Woman wants photo I took of her Husband and child deleted and not posted. Is she in her right?

PMN said:
As much as at first that seems a remarkably cynical view, sadly I think it's just a reflection of how some people are in real life. Earlier in the year I saw someone post about someone out in a park using a 'big camera' so keep your kids away, I almost exploded with anger. In fact looking back now I wish I had.
Click to expand...

I find that this kind of thing happens less if you only are 'friends' with people who are actually your friends.
 
KIPAX said:
When i think about FB. I see a way of finding out whats happening in my local area.. what i can photo.. I see a way of helping my business by promotong what I do and letting lots of people know what pics I ahve uploaded"

Maybe it's the way you look at life that counts :)
Click to expand...
Me too.
 
andy700 said:
When I think about FB, I imagine a large room with lots of angry people (let us call them "friends";)), and these people are trying to decide where to vent their anger next, who needs sorting out, how to put the World to rights, how they can impose their own warped view of right and wrong on other people, and in doing so convert those people to being as small minded and petty as they are.
Click to expand...


Thats TP ^^.........:D


Don't lynch me it was just to keep it lighthearted
 
PMN said:
Where did I say they were my friend?
Click to expand...

You didn't. I just said, that I think you come across less of the post types being suggested if you keep your friends to your actual friends. My friends don't tend to be friends with idiots, so I don't tend to see offensive/irritating posts appearing that they've contributed to.
 
CharlotteM said:
You didn't. I just said, that I think you come across less of the post types being suggested if you keep your friends to your actual friends. My friends don't tend to be friends with idiots, so I don't tend to see offensive/irritating posts appearing that they've contributed to.
Click to expand...

Of course. Not being a 14 year old participating in some kind of popularity contest I do have a general rule of only being 'friends' on Facebook with people I actually know but that doesn't mean you never see things indirectly.
 
KIPAX said:
I ahve around 150 thousands pics in my galeries on my website.. removing somehting now and then is nothing to me... I get just under three million picture (not visitors) views a year) so the complaint/remove rate is ..well hardly anything is it?
Click to expand...

Hadn't checked in yonks and the above got me thinking.. just did a count.. a little over 179 thousand pics on my website..
 
PMN said:
Of course. Not being a 14 year old participating in some kind of popularity contest I do have a general rule of only being 'friends' on Facebook with people I actually know but that doesn't mean you never see things indirectly.
Click to expand...


The last point sums up exactly what I meant.
I have only six friends (five relations and one mate) on FB, but the amount of absolute rubbish which you see from "friends" of "friends" is astonishing.
 
KIPAX said:
When i think about FB. I see a way of finding out whats happening in my local area.. what i can photo.. I see a way of helping my business by promotong what I do and letting lots of people know what pics I ahve uploaded"

Maybe it's the way you look at life that counts :)
Click to expand...


Or maybe it is just what you use FB for?
You are obviously gettiong some benefit from it in a commercial sense, but I joined around four years ago simply to keep in touch with relations around the World.
I must admit that apart from birthdays and sending Christmas and New Year greetings, I just "lurk" on there, preferring not to take part in most of the midless drivel.
 
I'd just take it down, they've asked and what do you gain from leaving it up? It's a decent enough photo but it's not going to make you rich and famous be the bigger man and please for the love of god don't go waving those photographers rights things it's tragic!
 
a1ex2001 said:
I'd just take it down, they've asked and what do you gain from leaving it up? It's a decent enough photo but it's not going to make you rich and famous be the bigger man and please for the love of god don't go waving those photographers rights things it's tragic!
Click to expand...

So every time some troll tells you to do something you will crawl away and do whatever they say? It's his photo and he might think it's a great shot not that that is relevant either way. If approached properly and asked to remove it because 'insert reason' then fine but in this instance none of that happened.

As FB have removed it it's all a bit academic now anyway.
 
Big Andy said:
So every time some troll tells you to do something you will crawl away and do whatever they say? It's his photo and he might think it's a great shot not that that is relevant either way. If approached properly and asked to remove it because 'insert reason' then fine but in this instance none of that happened.

As FB have removed it it's all a bit academic now anyway.
Click to expand...
This person was not a troll don't get me started on the inappropriate use of that word since the media got hold of it!

Anyway all I was suggesting was weighing what was to be gained and lost in the argument and the answer is nothing. Being the bigger man and walking away even when you know your right has nothing to do with crawling away and doing whatever they say, it is your choice to label these actions so negatively when in fact they could be viewed much more positively and have saved loads of stress and wasted time.

A wry smile, a shake of the head and getting on with life is often overlooked as a means of conflict resolution in these days of anonymous internet aggression and negativity.
 
Last edited:
I seem to have overlooked this one somehow, so just read all posts in one go. Clearly there are polarised opinions like, for example, in mine that the OP cannot be compelled to remove the image, but for various reasons may choose to do so. You're now reporting that decision/option is no longer available because FB have removed the image, & banned him from the group in which he was posting - do their t & c give them that right ?

I'm still not sure what the fuss is actually about - 2 in identified people shot from behind - unless it's the embarrassment factor someone's already mentioned, what's the real problem ?

Will it prove to be lifted from here or FB & published elsewhere to the point that action for infringement required ?
 
a1ex2001 said:
Anyway all I was suggesting was weighing what was to be gained and lost in the argument and the answer is nothing.
Click to expand...

Sorry but I can't agree there. What is lost is the continued erosion of a person's right to take a photograph in public.
It also supports the ignorant populace's view that it's illegal to take their picture without permission etc. It's the thin end of the wedge, not helped by the likes of the mail or guardian etc.
 
@a1ex2001, Normally I would agree with you, but in the photo being questioned no body was identifiable short of a forensic investigation.
 
@Donnie it is not an erosion of anyone's right to take pictures the picture will still exist and still be available for the photographer to use. All that changes is it isn't in a Facebook group where it was causing a row. Nobody is educated in these faceless online arguments everyone just gets stressed and angry and says things they never would face to face. Choose the battles worth fighting whet victory is possible and will deliver a real benefit.

@george g it's not about them being identifiable someone is upset and there is nothing to gain by continuing so why bother other than some pointless I'm bigger than you internet points scoring game that nobody will win.
 
Last edited:
a1ex2001 said:
@Donnie it is not an erosion of anyone's right to take pictures the picture will still exist and still be available for the photographer to use. All that changes is it isn't in a Facebook group where it was causing a row. Nobody is educated in these faceless online arguments everyone just gets stressed and angry and says things they never would face to face. Choose the battles worth fighting whet victory is possible and will deliver a real benefit.

@george g it's not about them being identifiable someone is upset and there is nothing to gain by continuing so why bother other than some pointless I'm bigger than you internet points scoring game that nobody will win.
Click to expand...


Alex, I think what a lot of people are trying to say about this situation, is a fair few people today feel that they are entitled to stop people doing completely legal and above board things, simply because they have a "problem" with it.
One of our young relations is an absolute nightmare, for poking her nose into other people's business and trying to find fault/work herself into a rage where there there is no reason to do so. Her latest rant was to phone the council and complain about a neighbour who sometimes left his garage door open and drove an old car - Ford Capri - because she thought that this was devalueing the property prices in her road.
She was also the one who wanted me to stop posting pictures of her son (I had taken quite a few shots for them to have - free of charge of course) on FB. It turned out that it was not me but her brother - but she chose not to complain about him, or more importantly apologise to me.
So Alex, why should we pander to the needs of these people who seek confrontation and outrage in every situation?
 
Final comment.

Conflict avoidance is not 'pandering' you have decided to label these experiences negatively.

Pull the picture and walk away with a shrug and a smile knowing you were right and you've had a positive experience that you will never get arguing with such people as they will never agree.
 
I can see what you are trying to say re picking your battles and knowing you are right.
That's all very well taking the moral high ground, but quite honestly sometimes taking the moral high ground is just an excuse for not putting your side foward.

Conflict avoidance? Sounds like a term for pandering to me. :(

Conflict resolution however is completely different and is what the OP managed here.
 
rudolf hucker said:
I seem to have overlooked this one somehow, so just read all posts in one go. Clearly there are polarised opinions like, for example, in mine that the OP cannot be compelled to remove the image, but for various reasons may choose to do so. You're now reporting that decision/option is no longer available because FB have removed the image, & banned him from the group in which he was posting - do their t & c give them that right ?
Click to expand...

Fb didn't remove the picture or ban him from the group, the narrow minded group admins did that all by themselves and as they run the group it's up to them who's in and who's out. Without wanting to repeat myself I'm surprised that we haven't heard from the admins on this topic so we can hear there reasons for removing a picture that he had every right to take and for banning him from the group for standing his ground on something he was correct.
 
Last edited:
Proud2btaff said:
Fb didn't remove the picture or ban him from the group, the narrow minded group admins did that all by themselves and as they run the group it's up to them who's in and who's out. Without wanting to repeat myself I'm surprised that we haven't heard from the admins on this topic so we can hear there reasons for removing a picture that he had every right to take and for banning him from the group for standing his ground on something he was correct.
Click to expand...

We won't hear from the admins. It will be beneath them to give a reply. If you give people a little power, it goes to their head and they act bigger jerks than in real life as there are no consequences for them. You see it all the time with facebook admins.

I think this is backed up by their actions, its not a rational decision, but a knee jerk reaction from either someone too incompetent to admin a group properly or someone to inept at life to make an important decision.

I would also like to know which spineless troublemaking **** decided it would be beneficial to point the parents in the direction of this thread. I despair with the human race sometimes:arghh:
 
mejinks said:
We won't hear from the admins. It will be beneath them to give a reply. If you give people a little power, it goes to their head and they act bigger jerks than in real life as there are no consequences for them. You see it all the time with facebook admins.

I think this is backed up by their actions, its not a rational decision, but a knee jerk reaction from either someone too incompetent to admin a group properly or someone to inept at life to make an important decision.

I would also like to know which spineless troublemaking **** decided it would be beneficial to point the parents in the direction of this thread. I despair with the human race sometimes:arghh:
Click to expand...

Totally agree with you Mark, I would understand it if the OP had been abusive towards the persons in question but when he was just asking for advise It shows that there are always untrustworthy people around. Yes he should have ensured that the names were blanked out when he posted the screen grab but that was a genuine error, you can see who they are by just going to the original post on FB and seeing the 2 people that wrote PM'd on the comment of the photo.
 
Proud2btaff said:
Yes he should have ensured that the names were blanked out when he posted the screen grab but that was a genuine error, you can see who they are by just going to the original post on FB and seeing the 2 people that wrote PM'd on the comment of the photo.
Click to expand...

And the irony of this whole situation is that if the parents hadn't made themselves known, then no-one would have ever known who they were.
 
Donnie said:
I

Conflict avoidance? Sounds like a term for pandering to me. :(
Click to expand...

It's only pandering if you give a flying f*** about what the other party thinks.

If, however, you don't give a flying f*** but can't be arsed getting drawn into a petty online argument that will achieve absolutely nothing then 'conflict avoidance' sounds more like a term for common sense to me.

Fight the battles where a victory will actually signal achievement. Must ensure I follow my own advise more often...
 
jonneymendoza said:
Awesome pic. Just ignore them. Give us your Facebook link and some of us will reply in your behalf.
Click to expand...

Sadly the Facebook group have removed the pic and banned the OP. So this is now just a thread about what people think the OP Should have done and as stated he had no legal reason to remove it and the Parents had eventually gave in and accepted there was no wrong in what he had done. The FB group admin took it into there own hands to ban and remove but heyho we're not going to hear from them on this as they don't probably don't want to accept they were in the wrong removing it or banning him.
 
Proud2btaff said:
Sadly the Facebook group have removed the pic and banned the OP
Click to expand...

Whilst they have removed the picture, I didn't think he was banned as there is another picture of his still on the page., possibly more than the one I found.


Steve.
 
RichardtheSane said:
It's only pandering if you give a flying nicetrysunshine about what the other party thinks.

If, however, you don't give a flying nicetrysunshine but can't be arsed getting drawn into a petty online argument that will achieve absolutely nothing then 'conflict avoidance' sounds more like a term for common sense to me.

Fight the battles where a victory will actually signal achievement. Must ensure I follow my own advise more often...
Click to expand...

Nah still don't agree as the op wasn't getting into a protracted argument on the issue in the first place. So he wasn't point scoring or anything he came here and got some good advice and support
 
Steve Smith said:
Whilst they have removed the picture, I didn't think he was banned as there is another picture of his still on the page., possibly more than the one I found.


Steve.
Click to expand...
Indeed. I'm quite sure the fb group simply removed the photo and the op is still a member.
 
Simplest solution - re-name the photo! 'grandad joe with tommy jr on the sea front' how are 'they' going to prove any different?

.DAVID.

PS: a lot politer than what I would say personally !!!!!

PPS: another reason I don't bother with farcebook
 
Steve Smith said:
Whilst they have removed the picture, I didn't think he was banned as there is another picture of his still on the page., possibly more than the one I found.
Steve.
Click to expand...

Donnie said:
Indeed. I'm quite sure the fb group simply removed the photo and the op is still a member.
Click to expand...


he must have been invited back to the group as originally the group mods stated that he had been banned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top