3 ms·
And dramatically underestimates the need for additive photography. Ferguson riots, Baltimore riots, New York during and after 9/11, etc., would all be blocked
by bmelton 11y ago
And dramatically underestimates the need for additive photography. Ferguson riots, Baltimore riots, New York during and after 9/11, etc., would all be blocked out by this.
Moreover, my vanity photos would almost certainly be excluded. I'm certainly not the first guy to take a photo of Haleiwa during the Triple Crown of surfing, but my photo is likely the only one that has me in them, and that, along with the memories that photo will evoke, are definitely not things I want to exclude from my life.
Understanding that this is probably a political statement (of which I'm not entirely clear yet), it's certainly a damned disturbing one.
- peteretep 11y ago> this is probably a political statement (of which I'm > not entirely clear yet) From the article: <title>... disobedient > The European Parliament recently voted against a > controversial proposal that threatened to restrict > the photography of copyrighted buildings and > sculptures from public places. > The camera could be funded or subsidized by public > and private sector institutions with an interest in > regulating photography in certain places.
- bmelton 11y agoThanks. I mean, I see that, I'm just not entirely sure how this is a response to it. Probably I'm just missing the link between copyright and 'already photographed', and/or whether or not that itself is a part of the commentary, or if it is just an implementation detail.