What is Digg?93 Comments
- photopreneur, on 10/23/2007, -0/+92Just keep in mind that you CANNOT sell the pictures for advertising or commercial purposes of people or even of buildings without a model release or a property release. Without these releases you can, of course, post the pictures on FLickr, save them, share. And you CAN sell them to magazines for "editorial" use. You cannot sell them to ad agencies, corporations, etc. A long subject.
- davekoob, on 10/19/2007, -13/+66You have a blog. But do you know when not to use WordPress? When your blog is on Digg would be a good time.
- aflusche, on 10/15/2007, -1/+33Crap! I'm working to get the site back up right now. In the meantime, you can see a version from Google's cache:
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:2MclvKO4OF8J: ... - 2oonhed, on 10/19/2007, -2/+29an increasingly important issue if you walk around with a camera all the time, like I do.
- g2g079, on 10/15/2007, -27/+53Stop submitting wordpress article to digg. Digg should ban Wordpress.
- DewKnight, on 10/16/2007, -2/+26Wordpress isn't the problem. It's not using wp-cache or not being on a fast enough server.
- thunderer, on 10/15/2007, -3/+19And digg ***** it up again.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2m3ctd - FredSanford, on 10/16/2007, -0/+15Reasons why you are a moron:
1. If the site is down, how do you know it's running WordPress?
2. If you actually clicked the link and read the error message you would see that it isn't a WordPress error.
3. WordPress blogs get dugg all the time without any problem. No. 1 and 2 above demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about. - NeoPlatonist, on 10/15/2007, -0/+15I had a nasty experience in Charlotte, NC when I was trying to take pictures of the downtown architecture (which is mostly banks). I was told to stop taking pictures by 4 separate rent-a-cops saying I could take pictures of my friends in the buildings but not the buildings by themselves. They told me I would get in trouble with the cops if they saw me with a camera. I wrote an email to the mayors office saying that there were no laws on the books about photography in the city but he responded with the typical national security ***** speech.
Funny thing was that maybe a year or so after 9-11 I was on vacation in D.C. and took tons of pictures including some tripod shots inside the Metro. Any security would have had ample opportunity to tell me to leave but they never did. This is one screwed up country.... - smackhero, on 10/15/2007, -1/+15the problem is that davekoob doesn't know how to read error messages and is only capable of parroting digg memes. no matter what blogging app you use, if the mysql server can't handle the workload, the blog won't be accessible. at least wordpress gives you the ability to cache pages to reduce database queries. wordpress just happens to be the most popular blogging package, and you rarely see the logo unless an error page is displayed. you'll never see this problem on wordpress blogs hosted on wordpress.com or by decent web hosts.
- djdole, on 10/15/2007, -0/+12Awesome! Very informative comment. I was wondering just that! O_O
- subterfuge, on 10/15/2007, -0/+11i read a story about a guy who was arrested for being a terrorist because he took pictures of trains as they went by
- Sibertater, on 10/14/2007, -0/+9Yes, because people who have blogs aren't educated. Be reasonable...if you don't believe something someone says in a blog, check it out for yourself. Geez.
- ThinkBox, on 10/15/2007, -0/+9Good stuff to know, I wish he talked more about distributing those photos, for profit or just generally web hosting.
- lulutv, on 10/15/2007, -3/+11That's an awkwardly ambiguous statement. You see the same man every time you're "... at the mall taking pictures of little girls" ?
- aflusche, on 10/14/2007, -2/+10Thanks for making these key points. Nice summary!
- DontGiveADamn, on 10/15/2007, -1/+9Welcome to fascist America.
- InvaderK, on 10/15/2007, -2/+10It's still a little creepy when I see the same man everytime I'm at the mall taking pictures of little girls on the playground...
- donsherio, on 10/19/2007, -0/+7Can anyone link to a site that involves laws and rights for other countries other than the US? (like Canada). I always see these "Photographer's Rights" articles... but they all state US Laws and regulations and those don't apply to me. I'd like to see a Canadian edition :P
- M0b1u5, on 10/15/2007, -0/+6In New Zealand it's easy: you can take a photo of anything you like, except inside a military base. That might annoy our soldier.
- nezroy, on 10/15/2007, -1/+6Yes, that's why it's funny. Thank you for taking the time to explain it to everybody...
- inkswamp, on 10/14/2007, -0/+4In all fairness, I have no amend that. He does provide sources. I was looking at the Google cache version of the article that lacks the site formatting and it was hard to tell where the article ended, but he does have some sources. Not sure how credible those are. I'll check it out but my comment about state laws varying still stands and the article doesn't mention that.
- xjeffx, on 10/15/2007, -0/+4You're on their property so you can't exactly take photos of whatever you like. If you were on the sidewalk you could shoot into their establishment as long as you weren't going over any walls, fences, etc to get the shot. You can shoot whatever you can see from the street basically.
- sohosid, on 10/15/2007, -0/+4Not if they are of people, no. At least, not if they are identifiable.
Also, the only editorial use allowed is non-damatory. You cannot sell a picture of a random person you have taken to then be used to illustrate a story about child abuse, for example. Again, if the person in the picture is recognisable. - Wingman007, on 10/15/2007, -2/+6The laws seem to be temporarily unavailable.... I better start taking pictures so I can finish before they come back!
- sporg, on 10/15/2007, -1/+4So the government can use surveillance on all citizens and locations freely but our right to photograph freely is limited? There were other countries that strictly limited what could be photographed by its citizens. The two that come to mind first would be The Soviet Union and of course Nazi Germany.
- xjeffx, on 10/14/2007, -2/+5Well duh, only one country has access to the internet so by process of elimination we should just assume it's the USA.
- nobeastsofierce, on 10/15/2007, -0/+3does this apply to video too?
- dupswapdrop, on 10/19/2007, -6/+9If your going to take photos for profit you need to find out the laws in your state. For example some states will not let you sell photos you take from the side of the road or any public area with out a permit. Also with the new police state you better be careful where you take your camera, don't taze me bro.
- haydesigner, on 10/15/2007, -1/+4What a simplistic comment of a blog post This comment brings up nothing new and has no basis for wasting my time in reading it.
- peestandingup, on 10/15/2007, -0/+3Can you sell them for artistic value? Like at an art show??
- rebotfc, on 10/14/2007, -0/+3This is patently false, just look at all the compromising celeb photos that get published. Model release is requried only for commercial endorsement not editorial.
- inkswamp, on 10/15/2007, -1/+4Interesting read, but I have no idea who this guy is or what his credentials are and therefore I have no way of knowing if what he's saying is accurate. And because he didn't post any links to authoritative sources to back up his statements, I'm not going to take this too seriously. One thing I do know that this blog doesn't touch on is that the specifics of photography laws differ considerably from state to state and that's more than enough reason for any active photographer to go out and check the local laws for yourself instead of relying on a blog.
Seriously, considering some of the crap that gets to Digg's front page, I have no reason to assume this is any more credible than anything else out there. - thunderer, on 10/15/2007, -7/+10===First Comment Abuse===
DuggMirror caught it:
http://duggmirror.com/offbeat_news/Photo_Law_Your_ ... - EXreaction, on 10/14/2007, -0/+2Virtual servers should be able to handle digg without a problem.
Shared hosting is a different matter altogether (not saying that no shared host could handle it, I am sure my host could (webfaction) but the far majority of shared hosts overload the servers to start with). - robdiggity, on 10/14/2007, -4/+6Wow. That is a great story.
- MaxPayne3476, on 10/15/2007, -2/+4abortion isn't killing babies... sorry. its a featus, a non-fully produced groups of cells.
- saitama, on 10/15/2007, -0/+2The author should make it clear that these rules apply to *the US only*. Other countries are different - in some places, such as Yemen, Belarus and Ghana, there are stiff penalties for taking photographs of government buildings (even if they're just in the background).
- Nerys, on 10/14/2007, -0/+2State law can not violate the constitution Free Speech and Free Press insure you are allowed to take pictures of pretty much anything.
- earther, on 10/14/2007, -0/+2Actually, i do believe you can sell artistic photos of people. The key is not to defame or degrade the person in the photo you are trying to sell.
- fishbert, on 10/14/2007, -0/+1a link without the highlighting:
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:2MclvKO4OF8J: ... - aflusche, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1I'd love to hear what Planned Parenthood has to say about me! Send them over. My blog comments are open for everyone!
Babies are cute! - Detla2.0, on 10/14/2007, -1/+2you cannot however read the article without a mirror. It is not your right.
- Ramble, on 10/14/2007, -0/+1This applies to the UK too, only sensitive places can also apply to power stations, bridges, railway lines, etc.
Anything an enemy might find strategically useful.
Also harassment is covered too, so don't shove the camera in someone's face. - aflusche, on 10/14/2007, -1/+2Thanks for point this out. I'll nail the country down in future articles.
- insomniac8400, on 10/14/2007, -0/+1Nothing wrong with photographing in public. The problem comes when that jackass taking photos tries to claim ownership of a public image, or even someone else's image.
- breadfred, on 10/14/2007, -0/+1Well that depends on something called 'public interest'... if its in the public interest, the laws are different.
- claybird, on 10/14/2007, -0/+1well the main site was working.... oh well.. just trying to help
- TheSmokey, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1My friend did some research to find some Canadian perspective on photographer's rights, he links back to the actual law so your can interpret it yourself.
http://ambientlight.ca/laws.shtml -
Show 51 - 92 of 92 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is