If you've got it, flaunt it
Alex Howell snaps a Blue Line rider wearing possibly the biggest belt buckle on the subway.
Alex Howell snaps a Blue Line rider wearing possibly the biggest belt buckle on the subway.
![]()
Boston Condos
Boston Luxury Condos
Waterfront Midtown
Condos
Escape to the theatre!
Buy 1/2 price advance tickets to theatre, music, and dance at bostix.org.
Copyright 2008 by Adam Gaffin and by content posters. Contact Universal Hub. Privacy policy.
Colophon: Powered by Drupal and Dunkin' Donuts medium, skim milk, no sugar.
Template design by SEO Position and Blamcast.


I don't think making fun of
I don't think making fun of strangers is a good topic for a blog.
nope
coz he make him self like dat..
I don't either
I don't either. Good for you for saying so.
You are assuming, of course....
...that people are being duplicitous about being genuinely impressed by the belt buckle. If they are honestly a bit awed, then there is no issue of making fun of anyone, is there?
well, is that impossible to
well, is that impossible to assume???
I don't like the idea of strangers taking people's pictures without permission & posting them online.
If he had his permission, he probably would have said the guy's name & mentioned that permission was granted. I think it's different to take a picture, that is NOT going on-line with judgemental comments, to show a friend or something..but when you invade someone's privacy & make fun of them publicly, behind a computer screen - it's wrong.
Invading Privacy?
I'm going to make a wild ass assumption here and think that perhaps you are just too young to understand that you don't dress like that on a public place like a train in Boston if you DON'T want a fair amount of attention ... or even your picture taken.
Dude looks like he is posing - why do we need a name? Go hide in a hole if you want that bizarre sort of "privacy" where nobody is allowed to capture your image and steal your soul forever.
statements like this:
"you don't dress like that on a public place like a train in Boston if you DON'T want a fair amount of attention ... or even your picture taken."
contradict statements like this:
"If they are honestly a bit awed, then there is no issue of making fun of anyone, is there?"
Answer the question
According to who or what is it an invasion of privacy. Cite a legal precedent, etc. Hell, link to Miss Manners FWIW.
look at the comments!
not just here, but any place this is discussed.
people do not like their picture posted online so it can be made fun of, particularly if they didn't give permission in the first place.
and what question?
Dunno what you're talking about
My picture was here on UH after being posted on Curcuru's blog.
I was captioned as waiting in an iPhone line that rivaled Lenin's tomb. I didn't care.
what's different is that
no one was making fun of you!
and you weren't the sole person in the picture.
but - you didn't identify yourself, you said that you were in the picture, but wouldn't say who you were...keeping things private, right?
Here's what I'm talking about. People complaining about their pictures being used without permission is very common:
babble.com...babble-responds.aspx
uk.answers.yahoo.com...755AAmu9jR
digitalspy.co.uk...t=674786
washingtonpost.com...1805_pf.html
This link sums it up:
If the picture or any associated text may be libelous, defamatory, or fall outside of what courts have described as “the normal sensibilities” of the target audience, then you may need permission from the subject for your own protection. You also need permission from the subject if the picture is used for commercial purposes, such as in an advertisement.
So flaming someone is a no-no, and potentially libelous, but posting a photo of someone in a public place or at a public event, so long as the intent is not mean-spirited or commercial, is OK.
www.penick.net/digging/?p=332
That's what is happening here - people are posting pics that are making fun of strangers, who are minding their own business - not out to be judged by people who write blogs.
your hostility is
misplaced
No permission is needed to take a photo in a public place
Why should it be needed or even desired?
If you haven't even identified the subject of the photo, you haven't invaded his privacy.
to post someone's likeness
to post someone's likeness publicly without permission, is absolutely an invasion of privacy.
According to what?
You have some legal precedent here? An unusual extention of Belmont or Helsinki to the non-medical research world? Sone other legal finding, court case, precedent, etc.?
Or is this some "new rules" that somebody just made up? Like, um, you.
If you are in public, the only "reasonable expectation of privacy" is inside your clothing and purse, backpack, bags, etc. That's it. Sorry.
Permission is nice, but not required
NPPA Releases Memo On Photographers' Rights To Take Pictures In Public Places.
Legal rights of photographers.
www.cardozoa ...
http://www.cardozoaelj.net/issues/08/goldstein.pdf.
The below doesn't address the internet, I imagine it would fall under a combination of both scenarios - as I think it's unreasonable, but could be art; but there are so many many many places people post pictures online, how could one know if their likeness was being used?
ARIELLA GOLDSTEIN GALLEY - EP.DOC 3/20/2008 5:51:52 PM
256 CARDOZO ARTS & ENTERTAINMENT [Vol. 26:233
Massachusetts law, like New York law, deals with the right to privacy in two distinct statutes. First, Massachusetts law establishes a basis for a cause of action for invasion of privacy: “A person shall have a right against unreasonable, substantial or serious interference with his privacy. The superior court shall have jurisdiction in equity to enforce such right and in connection therewith to award damages.”156
Nothing in this section shall be so construed as to prevent any person practicing the profession of photography from exhibiting in or about his or its establishment specimens of the work of such person or establishment, unless the exhibiting of any such specimen is continued after written notice objecting thereto has been given by the person portrayed.157
The Massachusetts statute here differs from its companion statutes in that the statute expressly deals with the use of a photograph by a professional photographer in an exhibit.158 The Massachusetts law, like the New York statute, provides for a sort of presumption allowing the display of a photograph in an exhibit, rebuttable only by “written notice objecting” to the display.159
The above statute, then, implies that once the subject of a photograph displayed in an art exhibit notifies the photographer that he objects to the display, the law requires that the photograph be removed from the exhibit.
object in writing?
Does this say the subject must object in writing?
Respect
I would expect that most people would acceed to a verbal request. Why make more out of it than is necessary?
the photographer would have to mention
that they were posting the picture online. I don't think many people would agree to that.
where does it say?
Where in the law does it say that "the photographer would have to mention that they were posting the picture online." If its there I missed it.
The purpose of putting it in writing (under the law) is that a piece of paper, with words on it, is physical evidence and not subject to dispute, whereas a conversation is subject to dispute. That's why the law requires it in writing as a condition.
wouldn't you have to mention
how a photograph was being used?
In general releases, the intent is described.
interesting - Massachusetts intrusion law
deals with photography too:
citmedialaw.org...massachusetts-intrusion-law
I'm actually impressed
This guy is a work of art - he's older, he's not a pretty boy, and he doesn't care what anybody thinks of that. He's doing his thing, with his favorite bling, and he's taking some pride in it.
Good for him.
tossing out ideas to see
I'm pretty sure I would not want a photo of me posted and have people make judgmental comments about in a public forum just because I ride the T.
Swirrly's observation that this man is comfortable with himself is well taken. Still, I'm not certain he'd be pleased with having people take shots at him. I imagine myself in his situation, reading the comments... nah, not nice.
Recently, we had a post about a boy in a suit with sneakers, about which Adam said in an update:"I took it down because the photographer took down the Flickr photo on which it was based because the whole thing seemed to be getting out of hand." There were a lot of comments about how unfashionable, ridiculous and dorky he was, although Swirrly gave a plausible reason why sneakers would appropriate. I don't recall the details and all the comments have been deleted.
Some of the comments in posts with a photogrph of a person remind me of high school. We were all pretty judgmental in high school. It was funny when it was someone else but not so much when I was the object of their ridicule.
It can be fun to make a snarky comment about someone, especially if we have reason to believe it will never get back to him or her but to mem it's like talking about Paris Hilton or celebrity, its pablum. I'd rather talk about ideas than people. Does the golden rule applies here? I'm tossing out ideas to see if any stick.
No one made any snarky comments here....
...and the comments I read on the original site seemed to be pretty admiring (and even envious) of the belt buckle.
So this is not at all the same thing as the vicious (and even libelous) comments that were associated with the other picture (mostly on the original site).
How could you take this guy's photo without him knowing?
Unlike in that other photo, it's obvious the photographer was sitting right across from him.
And it's obvious the guy is a character. That's what made me post the photo just a couple of days after that other one; the guy's kind of cool in his outrageousness. As Swirlygrrl says, this guy is no shrinking violet; I can't picture him letting some guy take his picture from three feet away unless he didn't mind.
As for lack of name, no, that doesn't necessarily mean anything. The other day, I also posted a photo of a woman in a flood up to her calves as she tried to keep a drain open. No name. I actually asked her name, she told me, I didn't hear what she said, but I didn't want to ask her again, because she seemed pretty pissed (not at me, at the general situation she was in) and had enough to deal with already.
cell phone camera?
it could look like someone was texting, perhaps not holding the lens up to their eye?
Ah, you're right
HTC Touch Dual (most Flickr images have such pages), which is some sort of Sprint cellphone.
also if you look in the windows behind the man
you can see the man & woman sitting across from him - neither looks like they're taking a picture. The man sitting across from the guy in the picture looks a bit like the flikr profile pic - (interestingly, the person who posted this pis doesn't show HIS whole face in his profile - he wants to stay anonymous online, perhaps?)and he's looking down, I think he didn't want the belt buckle guy to see him taking his picture, so did it on the qt
HTC Touch Dual
The nefarious instrument.
Why doesn't someone ask the photographer?
cool camera
sleek & small
excuse me ... Adam?
but this is truly tasteless and certainly within the realm of bullying... you were supposed to eliiminate this activity...
The difference between the two photos
One was of a guy who didn't seem to know he was having his photo taken; the other is of a guy who couldn't possibly not know.
Also, yes, to be honest, I thought the kid with the sneakers was insult-worthy, even, though I am hardly one to be making fun of anybody's clothing choices, so I do feel properly chastised. Whereas this guy, I'm not making fun of him, honest. I am, however, amazed at his outfit and, yes, his apparent self-assurance in going out like that.
a good thesis
That's a good thesis. Go with it.
A discussion about expectations of privacy and the rest is interesting too but I think your orignial comment is the best way to go, and it looks like a lot of people here agree with you on that premise.
Maybe Adam will respond. How about it Adam? When you post peculiar pictures of individuals, how do you know whether the comments will degenerate into bashing or will remain high minded or at least not judgmental or cruel?
A blog without snark?
When you post peculiar pictures of individuals, how do you know whether the comments will degenerate into bashing or will remain high minded or at least not judgmental or cruel?
I never know. People are infinitely surprising. Things I think will generate lots of comments wind up with tumbleweeds blowing across them. Things I think are fairly innocuous turn into snipefests. The same obviously applies to photos.
Thanks for your honest and
Thanks for your honest and diplomatic response.
What is 02129resident talking about? "you were supposed to eliiminate this activity..."
The photographer's perspective
Hi everyone. My name is Alex, and I took the above photograph. In all honesty, I was not trying to create such an uproar, but I have read through all of the above comments and wanted to lend my perspective to the discussion.
By taking this photograph, I did not break any laws. My right as a photographer to take pictures in public spaces is one that is protected by the first amendment of the Bill of Rights, and is a freedom that has been held up in a court of law many times over. A very recent case is Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia, which you can read about here: http://bit.ly/2tuWwT The court's perspective is clear. If someone is in a public space such as a city street or on public transportation, there can be no reasonable expectation of privacy. If I were to aim my camera into the window of this person's living room and then post it in a public forum, I would be completely wrong and liable for all legal action taken against me. By riding the train, this man gave me the right to take his photograph. It is also important to note that I do not intend to sell this person's likeness in any way. If that were my intention, I would need a release from this person allowing me to. The distinction here is that this is an editorial photograph, not a commercial one. This point is also addressed in the comments concerning a previous Universal Hub post about the photograph of the man in the suit with sneakers. The person who took the picture made an editorial decision to remove the picture. The legality of the photo was never in question, even if the subject never knew he was being photographed.
I did not take this to ridicule this man as some have stated. In fact I was very impressed with his outfit -- I think he looks fantastic, and is indicative of the area in which I live and commute from. When I posted the photo, I did so with no caption attached to it other than where it was taken. The "If you've got it, flaunt it" title and "a Blue Line rider wearing possibly the biggest belt buckle on the subway" caption came from the editors of Universal Hub. I personally don't think that those are inflammatory words, but that of course is up to each persons interpretation.
I also did not take this on the "qt" or hide the fact that I was taking his photo, as one commenter stated. I took this picture with my camera in plain view of the subject, and as one can see, he either did not care or did not notice. It is my reflection in the window next to the subject, and I am looking down at the LCD on my camera as I trip the shutter. If I aim my camera at a person and they express disapproval or ask me not take to take their picture, I respect their wishes. My goal here was not to harm anyone. I simply wanted to take a photo and share it.
you didn't aim it at him
you were looking down, not holding a camera up to your eyes & focusing on him, so how could he object?
your flikr pic is anonymous, why don't you give that same courtesy to others?
Thank you aabhowell
Thank you aabhowell for your post. I think you've covered the issues with great detail and clarity and I thank you for that. I loved your favorite photo's on flickr. Keep snapping shots. You have a lot of great pics.
stays the course
Oh, I forget to say, don't worry too much about getting through to sheenaspleena. Once she's a reach or a run there's no getting her to tack.
Pay no attention....
...to the pseudonymous sheenaspleena -- a former anonymous troll who adopted a name rather than give up the pleasure of constantly roiling the waters here at Universal Hub.
It's a great picture of a cool character -- and no one who is the least bit sensible would perceive any lack of respect on your part towards your subject.
your interpretation is wrong
I adopted a name here as soon as I wanted to post here, several weeks before people weren't allowed to post anonymously
wrong about registering; right about trolling
Michael may have been wrong about when you registered but he's right about the nature of your interaction here. You make frivolous arguments and adhere to them in spite of facts to the contrary. Witness your insistence on MA state law about photographing people in public. First Swirrly tried to have a REASONed arguments about the law and then the photographer made a reasoned argument about the law. You apparently think you are still correct on all of your statements about the law. You aren't. What you risk is that people will not engage with you because you are not reasonable.
On the other hand ...
There has been no name calling and at least some response to requests to bolster her arguments beyond the customs and assumptions of a small subculture.
Stubborn is not the same as troll. This is troll:

(can someone explain why the image embedding doesn't work when I follow the _exact_ syntax (using pointy brackets for [] that Adam put in his composing guidelines for BBCode??????? This is what he has there:
)
img code
[img]URL[/img]
That's it. If you need to resize it, then you start with:
[img='width'x'height']
instead.
EDIT: Aaaand, it looks like it was just disabled, I think.
The problem, I think
You were using HTML < tags instead of [ tags.
What I might want to do is start experimenting with some of the WYSIWYG text boxes out there so you could use a more word-processorish way of embedding an image, especially now that everybody who posts has to have an account (not that that's stopped certain spammers from setting up accounts here to keep trying to spam, but that's another issue).
Thanks Guys ...
I figured it out - you really did mean to use those square brackets!
retraction and apology
Swirrly, Your points are well taken. I apologize and retract for calling shheenaspleenas a troll. I was wrong. Stubborn, I'll go with stubborn.
I'll amend to stubborn too
But the stubbornness can get to be so extreme on certain topics that is distinguishable from trolling only by use of an electron microscope.