Charlotte Gainsbourg-a-like....

[Britalian]

Well, I wonder how much criticism sartorialist gets for his unposed/grabbed pics.
I'm sure there'll be droolers; people drool over different things, not least a pretty girl in public place, and they have their dedicated websites.

 

[crazyquik]

Wow, I'll have to buck the trend here.

Is it maybe a little creepy? Well maybe a little. But we live in a paparazzi world and everyone will get their 15 minutes. You can be attractive and get noticed, wear nice clothes and get noticed, or simply be at the right sort of events and get noticed. But you should't complain.

FWIW, one of the most influential law review articles of all time, written by #1 and #2 in their class at Harvard (Brandeis and Sam Warren) was titled "The Right to Privacy" and supposedly was inspired by a society lady who knew Warren and wanted to know if there was legal recourse against the press for taking her picture.

 

[redcaimen]

I dont understand the near universal negative reaction to the OP. I usually side with the internet prudes and pecksniffs (not the prissy grammarians though. those guys are as lame as a homemade star trek uniform) but why is the non sexual picture of a pleasant looking girl considered so creepy and invasive? Whats the number of strangers you need to have in a photo before you dont feel the need for a signed release? 2? 4? 30? The photo is harmless and the girl is lovely.

edit: well, it was near universal until crazy beat me to the punch.

 

[crazyquik]

Lets say you have a hypothetical girl on train station in trench coat

If you said "can I take your picture and put it on the front page of the Style section in the newspaper?" most would love that. Occasionally people from this forum are pictured in various newspaper style or social sections.

This is not radically different.

 

[imatlas]

Originally Posted by Britalian

Well, I wonder how much criticism sartorialist gets for his unposed/grabbed pics.

I've sometimes wondered if Sartorialist asks for permission after taking his shots. I'm assuming that he does not do so beforehand, as his pictures have such a natural unposed quality.

 

[esquire.]

Originally Posted by Neo_Version 7

I don't think it's off-putting. What if somebody scouting for models happened to click this thread and wanted that girl in his next lingerie ad. As a result she becomes famous, rich, and lives the rest of her life in a plimsole-laden existence. If anything should be considered off-putting, it's not posting those two pictures of hers above. We did her a favor, sure enough.

There's no contact info and no way to get in touch with this girl even if a modeling agency saw the picture. So, if the OP really wanted to help this girl become rich and famous, he should have stalked her and followed her home to post where she lived as well.

 

[Go Surface]

I was ignoring this thread because I'm usually bored by "When StyleForum talks about teh bitches." But I clicked today anyway, and yeah, this shite is creepy.

 

[rach2jlc]

Originally Posted by imatlas

I've sometimes wondered if Sartorialist asks for permission after taking his shots. I'm assuming that he does not do so beforehand, as his pictures have such a natural unposed quality.

I'm nearly positive he DOES ask their permission...

 

[zerosum]

SHe looks somewhat like the woman. I suppose if he'd simply said that he saw someone who looked like her, some would claim it was worthless w/o pics.

 

[Tarmac]

Originally Posted by rach2jlc

I'm nearly positive he DOES ask their permission...

I'm sure he asks permission. The ones which look natural are staged. As in, "okay thanks for signing the release. So just walk across the street again."

 

[why]

Creep.

 

[duchessofmalfi]

lol wut.

she is good looking though. doesnt change the fact that this thread is creepy as hell

 

[Dewey]

http://www.publaw.com/photo.html There is no area of photography that is more controversial and unsettled among legal and photography professionals than the issue of when releases are required. Some believe that because of the ambiguity in the law, that releases are required if publication is intended under the premise that "it is much better to be safe than sorry". On the other hand there are those who contend that the First Amendment does not require a release if the intent behind publishing a photograph is to "inform" or to "educate". The difficulty is that it is not always easy to draw the fine line between what is newsworthy and what is not. . . . Guidelines when Publishing Photographs of Individuals * Because there are many nuances to the right of privacy and publicity laws it is advisable to always obtain a written release from any individual that would be recognized in a photograph. * Obtain a release even if the individual's image will initially be used for a newsworthy purpose in the event that you may want to use the individual's photograph for other trade or commercial uses. * Don't forget that if the individual is a minor, you will need parental or guardian consent. * Make certain you caption the photograph correctly. * Be careful when cropping a photograph that you do not alter the context in which the photograph was taken. * If you decide to use a photograph without a release make certain it was obtained without trespassing on private property, that it does not violate an individual's right of privacy or publicity or that it is protected by a First Amendment use. * Releases are generally not required from people who are identifiable in a photograph of a street or public place, provided that the photograph is reasonably related to the subject matter and the identifiable people are not the focus of the photograph. An example of a permitted use would be a photograph of the Rockefeller Center Ice Rink that was used to illustrate a book about Rockefeller Center or about New York City attractions, even though many people may be identifiable. . . . Conclusion Regretfully, there are no guarantees that an identifiable person or owner of property in a photograph would threaten to or bring a legal action for publishing a particular photograph. Therefore, the only way a publisher can be almost risk free from such lawsuit is by obtaining a written release from any person(s) or owner(s) of property that appear in a photograph.

 

[merkur]

..

 

[Britalian]

Originally Posted by merkur

Why is she wearing a double breasted coat open?

It's a trench, I believe. This is a style forum, and you ask a question like that.