since i've already irked several by reminding all of forum rules, i may as well go the whole nine yards. :) i've noticed a distressing tendency to disclose personal information in some posts. please remember to use only the "handles" provided by users in addressing them. to wit, a recent post included in another forum said:
YES THEY SERVE GREAT WESTERN. THANKS M***
where a given name was used, not provided in the users profile. this contravenes the following forum rule:
Unauthorized disclosure of any information whether
personal in nature or not is grounds for immediate
expulsion from the site, so don't do it.
please make certain to not divulge information gained elsewhere in these public forums.
-rudyk, erstwhile forum vigilante :)
hey rudy….it was meant as a signature
MasterRaistlin rectified:
hey rudy….it was meant as a signature
ohhhhhh…. punctuation problems. go figure! my bad. maybe i ought to pick one of the other numerous examples then?… :)
how about:
GOSH B** SEE WHAT YOU STARTED MONKEY TRUCKERS…
Have to agree with you on that one.
If people wanted their real names used, they would have their real names visible in their profiles.
Same goes for their ages, place of residence, etc.
Just another issue on privacy that I think bears some thinking about:
Not sure if you would all agree or not but just the same I will offer my voice on it:
When posting pictures of OTHER people taken at meetings/gatherings ect. I honestly believe you should ask their permission BEFORE you post it on the site! ( & im not saying this has ever been a problem for anyone in the past and I hope it doesnt become a problem for anyone in the future)
Im sure there are many who dont really care & thats their personal choice & thats fine but somewhere, there may be someone who doesnt wish to have pictures of themselves on the site-
Better to Ask/find out & Get their permission!!
Sweetie raised:
When posting pictures of OTHER people taken at
meetings/gatherings ect. I honestly believe you should
ask their permission BEFORE you post it on the site!
an excellent point, sweetie, and not one covered by the guidelines (but perhaps should be?…). far too easy to have our visage splayed thither and yon here on the internet when all we did was attend some function. i heartily endorse sweetie's perspective on this one, as well (and irked that i didn't think of it! :) ).
(and irked that i didn't think of it! :) )
Nothing worse than being irked…… :o)
When posting pictures of OTHER people taken at
meetings/gatherings ect. I honestly believe you should
ask their permission BEFORE you post it on the site!
Can't agree on this one. At public gatherings of any sort, your attendance is an implicit agreement to be part of the proceedings. Said proceedings are therefore allowed to be made public by a simple majority of the group.
BTW, did you know that on any given day, you are photographed 20-30 times (more in Britain)?
true pooga but in alberta my girls do have a thing where they can't have pictures published in any form without my concent due to being stalked… so rules can be good in some ways… and it is true how often we get photographed without our knowlegde…
When posting pictures of OTHER people taken at
meetings/gatherings ect. I honestly believe you should
ask their permission BEFORE you post it on the site!
Can't agree on this one. At public gatherings of any
sort, your attendance is an implicit agreement to be
part of the proceedings. Said proceedings are therefore
allowed to be made public by a simple majority of the
group.
i am not up to date on my privacy laws but i'm reasonably certain that the sticking point of this would be having your identity listed with your picture. an anonymous face in the crowd is one thing, having picture and name published is another. pooga, you'd be a recent test – when you were going to be on TV, was your consent given in some fashion? seems to me newspapers, at least, take great pains to identify the subjects of their newsphotos.
in any case, lack of such restrictions would be yet another reason why i avoid CMT meetings (i mean, besides being preternaturally agoraphobic, xenophobic and ugly).
(i mean, besides being preternaturally agoraphobic, xenophobic and ugly)
Whoa, now that is a mouthful…. and I don't think you are ugly!!! ;o)
pooga, you'd be a recent test – when you were going to be on TV, was your consent given in some fashion? seems to me newspapers, at least, take great pains to identify the subjects of their newsphotos.
Actually, no. By requesting involvement in their 'project', I believe that that was a given. And in my earlier encounters with the media, it was always a 'news' story. How one differentiates between 'news' and signing a release for use of your picture is beyond me.
Think of the thousands who get their mugs on TV standing behind the ESPN desk, Letterman, ANY sporting event, etc. How many signed releases???
(BTW BC, I'm the Grammar Nazi around here!)
OKAY THEN NOW THAT WE GOT THAT COVER PLEASE TRANSLATE ALL OF RUDYK'S EMAILS OR PUT A DICTIONARY ON THIS SITE TO LOOK UP SOME OF HIS WORDS.
(BTW BC, I'm the Grammar Nazi around here!)
hrm.. if i had the time to debate with poogie, i would.. I think the proper conduct in any circumstances whould be warranted when posting other peoples pic's online. The privacy act in Canada are buckling down, and I have read where members from non profit sites (such as us)have had several legal cases where one member posted their picture online without the consent of the other member, regardless if their names were posted below the picture or not…
I think we all have seen what each other looks like, and maybe the proper thing to do would be to ask if their picture can be posted.
Someone might have to check up on this with the Privacy Act Consent.
I have also read (not sure if its ligit or not).. that if any pictures are taken in public (such a bar/restaurant), then consent is not warranted.
My two sense and this is way too darn serious for me…
Anyone wanna play on cam? haha
lol
that if any pictures are taken in public (such a bar/restaurant), then consent is not warranted.
And is that not where most of the CMT gathering pictures are taken, In a restaurant or coffee shop?
I can understand rudyk well enough. and he looks and acts like a normal person in a public place. he is just being a potato and does not want to appear in a restaurant with peasants. LOL
he is just being a potato
A potato, eh…. hmmmm that might explain a few things…
j-lynn appropriately noted:
I think we all have seen what each other looks like, and
maybe the proper thing to do would be to ask if their
picture can be posted.
i think that this would be wise, decent and reasonable. i have been doing some google-ing and it seems pretty standard to ask for consent when photos are posted. a person has rights to their appearance/visage (some of us should just abrogate those rights :) ). you cannot use my face to promote rat poison no more than can you use wayne gretzky to promote cars – without consent. yeah, okay, i've built a straw man, but the point remains, a person's face makes them identifiable as does their name, address or anything else (perhaps moreso… do police looking for a suspect flash an address or a photo?). you should need their say-so before posting it.
the situation is even stickier if the photos show children (as the last bunch of photos did). there are even MORE regulations and site guidelines directed towards showing the underage. you'll note that many schools today have you sign a waiver in case pictures of your children are used in promoting achievments and events (a general waiver, but a waiver nevertheless).
then j-lynn teased:
Anyone wanna play on cam? haha
no… NO! that just opens up a whole DIFFERENT can of worms… :)
the situation is even stickier if the photos show children (as the last bunch of photos did). there are even MORE regulations and site guidelines directed towards showing the underage. you'll note that many schools today have you sign a waiver in case pictures of your children are used in promoting achievments and events (a general waiver, but a waiver nevertheless).
True, but in the case of the schools it is generally because they are identified by their given names, not an alias name.
I don't think that at a CMT club gathering it unreasonable to expect that your picture will taken and posted on a CMT members page.
In Saskatoon I have offered space on my business web site for Saskatoon CMT members (it is also available to Regina or for that matter CMT Saskatchewan members)to post info and pictures if they so desire. Currently none of the pictures are identified by given names, only CMT aliases.
I do agree that it may be prudent to develop a policy on this type of activity so that ever member knows what to expect.
I read in the paper Winnipeg is not allowing cameras or video taping in the hockey arenas or any sporting events or public places to protect the children's privacy. It is actually a federal law. Also in the past cameras have not been allowed in a licensed establishment as ruled by the Saskatchewan Liquor and Gaming Commission. If you are a waitress in a bar it is your job to disallow cameras in case you get someone that is not in your party.
After a quick search of the Sask Liquor and Gaming Regs, I could find no prohibition on cameras in bars. This could be a policy of a local business… With casinos and lounges buzzing with surveilance equipment, I'm pretty sure cameras are allowed. In Edmonton, there the Sun publishes a kind of weekend 'party report' where they tour the bars and photograph people having fun and publish the pictures and names in the Saturday or Sunday edition, so it can't be a problem there…
Regarding rinks and arenas, I called a buddy who does photography for several media outlets (over 20 years). His response was that he doubts there is a federal law prohibiting photography in arenas simply because parents would never tolerate it and the media would have vigorously challenged it in the courts. He'll get back to me after he consults his employers, but again, if there was a law, I'm pretty sure he would have heard of it by now.
When I did photography for pay, A model release was only required when the photos were to be used commercially, that is to promote a product, or advertise an event, etc. Photos of news events- car accidents, etc. are fair game- no release required. The only exceptions to this is the Young Offenders Act which prohibits publishing photos of children under 18 who are accused and/or convicted of a crime. Photos of children playing in a sprinkler in the park, or riding their bikes by the river, playing baseball, etc. - no release required.
Having said all this, however, it is common for websites such as this to publish guidelines concerning the use of photos of members, and I would support restricting the publishing of photos to those who have given their expressed permission only. This means you can't take my picture because there is enough uglyness in the world already:)
one ust never knows when someone will be in a restaurant with someone elses husband. for all I know Sweetie could have been at the first regina meet with her neighbors husband etc etc. but……..no one had a camera there so she is safe. LOL. (just an example sweetie) not pointing a finger. he "IS" yours isnt he?
I thought that this was a site about tracking BILLs not people or site members.
I agree that if someone does not want their name to be used they have that choice. But it should be that person making the complaint to "the powers that be" and not each of us appointing ourselves as "web site police".
If someone posts something that offends me or my person, I will take that up with them in PRIVATE not in a public forum. If they continue the attack, then that is what "the powers that be" are for.
Some it seems just like to be in control. I for one did not come to this site to be controled but to TRACK MY MONEY.
So I ask again, in the code of conduct, who are "the powers that be", the real "site police"? Is rudyk one of them?
Just asking?
Terry
This means you can't take my picture because there is enough uglyness in the world already
C'mon now are you and rudyk having an ugly contest??? Me thinks not, as the last picture taken of you did not break the camera lens….. ;o)
This topic has been locked by a moderator.
