Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10 (943541) | |
![]() |
|
Home > SubChat |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
Page 5 of 6 |
![]() |
(945005) | |
Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10 |
|
Posted by bmtlines on Wed Jun 16 17:04:11 2010, in response to Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10, posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Wed Jun 16 16:55:05 2010. They are not even close to being "BORDERLINE". These pictures are very well within the law. You may personally feel that they are inappropriate but there is nothing illegal or even borderline illegal about them. |
|
![]() |
(945006) | |
Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10 |
|
Posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Wed Jun 16 17:05:11 2010, in response to Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed Jun 16 16:58:42 2010. If I am not mistaken, weren't those shots staged????And lest not forget in those days, child molestation and sexual misconduct towards or around children were NO WHERE NEAR the level and pitch that it has been over the last 30 years!!! |
|
![]() |
(945009) | |
Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10 |
|
Posted by bmtlines on Wed Jun 16 17:11:07 2010, in response to Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10, posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Wed Jun 16 17:03:10 2010. The reason that the author uses "almost always" is because state laws do vary. Actually it is some of the other subjects on that list that may be off limits such as nuclear power plants, certain buildings if they are within military bases, etc. Pictures of fully clothed children in a non-sexualized context where the photographer is not focusing on a body part are perfectly legal.Ask yourself, would YOU be okay with a strange, unknown grown male or even a female is taking all kinds of photos of your children without your permission, especially to which the usage of the pictures to this person are unknown?? Having 3 daughters, I would DAMN SURE have a problem with that!!!!! That is your personal preference and opinion, which is fine, but in that case don't bring the law into your argument - just say that YOU don't like it |
|
![]() |
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
![]() |
(945010) | |
Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10 |
|
Posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Wed Jun 16 17:11:50 2010, in response to Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed Jun 16 17:01:00 2010. "Ask yourself this, would you be okay with an unknown individual taking photos of your little children (if you have any) without your permission, and unknowing what the person could be using for?? I sure would!!You would? Good, I would be OK with it too." It is called a TYPO, and I thought you had read my correction to that, as I caught it after I already posted it!! And obviously, with the conversation being spoken here, I, above and beyond normal levels, have problems with that!!! "And again, I did not say ILLEGAL, I said BORDERLINE, means getting there, close, closing in!! Like going 24 mph in a 25 mph zone?" You hit the nail right on the head!! And at an officer's discretion, they can stop you for ANYTHING over the posted speed limit!! That resides with the individual officer, but if things are played to the letter "from the book, by the book", you CAN get pulled over for being so much as 1 mile an hour over the posted speed limit!!! All that rests in the judgment and discretion of the officer (if he/she does pull you over for that, makes them morally a ballbuster, but legally and policy-wise, totally in the right!!) "And what is so interesting about any person just standing around waiting for a train??? A lot more than a train with nobody waiting for it." Well, than I guess EVERYONE'S POSTS of trains here, at railpictures.net, at nycsubway.org, in Trains Magazine, in Railfan & Railroad Magazine, and every railroad/transit book, publication and periodical available ANYWHERE ANYTIME PAST OR PRESENT, are not interesting at all!!! Thank you for repeatedly proving my points!!! |
|
![]() |
(945011) | |
Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10 |
|
Posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Wed Jun 16 17:13:48 2010, in response to Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10, posted by bmtlines on Wed Jun 16 17:04:11 2010. And you know what?? It is that mentality right there that MANY child molesters hide in the midst, hiding behind BS like that!! And considering a sick pervert and find pleasure in pics of woman being dressed, what makes you think, for one second, a pervert can't find pleasures in a child dressed????? |
|
![]() |
(945012) | |
Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10 |
|
Posted by r33/r36 mainline on Wed Jun 16 17:14:08 2010, in response to Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10, posted by CT-Subbuff on Tue Jun 15 18:40:26 2010. Haha, this post reminded me of Quagmire from family guy! |
|
![]() |
(945014) | |
Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10 |
|
Posted by bmtlines on Wed Jun 16 17:18:12 2010, in response to Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10, posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Wed Jun 16 17:05:11 2010. And lest not forget in those days, child molestation and sexual misconduct towards or around children were NO WHERE NEAR the level and pitch that it has been over the last 30 years!!!Are you saying that there is something in the water that has spread the pedophilia disease to virtually every male in the country. Did we suddenly develop an epidemic of pedophiles? Should we be working on a vaccine? The biggest difference with 30 years ago is that the incidents are no longer being covered up like they were then. In fact the statistics continue to show that a child is more likely to be molested by a family member or someone he knows than by a stranger. |
|
![]() |
(945015) | |
Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10 |
|
Posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Wed Jun 16 17:20:02 2010, in response to Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10, posted by bmtlines on Wed Jun 16 17:11:07 2010. The law can FULLY apply here!! If an outraged parent observes such against their child, they CAN get the authorities involved, and from there, guess what??? Ever heard of unlawful surveillance??? An arrestable offense, especially if a concerned parent observes a strange man/woman snapping off photos of their child without their permission!!Why not reference what NY State laws say about such, and then we can continue this discussion!! This lawyer's little "rights" sheet mean nothing otherwise!! |
|
![]() |
(945017) | |
Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10 |
|
Posted by bmtlines on Wed Jun 16 17:22:59 2010, in response to Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10, posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Wed Jun 16 17:13:48 2010. So what is your solution - ban all pictures of children? |
|
![]() |
(945018) | |
Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10 |
|
Posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Wed Jun 16 17:25:19 2010, in response to Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10, posted by bmtlines on Wed Jun 16 17:18:12 2010. "In fact the statistics continue to show that a child is more likely to be molested by a family member or someone he knows than by a stranger."Tell John Walsh that!! Tell the family of Megan Kanka that!! Tell the family of Elizabeth Smart!! |
|
![]() |
(945020) | |
Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10 |
|
Posted by BigBusDriver on Wed Jun 16 17:26:39 2010, in response to Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10, posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Wed Jun 16 17:25:19 2010. Hmmm ... wonder if Brian carries any candy with him? |
|
![]() |
(945021) | |
Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10 |
|
Posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Wed Jun 16 17:28:51 2010, in response to Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10, posted by bmtlines on Wed Jun 16 17:22:59 2010. Keep this site to railroading/transit/trains/transportation!!!Reference any air industry forums or forums for interests in the aeronautical field and see if this kind of stuff is there!! Reference RAILROAD.NET and see if this kind of stuff is posted there!! Again, we should stick to the main idea and topic of this forum!! People with those kinds of photographic interests should refer to the appropriate site(s) for that sort of photography. |
|
![]() |
(945022) | |
Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10 |
|
Posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Wed Jun 16 17:32:08 2010, in response to Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10, posted by BigBusDriver on Wed Jun 16 17:26:39 2010. Sadly, it does make you wonder!! :-PHaving a wife, daughters, and also law enforcement in my family, let's just say if this is the kind of photography I embarked on, I would be having many personal problems right now!! I tell people here, "Shoot me, condemn me, banish me, if my photos and posts stick to trains, transit and transportation, and not to unsuspecting women/children/anyone!! Shoot me, condemn me, banish me, if I believe we should stick to what this board is supposed to be about!!" |
|
![]() |
(945023) | |
Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10 |
|
Posted by bmtlines on Wed Jun 16 17:34:15 2010, in response to Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10, posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Wed Jun 16 17:20:02 2010. You are WAY off base. Unlawful surveillance only applies when an individual has an EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY - Read it and weep:§ 250.45 Unlawful surveillance in the second degree. A person is guilty of unlawful surveillance in the second degree when: 1. For his or her own, or another person's amusement, entertainment, or profit, or for the purpose of degrading or abusing a person, he or she intentionally uses or installs, or permits the utilization or installation of an imaging device to surreptitiously view, broadcast or record a person dressing or undressing or the sexual or other intimate parts of such person at a place and time when such person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, without such person's knowledge or consent; or 2. For his or her own, or another person's sexual arousal or sexual gratification, he or she intentionally uses or installs, or permits the utilization or installation of an imaging device to surreptitiously view, broadcast or record a person dressing or undressing or the sexual or other intimate parts of such person at a place and time when such person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, without such person's knowledge or consent; or 3. (a) For no legitimate purpose, he or she intentionally uses or installs, or permits the utilization or installation of an imaging device to surreptitiously view, broadcast or record a person in a bedroom, changing room, fitting room, restroom, toilet, bathroom, washroom, shower or any room assigned to guests or patrons in a motel, hotel or inn, without such person's knowledge or consent. (b) For the purposes of this subdivision, when a person uses or installs, or permits the utilization or installation of an imaging device in a bedroom, changing room, fitting room, restroom, toilet, bathroom, washroom, shower or any room assigned to guests or patrons in a hotel, motel or inn, there is a rebuttable presumption that such person did so for no legitimate purpose; or 4. Without the knowledge or consent of a person, he or she intentionally uses or installs, or permits the utilization or installation of an imaging device to surreptitiously view, broadcast or record, under the clothing being worn by such person, the sexual or other intimate parts of such person. Unlawful surveillance in the second degree is a class E felony. |
|
![]() |
(945025) | |
Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10 |
|
Posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Wed Jun 16 17:36:25 2010, in response to Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10, posted by bmtlines on Wed Jun 16 17:34:15 2010. Hardly weeping!! And you only seemed to show ONE degree, the second!! Are there not others???? |
|
![]() |
(945026) | |
Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10 |
|
Posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Wed Jun 16 17:38:43 2010, in response to Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10, posted by bmtlines on Wed Jun 16 17:34:15 2010. Also, as I stated in another post, if a grown man can have perverted feelings when around a grown woman who is fully dressed, is it not safe to say a grown man with perverted feelings can feel the exact same and exact the same pleasures (sick pleasures) from clothed images of children??? IT DOES HAPPEN!!! Live in reality, man!! |
|
![]() |
(945028) | |
Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10 |
|
Posted by bmtlines on Wed Jun 16 17:40:51 2010, in response to Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10, posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Wed Jun 16 17:36:25 2010. I did my part now YOU show me the one that says taking a picture IN PUBLIC where the subject has NO EXPECTATION of PRIVACY is in any way illegal.First degree is charged only if the person has a previous charge/conviction under the second degree. There are no others. Believe it or not public photography is LEGAL. You and others may not like it but that does not change the law. |
|
![]() |
(945029) | |
Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10 |
|
Posted by bmtlines on Wed Jun 16 17:42:49 2010, in response to Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10, posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Wed Jun 16 17:38:43 2010. Sorry I choose not to live in the paranoid world that would prefer to see all photography banned just in case a terrorist or pedophile might see the picture |
|
![]() |
(945036) | |
Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10 |
|
Posted by R30A on Wed Jun 16 18:29:17 2010, in response to Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10, posted by BMTLines on Mon Jun 14 08:26:54 2010. Your top photo has contains of the most important people in the history of this city for our hobby. |
|
![]() |
(945047) | |
Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10 |
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed Jun 16 19:37:03 2010, in response to Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10, posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Wed Jun 16 17:38:43 2010. Also, as I stated in another post, if a grown man can have perverted feelings when around a grown woman who is fully dressed, is it not safe to say a grown man with perverted feelings can feel the exact same and exact the same pleasures (sick pleasures) from clothed images of children??? IT DOES HAPPEN!!! Live in reality, man!!And some grown men have "perverted feelings" when they see a subway train. So...? |
|
![]() |
(945048) | |
Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10 |
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed Jun 16 19:42:24 2010, in response to Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10, posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Wed Jun 16 17:13:48 2010. It is that mentality right there that MANY child molesters hide in the midst, hiding behind BS like that!! And considering a sick pervert and find pleasure in pics of woman being dressed, what makes you think, for one second, a pervert can't find pleasures in a child dressed?????What difference does it make? A child molester doesn't need a photo to molest a child, and someone getting "pleasure" from a photo of a child (or merely looking at a child in public, for that matter) really doesn't affect the child. |
|
![]() |
(945050) | |
Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10 |
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jun 16 19:49:50 2010, in response to Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10, posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Wed Jun 16 17:11:50 2010. Well, than I guess EVERYONE'S POSTS of trains here, at railpictures.net, at nycsubway.org, in Trains Magazine, in Railfan & Railroad Magazine, and every railroad/transit book, publication and periodical available ANYWHERE ANYTIME PAST OR PRESENT, are not interesting at all!!!Exactly. Well, many of them are not interesting, but many of them are because they include PEOPLE or LANDSCAPES or something otherwise special. |
|
![]() |
(945051) | |
Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10 |
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jun 16 19:51:06 2010, in response to Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10, posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Wed Jun 16 17:28:51 2010. This is the appropriate site for photography in the SUBWAY. |
|
![]() |
(945052) | |
Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10 |
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jun 16 19:52:54 2010, in response to Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed Jun 16 19:42:24 2010. And such a person isn't a molester nor even any kind of criminal, just a weirdo. |
|
![]() |
(945055) | |
Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10 |
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jun 16 20:00:34 2010, in response to Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10, posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Wed Jun 16 17:05:11 2010. That is completely and absolutely false! |
|
![]() |
(945056) | |
Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10 |
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jun 16 20:00:58 2010, in response to Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10, posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Wed Jun 16 17:25:19 2010. Anecdotal evidence is not evidence. |
|
![]() |
(945059) | |
Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10 |
|
Posted by fisk ave jim on Wed Jun 16 20:12:56 2010, in response to Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jun 16 19:49:50 2010. Let's not forget that" interesting " is very subjective, as in what's interesting to someone is dull & boring to someone else. Also keep in mind that many of y'all have been postin & picturin here for years. I just stumbled on this board last Dec & comming from a Railroad family & currently employed in the Railroad industry, I find lots of pictures interesting that others might find ho-hum , seen that, move on.Bottom line, there's always someone out there that are seeing stuff for the first time that's interesting which may seem dull to someone else, regardless of the site. |
|
![]() |
(945065) | |
Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10 |
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Jun 16 20:47:57 2010, in response to Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10, posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Wed Jun 16 17:11:50 2010. You hit the nail right on the head!! And at an officer's discretion, they can stop you for ANYTHING over the posted speed limit!! He said 24 in a 25, not 25 in a 24. Take Pride,
|
|
![]() |
(945083) | |
Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10 |
|
Posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Wed Jun 16 21:39:08 2010, in response to Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed Jun 16 19:37:03 2010. Now that's some REALLY sick stuff, man!! :-D |
|
![]() |
(945088) | |
Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10 |
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed Jun 16 21:47:44 2010, in response to Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10, posted by fisk ave jim on Wed Jun 16 20:12:56 2010. Let's not forget that" interesting " is very subjective, as in what's interesting to someone is dull & boring to someone else...I didn't mean to say that a picture of a train with no people is uninteresting. I like roster shots and I take them myself. I just think there's a limit to how many you can enjoy in one sitting, while pictures of people are always unique. |
|
![]() |
(945095) | |
Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10 |
|
Posted by Train Dude on Wed Jun 16 21:59:04 2010, in response to Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10, posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Mon Jun 14 22:32:26 2010. It's hardly just Fred although he seems to be weinberg's biggest supporter. But if you look at the pictures that weinberg posted, you'll see that there is a certain validity in the issue that Mr. Mabstoa raised related to weinberg's choice of subject's.... |
|
![]() |
(945099) | |
Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10 |
|
Posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Wed Jun 16 22:06:22 2010, in response to Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10, posted by Train Dude on Wed Jun 16 21:59:04 2010. IAWTP 10000% |
|
![]() |
(945113) | |
Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10 |
|
Posted by GOLD_12th on Wed Jun 16 22:51:04 2010, in response to Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed Jun 16 19:37:03 2010. You wanna see on Youtube who have wonderful feelings to the poor R160 car? |
|
![]() |
(945180) | |
Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10 |
|
Posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Thu Jun 17 09:43:18 2010, in response to Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10, posted by Train Dude on Tue Jun 15 19:28:20 2010. To wits' end, I alluded to another post on this thread about Brian taking a picture of a NYCT employee the second time around. You are correct on all account because the first time he did that photo, he got her entire backside.Now while he got only the face of the same NYCT employee the second time around and may look more innocent - - it still does not give him the credentials to take pictures of women only - - hey what about other people like men. And let's not forget one of his captions - - pole dancing - - maybe nothing wrong with the caption but when that is equated with the person - - or should I say girl/minor/underage pre-teen then something else is clearly wrong with the "picture". |
|
![]() |
(945184) | |
Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10 |
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Thu Jun 17 09:52:51 2010, in response to Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10, posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Thu Jun 17 09:43:18 2010. ...it still does not give him the credentials to take pictures of women only - - hey what about other people like men.Not including railfans, I counted 46 women and 42 men in the photos. Who cares if the subject is an NYCT employee or not?? |
|
![]() |
(945207) | |
Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10 |
|
Posted by bmtlines on Thu Jun 17 12:03:27 2010, in response to Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10, posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Thu Jun 17 09:43:18 2010. Personally I think that too much is being made of this. If you give the pictures he posted an objective review, there really is nothing wrong with any of them - they are mostly random shots of people looking at amazement or surprise at the special train.It seems that those who like Brian also like the pictures and those who have issues with him go out of their way not just to criticize them but to question the very legality of taking them. That is where I drew the line and why I stepped into this conversation since I am aggressive in defending photographers' rights regardless of whether or not I personally agree with the style of photography. If it is legal I will vigorously defend its legality under the law. It is fair to criticize his composition, focus, framing, etc. There is A LOT to criticize about the quality of those shots, but there is nothing illegal or even improper in any of them. I do not see where he is focusing on cleavage or solely on the gluteus maximus or other body parts, which would be disturbing. He is NOT "upskirting" or zooming in on people's bedrooms or bathrooms which is what New York's "unlawful surveillance" laws are intended to protect against. As for the "pole dancing" caption - I will agree the caption has sexual connotations and should have been omitted. |
|
![]() |
(945208) | |
Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10 |
|
Posted by bmtlines on Thu Jun 17 12:03:29 2010, in response to Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10, posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Thu Jun 17 09:43:18 2010. Personally I think that too much is being made of this. If you give the pictures he posted an objective review, there really is nothing wrong with any of them - they are mostly random shots of people looking at amazement or surprise at the special train.It seems that those who like Brian also like the pictures and those who have issues with him go out of their way not just to criticize them but to question the very legality of taking them. That is where I drew the line and why I stepped into this conversation since I am aggressive in defending photographers' rights regardless of whether or not I personally agree with the style of photography. If it is legal I will vigorously defend its legality under the law. It is fair to criticize his composition, focus, framing, etc. There is A LOT to criticize about the quality of those shots, but there is nothing illegal or even improper in any of them. I do not see where he is focusing on cleavage or solely on the gluteus maximus or other body parts, which would be disturbing. He is NOT "upskirting" or zooming in on people's bedrooms or bathrooms which is what New York's "unlawful surveillance" laws are intended to protect against. As for the "pole dancing" caption - I will agree the caption has sexual connotations and should have been omitted. |
|
![]() |
(945209) | |
Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10 |
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Jun 17 12:11:57 2010, in response to Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10, posted by bmtlines on Thu Jun 17 12:03:27 2010. As for the "pole dancing" caption - I will agree the caption has sexual connotations and should have been omitted. Um, that's what she was doing. She was swinging around the pole and doing dance moves. That's called pole dancing. Look it up. I didn't say she was a sexy stripper doing a pole dance, because she's not a sexy stripper doing a pole dance. She's a kid who was pole dancing. I'm surprised that you of all people would advocate beating around the bush instead of just telling it like it is. She WAS pole dancing. Take Pride,
|
|
![]() |
(945210) | |
Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10 |
|
Posted by Railman718 on Thu Jun 17 12:14:10 2010, in response to Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10, posted by bmtlines on Thu Jun 17 12:03:29 2010. It seems that those who like Brian also like the pictures and those who have issues with him go out of their way not just to criticize them but to question the very legality of taking them.I dont. I think he takes pretty good pictures, i just have an issue with his mindset on certian matters. |
|
![]() |
(945240) | |
Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10 |
|
Posted by Michael549 on Thu Jun 17 14:09:33 2010, in response to Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10, posted by bmtlines on Thu Jun 17 12:03:29 2010. I had some time, so I read the whole message thread, and some very interesting issues were brought up.All in all, I want to say that I am glad the folks who post transit pictures do so, and I hope that photos continue to get posted to this forum. Yes, there's always going to be debates about whether people should be included in the photos, or for more "pure" transit equipment and only trains photos should be posted. That debate has been going on for years, for example in architectural circles, etc. So long as the folks who post photos keep in mind that this is a transit-related forum, it is all good. Again, I thank all of the folks that have posted photos, and please folks keep it up. Mike |
|
![]() |
(945248) | |
Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10 |
|
Posted by Mr RT on Thu Jun 17 15:00:02 2010, in response to Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10, posted by Michael549 on Thu Jun 17 14:09:33 2010. Unposed folks in photos, put the main subject in contex.While a 3/4 view of just an engine, car, etc. is what you would need if you are prepairing to publish about that object. Then folks in the photo may need to sign a waver ... |
|
![]() |
(945250) | |
Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10 |
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Jun 17 15:06:08 2010, in response to Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10, posted by Mr RT on Thu Jun 17 15:00:02 2010. No waiver needed. |
|
![]() |
(945257) | |
Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10 |
|
Posted by shiznit1987 on Thu Jun 17 15:40:23 2010, in response to Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10, posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Mon Jun 14 08:00:57 2010. No one here denies someone could/has used public photography for malicous purposes. What one has to ask themselves is is that risk worth creating a society where no one is allowed to take photos in public? I don't see any difference btw your argument and the argument of authorities regarding "terrorism" and photos of transit infastructure.Fear is exactly what the creeps/criminals/terrorists aim to achieve as it is. Life inherently comes with risks and one of those is being in the public eye for all to see. How many of the passengers you said complained about someone taking their photo at the same time have a facebook account or shop on line? People put their personhood at far, far, greater danger everyday w/o truly realizing it. You can do much more damage to a person by getting hold of their SS number or bank card than by having a random photo. I'm not trying to poo-poo your arguments, especally if someone is overtly being creepy. Just realize that A) Not capturing people in urban transit photos is completely unrealistic, and B) Your mindset is what's making railfanning an increasingly difficult proposition for all of us. " |
|
![]() |
(945259) | |
Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10 |
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Jun 17 15:46:52 2010, in response to Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10, posted by bmtlines on Thu Jun 17 12:03:27 2010. Dude..she WAS dancing on the pole!there was nothing "sexual" about it... YOU gentlemen need to pull your mind out of the bottom of the barrel...stop thinking with your "other heads".. shame on you. |
|
![]() |
(945266) | |
Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10 |
|
Posted by BigBusDriver on Thu Jun 17 16:08:19 2010, in response to Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10, posted by Edwards! on Thu Jun 17 15:46:52 2010. Slang Dictionarypole dancing definition 1.n. sexually stimulating erotic dancing and writhing around a metal pole, onstage, before a largely male audience. : I didn't have the body for a career in pole dancing, so I became a house painter. Dictionary of American Slang and Colloquial Expressions by Richard A. Spears.Fourth Edition. Copyright 2007. Published by McGraw Hill. Cite This Source TS used the term, not anyone else |
|
![]() |
(945290) | |
Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10 |
|
Posted by BMTLines on Thu Jun 17 17:30:12 2010, in response to Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10, posted by Mr RT on Thu Jun 17 15:00:02 2010. You do not need a model release unless the images are to be used for Commercial purposes (ie. to promote a product or service). Even selling art prints is permitted without a release as is posting them on photo sharing sites and -- perish the thought-- even Subchat |
|
![]() |
(945310) | |
Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10 |
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Jun 17 18:10:04 2010, in response to Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10, posted by shiznit1987 on Thu Jun 17 15:40:23 2010. exactly...fear sucks! |
|
![]() |
(945316) | |
Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10 |
|
Posted by Train Dude on Thu Jun 17 18:20:33 2010, in response to Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Thu Jun 17 09:52:51 2010. Now, count again but just count the individual people and not the people in groups. |
|
![]() |
(945320) | |
Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10 |
|
Posted by Train Dude on Thu Jun 17 18:28:32 2010, in response to Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10, posted by Train Dude on Thu Jun 17 18:20:33 2010. I counted 25 females to 9 males when I omitted groups larger than 3. Coincidence? |
|
![]() |
(945321) | |
Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10 |
|
Posted by Fred G on Thu Jun 17 18:32:14 2010, in response to Re: 34 PhOtOs -- PEOPLE of the SUBWAY -*- 6/6/10, posted by bmtlines on Thu Jun 17 12:03:27 2010. Honestly, I think way too much has been made of this as well and those who've tried to connect lurid dot to perverted dot are themselves deviant and should either explain why a photo of a clothed person is dirty and perverse so that we can understand, or they should simply STFU and not bring it up again.your pal, Fred |
|
![]() |
Page 5 of 6 |