for its display appeared to be the exclusiveness arising from the restriction. The question remains in general valid (i think) --- Hugh Reply    Reply with quote    Contact horourke   isaacmolina Joined: Aug 05 Points: 1717 Posts: 53 Posted: 2006-01-01 01:15:00    I will explain you the origin of this forum: Last week I posted my ten monthly pictures. In one of them, taken inside the Cathedral of Toledo, Spain, I wrote that it was forbidden to take pictures inside the Cathedral, and therefore I took the picture surreptitiously. Then Mr. Hugh sent me a message saying that my picture deserves zero points, but since there is no zero, he gives me only 1 point. I replied and said that he should not judge my attitude, but the quality and value of the picture in itself, whether good or bad. Then he opened this forum to request the management to delete my Cathedral Toledo picture from Globo (check yourself the follow up of this forum and his and my guestbook). Then appeared Ta-shi saying that she has taken pictures of Elvis Presley, etc, in places where you are not supposed to take them. That changed the situation, and now Mr Hugh is trying to camouflage his previous wish to remove my picture from my collection, because, if it was only mine, a new member in Globo, and therefore considered by him as “weak”, it would have been OK for him to delete it, but Ta-shi, an old and “high weighted” member, pioneer since the year 2002, is another thing, more serious thing and now he is afraid to press further into that matter saying that he had not intention to request to eliminate pictures from the Globo members. Just write you this to make you notice the sometimes contradictory human behaviour, and how soon people change their minds according to whom they have in face. Please, let start the New Year 2006 without arrogance and enjoy Globo as grateful guests. Let the one free of guilt throw the first stone. Globo management reads practically everything in Globo and if the director considers something wrong he then would intervene. Anyway, as a good example of good will, finishing posting this, immediately I will go to Mr Hugh (horourke) friend’s chapter page and will offer him my friendship. Happy New Year 2006! --- isaac molina Reply    Reply with quote    Contact isaacmolina   ta-shy Joined: Jun 02 Points: 4110 Posts: 170 Posted: 2006-01-01 04:04:00    o.k. Good health and high spirits to all. HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!! Unfortunately I'm unable to celebrate in public this fine evening due to my untimely winter flu. I don't wish to make anyone anymore sick than they have to be the next day!!!! oh well, Cheers to all as I down my fine wine all by my lonesome! Back to the situation at hand, without starting anything between Hugh and Issac. I think this is how it goes... Issac posted this pic with the caption..." it is forbiden to take pictures in the Toledo Cathedral. I had to be watchful, because if they catch you they expell you!" http://www.globosapiens.net/isaacmolina/picture-detail-of-the-cathedral-from-the-interior-28946.html I think Hugh took it as it shouldn't be published as it wasn't taken with permission. My Opinion on this is.. 1) although the pic isn't too clear it is still a cool pic (just for the fact that it was not aloud) I think Issacs other pic however; http://www.globosapiens.net/isaacmolina/picture-inside-cathedral-28939.html is better and would deserve a 4* at the least (clearer and more detail). 2) a picture that is obviously not someone's own such as the following pic: http://www.globosapiens.net/downundergal/picture-dachau-inmates-3909.html should not be published on globo. However, I'm not sure in this case whether it was taken in the museum or not, but it looks like a picture of a picture/poster and not taken with one's own camera. On the other hand if there was a picture of the Mona Lisa (taken obviously with a camera--non-professional) for example.. I would love to see that on here, cause everyone knows THAT is totally impossible to get! 3) The pics that I put on Globo are truely forbidden pics that, at the time when taken, very well could have landed me in some sort of military/political hotseat if I was caught taking them, but I did so at my own risk and with my own camera and I am glad to share something that is a rare sight in the world. http://www.globosapiens.net/ta-shy/picture-haitien-border-7487.html http://www.globosapiens.net/ta-shy/picture-occupied-western-sahara-5780.html Again, if I'm wrong about this situation please make it clearer.. other than that, I hope all is finished with this situation.. Tashi [ This Message was edited by: ta-shy on 2006-01-01 21:07 ] --- LIFE IS AN ATTITUDE! ALWAYS DO WHAT YOU WISH YOU COULD! ALWAYS! Reply    Reply with quote    Contact ta-shy   rangutan Premium account Joined: Aug 04 Points: 34752 Posts: 1044 Posted: 2006-01-01 04:33:00    I read through all this text and do not (want to) understand all the excuses NOT to take pictures! While "flash" light is banned in most museums because bright light fades colours, the rest of the restrictions are purely political. Even if I took a picture of the Mona Lisa I will not be infringing copywrite rules because it is a view and not a 1:1 copy of the painting! Likewise, should we ban photos of buildings and structures because the architect is also an artist? No!!! A photographer will always fight for his his rights, the camera is an extention of his eye, even if the release of the photos takes years! What we see is to believed and we have the right to photograph or film our own experiences for; - ourselves - for the community/press - for archiving history and evidence for the human race The photo banns (tabu) I have experienced at various places are for very DIFFERENT reasons. Special permission often rejected! - military and strategic scenes - Maracana Stadium (Brazil) - NASA - a remote village in Africa - my 1989 girlfriend! I have travelled through 54 countries and never really had problems with this! A photographer should now his limits and be very chique sometimes... Rudi --- Rudolf "Rangutan" Graspointner Reply    Reply with quote    Contact rangutan   horourke Premium account Joined: Sep 04 Points: 11274 Posts: 142 Posted: 2006-01-01 15:27:00    Dear Isaac I have no idea how long either you or Ta Shi are members. My response to Ta Shi was based on the perception that she seemed to have assumed in error that i was attacking her personally. I had and have no interest in deleting any particular pictures I welcome your friendship I have asked Andreas directly for the policy of Globosapiens. From my experience with a tourist attraction in Ireland I believe the rules should be observed. I do not favour censorship and am on record in the forum concerning photos of airports to this effect. I thank everyone who has contributed to this discussion. --- Hugh Reply    Reply with quote    Contact horourke   mortimer Premium account Joined: Jun 04 Points: 15075 Posts: 528 Posted: 2006-01-01 20:40:00    Hi Globies This discussion is truly interesting. Not only is there the question about what pictures are allowed to take moreover what pictures are allowed to post. About taking forbidden pictures, I personally think that it is a matter of respect and dignity to follow rules and restrictions imposed. Sometimes you might think the rules don't make sense or are too strict and you trespass them, you might not understand the reason why someting is forbidden. Could it also happen that you don't understand the cultural or political reason for rules and just argue or think along the lines you are used to at home? This is an important thing about being a traveller, to respect local cultures and conventions and not impose your at home standards on those people you visit. Just always remember you are their guest and as a guest I always try to make a very good impression. So if you want to take those forbidden shots, go ahead, but don't show off with them. Posting forbidden pics can be rude to the people you visited and leave spoil your impression. I just thought about another interesting issue here, intrusive photography. When you take pictures of people whithout asking for permission often with a telelens. I know that mostly they are the very best pictures because people dont pose and are just very natural. So they are often very good and interesting pictures. If you take those pics and keep them in your personal album at home I don't really feel bad about it, but what about posting them here on globosapiens. How would you feel when you would encounter your face on a picture thats posted on Globosapiens whithout your consent. I must take some blame on me too, I did post some pics of people that I didn't ask for permission, neither to take the pic nor to post it, but seriously speking I shouldn't have done it. What do you think? Happy new Year to everybody. Martin --- Today is the first day of the rest of your life, enjoy it! Reply    Reply with quote    Contact mortimer   horourke Premium account Joined: Sep 04 Points: 11274 Posts: 142 Posted: 2006-01-02 16:46:00    Very good point Martin I have deleted three of my pictures that included recognisable faces Perhaps some of the people were where they should not have been In my own case I could imagine it would be very embarassing for me if I were photographed and published where i might not be supposed to be!! Hugh --- Hugh Reply    Reply with quote    Contact horourke   ta-shy Joined: Jun 02 Points: 4110 Posts: 170 Posted: 2006-01-02 18:47:00    Good health and high spirits! After just reading the last couple of responses, I feel that I just have to put in my 2 bits again. 1)Hugh, I didn't feel attacked personally, your post just caught my attention cause I did have so called "forbidden" pics on the site, I just was curious as to what your point was. If you would have said "Tashi has...." then I would would have been a little pissed. 2) It seems the word "forbidden" is being thrown around too much. It is common sense that pics shouldn't be taken of certain things, however some people do take them just for that fact.. that they are not allowed. My idea of a truely forbidden picture is child Pornography. It is something that should be hidden from all eyes because the taker of the pic KNOWS it is wrong in every sense of the word! Can you imagine how fast Time Magazine or any other "investigative journalism company" would go out of business if they couldn't post their pics because they were not allowed to be taken! As for taking pics of people... again common sense, education and cultural understanding is the mainstay here. I don't need to explain this further. 3) Mortimer,, I'm surprised that you took the position you did with regards to taking pics. Although you cover your butt by saying "I must take some blame on me too....but seriously speking I shouldn't have done it." Isn't that being a little hypocritical? You say "don't show them off....can be rude to the people ..." I don't know about you but I'm curious to know how that guy jumping the border is going to see his pic on globo or anywhere else!! The picture is a prime example of what people should see... (back to the investigative journalism thing) I don't understand "...and leave spoil your impression." You also stated "If you take those pics and keep them in your personal album at home I don't really feel bad about it..." Oh my God... how hypocritical is that!!??? so like what? take as many pics as you want, of whatever you want, just make sure the subjects don't know you have them. Isn't that the same as keeping child porn..meaning.. you have to keep it hidden because you know it's not right to have it??? I don't think any of this has to do with what Hugh's original queary was and I don't think we should stray off topic here. I don't think there are any people on within the globo community (who are true travellers) who don't understand why there are certain restrictions to take certain pics as Rudi stated.. they just know how to get around it. Lets not turn Globo into a censored body.. use commonsense. If YOU took the picture with your own camera.. it's yours.. whether it's taken of a truely "forbidden" subject, that's for your concious to decide. Tashi --- LIFE IS AN ATTITUDE! ALWAYS DO WHAT YOU WISH YOU COULD! ALWAYS! Reply    Reply with quote    Contact ta-shy   horourke Premium account Joined: Sep 04 Points: 11274 Posts: 142 Posted: 2006-01-02 19:04:00    Hi Ta Shi Meanings and clarification. The word forbidden is used in the strict context of the question i.e. against the rules of the owners / controllers. The question is specific to the locations mentioned and has no relevance to border crossings or political or other censorship. I repeat that i am against censorship but in favour of obsering commercial and privacy rights of owners controllers. I suspect that no memeber of GLOBO would support the idea of taking from a supermarket (or rinok or other place of display and trading) any goods which have not been duly purchased and paid for. Where is the difference in taking images for which payment has not been made? Hugh --- Hugh Reply    Reply with quote    Contact horourke   Page: 1 2 3 4