Jump to content

Unintentional, Damage-free Photographing of Others Not Illegal


webfact

Recommended Posts

Glad to see that all the ills, hassles, and problems of this country have been all worked out now to be concern with this issue, either that, of some people has way too much free time on their hands...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And who is going to be the arbiter of whether or not the photo was damage free ?  Thailand's incorruptible RTP, honest lawyers and unbiased judges ? or simply whether it makes any headlines or not ?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So just to be clear...if my main squeeze sees me in a vlog youtube with my terac de joure and performs that quaint ritual known as cut cut throw to ducks the abuser will be jailed?

Screenshot_20220603-072436_Samsung Internet.jpg

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mitkof Island said:

ZZZZZZZZZZZ ! I have very rarely had any issues with the Thais over the years. When taking a photo I often ask when I am taking a street scene picture never. A video the same I plan to ignore this BS!

You seem to miss the point entirely... The issue here is not street photography. 

Now taking a photo of someones bad parking, bad driving, aggressive behavior etc can be considered criminal (if they have more power and status than you). 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Excel said:

And who is going to be the arbiter of whether or not the photo was damage free ?  Thailand's incorruptible RTP, honest lawyers and unbiased judges ? or simply whether it makes any headlines or not ?

The person who feels damaged. 

This extends Thailands defamation laws to images and video. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, LivinLOS said:

The person who feels damaged. 

This extends Thailands defamation laws to images and video. 

I said the arbiter, not the accuser or do you think the accuser can seek damages or have people convicted without recourse to anything or anybody ?

Edited by Excel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your not doing anything wrong what's the problem.  Can't believe all the barstool bunters afraid of their face being photographed or filmed. . What are they hiding from? If your doing something wrong you deserve to be caught. 55555

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As some posters mentioned, photographing someone doing something illegal could lead to a defamation suit. I imagine taking a picture of a policeman riding his motorcycle on the pavement (which they never do of course) could lead to a case.  In Europe it seems to focus on using personal data inappropriately is the main benefit to consumers. If you have inadvertently clicked on a site which shows ladies and gentlemen involved in congress, then later received hundreds of ads for g-strings and dild*s then you might see the laws advantages.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Resident Alien said:

"If others were photographed or their pictures were posted unintentionally without any damage caused, no one would be considered as doing wrong"

 

What about those Youtube channels filming in public places?

Maybe there are some people who do not want to be filmed, when just enjoying some (nightlife) entertainment.

Thailand does not have a first amendment to the American constitution. It would be nice to know what they have as far as freedom goes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the "Real world" Anyone can take pictures or video of anything that is in public view.

There are numerous videos on You Tube of people videoing police stations and the like to see what happens, some are quite entertaining.

Why in Thailand they have to use such convoluted language is quite bizarre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DezLez said:

And who will determine if a photo is "damage free" in this land of defamation litigation?

The person who was photographed is the owner of their image, if they don't want it shared then they have every right to have it deleted.?

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bluemoon58 said:

Unintentional, Damage-free Photographing of Others Not Illegal

 

What the flock is that supposed to mean...???

 

it is "google translate" and has no meaning at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Resident Alien said:

"If others were photographed or their pictures were posted unintentionally without any damage caused, no one would be considered as doing wrong"

 

What about those Youtube channels filming in public places?

Maybe there are some people who do not want to be filmed, when just enjoying some (nightlife) entertainment.

Good point. Sick of those "youtubers" spawning around with their cameras shooting everything they consider worthy. we went to wat Arun recently and saw dozens of those freaks with GoPros and alike.

Saying that I consider its a new world now: cameras are everywhere and you can only hide from 'em by wearing burka or staying home with windows shut. Shades, mask and a hat will do as well.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Excel said:

I said the arbiter, not the accuser or do you think the accuser can seek damages or have people convicted without recourse to anything or anybody ?

The arbiter will ultimately be a judge and we know how consistent they are here.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BTB1977 said:

If your not doing anything wrong what's the problem. 

The problem is.. Those who do wrong are now shielded.. 

Someone is rude, drives like an ass, parks over multiple disabled spaces etc ?? Upload that proof to FB and suddenly they are 'reputationally damaged'..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Personal Data Protection Act is fantastic in my opinion!  However, I am still waiting to hear who pushed for and signed off on the 2 year postponement of the PDPA? Why did they postponed it and who benefited from this postponement?

Edited by sansaihashbars
grammar and additional questions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hotchilli said:

The person who was photographed is the owner of their image, if they don't want it shared then they have every right to have it deleted.?

That is not the case in public places.. You dont own the right to control what happens to photos taken in public. 

Hence paparazzi.. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Thailand, being such an advanced nation, has a Minister of Digital Economy and Society. Huh? Do any other countries have someone in this post? Or do they have so much extra money in the budget, that there is plenty to go around? How do they make a determination as to what images are damaging or not? This seems so arbitrary and subjective. 

Whatever the current fashion might be and more important as to who profits and benefits.

Not terribly difficult to figure out the Thainess motives toward any such movements. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, wealthychef said:

So is it legal to video police officers taking a bribe if they don't wish to be filmed and it would end their careers?  

 

and here we get to the 'reputational damage' part of the problem.. 

Theres no allowance for the behavior being factual, the same as defamation also has no relevance to the statement being true or not. 

Only is it damaging to the party recorded. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LivinLOS said:

and here we get to the 'reputational damage' part of the problem.. 

Theres no allowance for the behavior being factual, the same as defamation also has no relevance to the statement being true or not. 

Only is it damaging to the party recorded. 

this is why we in America believe that the right to free speech is more important than the right of public figures to not be "defamed."  America does a lot of things wrong and the truth is complicated but clearly muzzling public photography only benefits the powerful.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...