Open Board group posting on GLOBOsapiens

Globo policy to observe rules of restriced access Tourist sites.

Postings 31 - 36 of 36

Page: 1 2 3 4

mortimer Premium account Joined: Jun 04 Points: 15075 Posts: 528 Posted: 2006-01-02 23:27:00    Hi There well we have an intensive discussion here, great! Tashi You are absolutely right that I did say a lot of hypocritical statements! But I don't really have a problem with it. I intended to give some new dynamic to the discussion and open up the field of argument. By broaden the point of view and philosophically analizing the point of view perhaps some statements get another meaning. Tashi "...and leave spoil your impression." It's not a very good phrase, obviously. What I meant is that by trespassing those rules of respect and dignity people might get angry with you or don't hold a good image of you in their memorys. Perhaps for you this is not a problem, you might never go back there, but those people could as well generalise and say that all foreigners are bad... I am of a a very liberal mind, so If you like to trespass rules and not create obvious harm to people then do it. Like Isaac did with his pics of the cathedral or I did with a lot of my people pictures. That's my point with the statement don't show them off. By showing them off and stating that you took that picture eventhough it was forbidden you could throw a bad light on the travellers/tourists/visitors in General. Tashi you said that those people on your border pictures might never see them here on GLOBO... are you sure? That just really is my point here. We here on GLOBO have the whole world as possible viewers there are computers with internet access all over the world we have members to our community from the most unlikely places, so who will guaranty you that they will never see themselves on the pics? "The picture is a prime example of what people should see... (back to the investigative journalism thing)" I would say that this picture is a prime example of what you (tashi) think that people should see... It's your point of view. How can you be absolutely be sure that this is the right thing? It's not really about those two pics, what I'm meaning is more general, how can you decide what is wrong or what is right for foreign people? It is only right from your point of view! Isaac I agree with you competely that some rules dont seam to make sense! You are thinking that they only forbade the picture taking for comercial reasons, might be, yes. Just to broaden the field, let me assume another reason. Imagine this great church visited by loads of people and somewhere inside is this abbot, who is responsible for everything in this church. He wants his church to be a place of whorship. Where people can get close to their innermost feelings and to their believes. Now imagine this poor old man standing inside his dimly lit church and all those bloody tourists pulling out their cameras, overhelmed by the magnitude and greatness they see and start taking pictures... and now imagine that this is some years back when cameras werent so good as today and they use strong flashes to lighten up the scene... so this poor man stands there and decides that with all those flashes going the whole day long, people don't come here to worship anymore and that is the main reason for this place being errected... so he decided to stop this picture taking excess... I would never say that my explanation is any nearer to the truth than yours but I would think it's not farhter away too... I do feel the same as you, that when I take a picutre it is mine. It's for you to decide, to consider your common sense and your morals and decide for yourself what you will do with it. Have a great Year and happy travelling Martin --- Today is the first day of the rest of your life, enjoy it! Reply    Reply with quote    Contact mortimer   rangutan Premium account Joined: Aug 04 Points: 34752 Posts: 1044 Posted: 2006-01-03 00:06:00    ...interesting diverse points of view with some misunderstanding too, let us keep to Hughs point instead of attacking each other. There is no detailed GLOBOpolicy for this but I think it is automatically covered by common sense. I agree with Tasy and Ravi - each photographer should think twice of taking the picture and just be responsible when uploading it, remove it if it is not of the quality wished by staff or members or if an external viewer complains. I am happy with Isaac’s two cathedral pictures being displayed at GLOBO because he quite correctly defends the presence of them. I can recap and add: 1) the ban was just a trick to get visitors to buy the postcard 2) it is often meant "no flash" 3) it is often meant "no noise", old cameras can be extreamly loud in a quiet place! 4) be discrete, no pics during mass or prayer times 5) if the place was really serious they would do a body check on all! 6) the notice might be old. Since digital photography a lot of restrictions have dropped. Further, I want to add that there are four different kinds of "taboo" pictures at GLOBO. There is a general policy which Marianne correctly pointed out. Every member should be aware THEMSELVES what to not to upload and the limits. Infringements are hopefully always quickly reported and the pictures removed by staff. Other border cases [pun]like those here are interesting to discuss. I think GLOBO "Terms and Conditions Section 6" means the four different types: Type 1) Section 6a tells us not to blatantly copy the photographs of others without permission. I think we all agree here :-) Type 2) Section 6b, there are two parts to it: "...not infringe intellectual property rights... " which to me means plainly "when in Rome do as the Romans do" and respect the wishes of others, curators, staff of institutions and owners of property when you are somewhere as a a guest. "Guest" means also as a traveller continuously and everwhere outside ones own home. This is the exact point in this forum thread. Type 3) like 2) but the military version! Here every one should know their own limits and the dangers of arrest and torture! Type 4) The other part of 2b covers basically EVERYTHING else: "...otherwise [which would] violate the rights of any third party. " This is standard small print on a lot of websites basically saying that YOU as contributor are responsible for your own actions. The "paparazzi" (international celebrity chasers) often go over the limits here! One very important point NOT discussed above is the simple proceedure for those "owners" or "authorities" to simply have the pictures removed by complaining. NO SUCH EXTERNAL PERSONS HAVE COMPLAINED YET and in the case of Isaac’s or Tashy's pictures I can pretty guarantee they won't. "Time" and "mistake" is a common way of getting out of legal messes if they should occur in this case and i'm sure such an excuse would work in the case of Isaacs pictures. That cathedral should actually pay Isaac for his good work! I don't see any damage done by Isaac at all, definitely not theft, it was just another opportunity like we all sometimes take. Any more complaints? Thank you all for sharing such similar controversial pictures with us and discussing them. They promote travel and tourism. RR [ This Message was edited by: rangutan on 2006-01-03 01:15 ] --- Rudolf "Rangutan" Graspointner Reply    Reply with quote    Contact rangutan   horourke Premium account Joined: Sep 04 Points: 11274 Posts: 142 Posted: 2006-01-03 08:49:00    Hi Rudi If I undersand you correctly there is NO POLICY. This is the simple answer I sought at the beginning, In the absence of policy, should i live long enough to rate another picture that boasts of its illicit pedigree (and i do not have time to rate many new pictures) i shall rate them precisely as i did the last. Now i must go travelling for work until the week end. Thank you all --- Hugh Reply    Reply with quote    Contact horourke   rangutan Premium account Joined: Aug 04 Points: 34752 Posts: 1044 Posted: 2006-01-03 10:13:00    ...if you read all of the above entries, there IS a policy but it is defined perhaps vaguely in "Terms and Conditions". Secondly, after THIS discussion an unofficial GLOBO policy has developed! About RATING such pictures or reports (which I did not understand the subject to be here) see www.globosapiens.net/topic-how-to-rate-pictures_34_1282_0010.html Nobody mentions accompanying text there. I have added to that thread: "Should the text to a picture i.e. the title and description be a criterion when rating a picture?" I think so. Hugh, you therefore rated correctly and thanks for bringing this subject to our attention! Summary: 1)Members, if you upload controversial stuff you might get hammered a bit by other members, possibly a third party! 2)Members please rate properly and honestly, you might get hammered for your rating but have a reason ready! 3)Photographers, accept constructive critisism. We all have different opinions in life. Pictures are artwork, some will love your work, others will want to hammer it! :-) [ This Message was edited by: rangutan on 2006-01-03 10:51 ] --- Rudolf "Rangutan" Graspointner Reply    Reply with quote    Contact rangutan   isaacmolina Joined: Aug 05 Points: 1717 Posts: 53 Posted: 2006-01-03 10:58:00    Just for your guidance and unbiased judgement of the subject discussed in this forum I tell you that in that same trip to Toledo I stopped in El Toboso, and went to the House where lived Dulcinea, today converted in museum (yes, there was a young and rich woman whom Cervantes tried unsuccessfully to conquer called Ana. Dulcinea means in Spanish Dulce Ana, or Sweet Ana, and Cervantes projected his admiration for that beautiful girl in his Don Quixote) and there, at the entrance, after paying the ticket, they confiscate all the cameras and videos of the visitors, give you a cardboard with a number to recuperate them at the exit, and an employee follows your steps in the two floors (even upstairs, in the dormitory) and patio of that great house, just in case someone occulted a small camera in his pocket and used it, what proves that in Toledo Cathedral taking pictures furtively is not a matter of life or death. If they discover you in Toledo cathedral taking pictures they simply expel you from the Cathedral premises, but do not confiscate your camera or make you destroy the pictures taken, what proves that the pictures taken are not so important, they are not the Arch of the Alliance mentioned in Exodus 25, no, neither secret Vatican documents. It was my personal choice to risk to be expulsed in exchange for the pictures. By the way, in the Toledo Cathedral there is an especial chapel to pray where tourist are not accepted, therefore, Mortimer, take it easy and thanks for your descriptive explanation, but the supposed dramatic worries of the old abbot scrutinizing with despair at the crowds of tourists disturbing with their apparatus the faithful people praying, will never occur. Thanks to everybody. In respect for the views of Mr Hugh, who is now my friend (for me the most positive outcome in this forum), I will not post any more picture in Globo of those that I took slyly inside that Cathedral in Toledo. --- isaac molina Reply    Reply with quote    Contact isaacmolina   horourke Premium account Joined: Sep 04 Points: 11274 Posts: 142 Posted: 2006-01-03 18:57:00    Once again Thank you everyone A new friendship for me is also a very positive outcome I have learned much from the reasoning processes used by other people and I am very humbled by their facility with English as I do not have such facility in their languages. Bye Hugh --- Hugh Reply    Reply with quote    Contact horourke   Page: 1 2 3 4