- This topic has 279 replies, 49 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 3 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
My standards of modesty preclude my having this type of discussion in a public forum.
That pretty much sums up that you agree it is immodest to view.
anyone watched it on matzav.com or not?
Watched what adorable?
mods can i post a link? its a promotion for the oorah gold rush and he makes fun of this whole story where they took her out of the picture
I received an email from “Yeshiva World Sponsors” with a link to the following:
No wonder the Tzeitung deleted the photo of Hillary!!!!!
As Obama said……….
They got a inside scoop that Hillary is making Israel problems so just DELETE HER instead..
Its been a tremendous Chilul Hashem
No it hasn’t. When the media twists and distorts a story to show us in a bad light, those involved in the story have not retroactively caused a chillul Hashem.
We know good and well that some newspapers don’t print pictures of women, not out of disrespect for women, but rather so that men don’t look at pictures of women. You and I have a right to disagree with that policy, and think it’s complete overkill, but to ascribe it to false motives is a much bigger distortion of the truth than photoshopping a picture, which was never intended to misrepresent the events.
Those hypocrites accuse the frum papers of falsehood and disrespect, but are the ones who perpetuate falsehood and disrespect.
DY evenif it isnt direspect. How isnt if falsehood? Editing a picture without a caption admting it is edited seems false to me.
When mods edit a post they make clear that it is edited.
Why do you say the papers arent guilty of falsehood?
There is a reason why you cannot divert from the left or the RIGHT. People here rightly condem YCT for going to far to the left. But few are willing to critize people for going to far to the right, How far to the right must one go before there is general condemnation of the acts.
Here the pictures were clearly photoshopped and a major world leader was cropped out of a famous picture
It is falsehood to alter a photograph.
Those hypocrites accuse the frum papers of falsehood and disrespect, but are the ones who perpetuate falsehood and disrespect.
No, it was HaMevaser who perpetrated the falsehood.
Look, I don’t like this policy. But you know what? It’s not my paper and I don’t have to buy it. They’re entitled to their policy regardless of whether or not I like it.
However, there are still standards of truth and falsehood — and publishing an edited picture as if it were genuine is a falsehood, especially in a news setting.
If they want to have their policy, they should have not published the picture at all, or else found a different shot that didn’t include women. But as is, it definitely is a falsehood.
The Wolf
Nonsense. They were not trying to fool anyone into thinking there are no female world leaders, or that they did not attend the rally, and nobody was fooled. I know you’re a photographer, Wolf, but there’s nothing holy or sacrosanct about a photograph that it can’t be altered.
I didn’t read this article, but as I recall, the article that this thread was based on did mention Hillary Clinton’s presence, yet they were accused of misrepresentation.
When someone on the CR claims he’s a goose farmer from Alaska, is that a falsehood? Not in my book, because the intent isn’t to actually present false information as true.
If someone presents himself as both a talmid of Rav Yisroel Belsky and Rav Menashe Klein for illustrative purposes, is that a lie? Not to me.
Their readership knows full well that the absence of a female in a picture doesn’t mean there weren’t any present, and so do all of these journalusts, and all of the commenters here in the CR. Neither the intent, nor the result, was for anybody to have misinformation.
The photograph is likely copyrighted and belongs to someone. You need that persons permission to alter it
ZD, even if true, that’s a totally unrelated point, but I’m curious: do you have any real source that it’s a copyright violation, or is that just an assumption?
I am sure the photograph was copyrighted. If you have ever taken pictures you would realize this photograph was likey taken with better equipment and more importantly good sight angles which most people dont get.
There is an option under US copyright “Fair use” where you are allowed to use such a photograph and pay for it and maybe alter it under certain condtions. I have seen parodies of this photograph that were clearly parodies and that would likely be ok. However HaMaversar was trying to pass off this photograph as legit, that is different. A parody must clearly be a parody
DY
“When someone on the CR claims he’s a goose farmer from Alaska, is that a falsehood?…If someone presents himself as both a talmid of Rav Yisroel Belsky and Rav Menashe Klein for illustrative purposes, is that a lie?”
It depends on context, for illustrative purposes it isnt a lie. If the person said “I am a close talmid of R’ Belsky and he told me there is no lifnei iver to ask others to carry”
That WOULD be a lie, (I assume you agree, since it is more than just illustrative)
In a newspaper, by definition the context is depicting events on the news pages, This may not be true for an entire paper not in the funny pages, nor in ads which we all know may contain hyporbole, but the news pages are presented as fact. Pictures are not used for “illustrative purpooses” but to show events. Sometimes they are merely illustrative and an honest outlet would label it as such.
I have a question for you. Do you think they should have used a different picture?
I know you’re a photographer, Wolf, but there’s nothing holy or sacrosanct about a photograph that it can’t be altered.
In normal circumstances, that’s true. I edit my photos all the time. However, it is most certainly NOT true in a journalistic setting. In journalism, altering a photo is a cardinal sin.
Unless the paper is something akin to The Onion, they should not be altering photos. At the very least, they should indicate that the photo has been altered.
The Wolf
ZD, even if true, that’s a totally unrelated point, but I’m curious: do you have any real source that it’s a copyright violation, or is that just an assumption?
Under copyright law, a photograph has a copyright from the moment it’s created and is owned by the creator (in most circumstances). Certainly this photo belongs to someone — either the photographer or the newspaper.
Whether or not they actually violated the copyright would depend on the rights reserved by the copyright holder — whether it can be used in a commercial venture or whether or not it can be altered.
Google “Creative Commons” for more info. I have no idea what the CC status of that particular photo is (if any).
The Wolf
The photograph is likely copyrighted and belongs to someone. You need that persons permission to alter it
You do?
And is it the same under Israeli law?
“do you have any real source that it’s a copyright violation, or is that just an assumption?”
When the Hilary Photoshop incident occurred 3 years ago, it was mentioned that owner of the picture allowed it for public use as long as it was not altered. Apparently, there is such a thing as intellectual property rights with pictures.
A couple of quick points.
It probably is copyrighted, my question is is this a copyright violation, and should we be conjecturing that it is without ant any legal knowledge.
Yes, ubiquitin, it is about context, and I explained why I don’t think this context lends itself to the criticism levied.
No, I would not have hed this picture published. It might not have been fraudulent or illegal or disrespectful, but it was still not a good idea.
In the western World, copyright laws are similar (Not exact there are some differences like the length of copyright)
Israel most likely follows the European laws in this regard (Although Im not 100% sure)
And is it the same under Israeli law?
Israel is a signatory to the Berne Convention and several other international copyright agreements.
The Wolf
Some people are really trying hard. You find it not to your taste? Fine. Falsehood? My goodness. Are they testifying to something here? Is YWN falsifying anything when they put up stock photos or funny shots of politicians? The newspaper wants to put in a picture so that it should be more interesting. That’s all. They are doing a service for their readers (or voters), who want exactly this type of service.
And as for: “In journalism, altering a photo is a cardinal sin,” perhaps they are more concerned with other types of sins.
This whole journalism ?????? is the biggest falsehood of them all. Instead of relating facts evenly — what we would call balanced, but can lead to unbalanced opinions — more often than not journalists see their job as to produce balanced opinions through unbalanced reporting.
In June 2010, the Economist ran a cover showing Obama surveying the Louisiana coast after the BP oil spill. However, it soon became apparent that in the original photo, Obama was actually speaking to somebody else (a woman, as it so happens) that the Economist had edited out of the picture. The Economist’s deputy editor Emma Duncan explained to the NYT the photo was edited “not to make a political point, but because the presence of an unknown woman would have been puzzling to readers. We don’t edit photos in order to mislead,” she continued. “I asked for Ms. Randolph to be removed because I wanted readers to focus on Mr. Obama, not because I wanted to make him look isolated. That wasn’t the point of the story.”
If a picture is edited in order to mislead the readers into thinking differently of the events depicted, it is indeed falsehood. But if a picture is edited to remove either a distraction or something that readers may find objectionable, it is no deception.
Would anybody suggest that had a pornographic poster been in the background of the said picture, any newspaper editing it out would have been deceiving its readership?
(Yes, I understand that many here do not think the a picture of Angela Merkel is inappropriate in the least. However, the distinction between a newspaper editing a picture to change the narrative of a story or merely to remove something that its readership will find inappropriate and still stands.)
That being said, the newspaper should indeed have tagged the caption with an (edited).
ZD:
“The photograph is likely copyrighted and belongs to someone. You need that persons permission to alter it”
That statement is likely (or almost certainly) made up. You need to check your facts before insinuating wrong-doing.
And besides, hevai dan es kol adam li’kaf zechus – when in doubt, we are supposed to assume the best of our fellow Jews.
MDG:
If I’m not mistaken the Hillary photo was an official White House press photo, which may not be edited.
DaasYochid: According to your thinking (that newspapers should not publish pictures of women because men would look at it), all women should walk around town wearing burkas. A “kal vochomer” -if you cannot even have a woman (fully enveloped in a coat ,btw, and barely recognizable as a woman)appear in the newspaper, then “al achas kamah vekamah” that you should never have “live” women -surely a bigger problem- walking around town with their faces uncovered. Sorry but this not my yiddishkeit. If we accept your views, we are not better than the Taliban.
Wolf: HaMevaser does NOT hold itself to be journalism. They simply strive to print the news on paper and distribute that paper to the heimish community to make them aware of relevant and interesting news. If you want to call them journalism and journalists, that’s your prerogative. That isn’t something they seek or see themselves as. Call them whatever you want. Maybe non-journalism. They don’t seek nor care to meet journalistic standards or be “journalists”. And that is their right.
If Hamaverser wants to write their own stories and take their own pictures they can do whatever they want. They can print whatever they want from their own materials.
However if they borrow someones elses Photographs or Articles (Like from AP or Reuters) that have to follow the rules of those materials not make up their up
You all have this wrong. The Chancellor of Germany and the President of Switzerland both skipped the march, as did the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada. Frum publications would never mislead us. The Chancellor of Germany and President of Switzerland were photoshopped into the picture to give ammunition to the people who hate Barack Obama and wanted to blast him for skipping the march; it is harder to criticize him when so many other world leaders did the same thing.
Just as this website uses AP and other newswire stories and photos under license, by paying an annual or whatever, Hamodia, Yated, HaMevaser and whoever else also officially use newswire stories and photos under license with the newswires. Unless you have proof HaMevaser is bootlegging the photos, which you don’t since they aren’t, let it rest.
Rabbiofberlin, I never said or implied anything of the sort.
Regardless, your wild extrapolation to burkas is wrong. If you want to try to understand the reasoning behind the policy, read some of the posts on this thread: http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/pictures
DaasYochid: I re-read your first comment and,indeed, you seem to diassociate yourself from this approach. Nonetheless,myextrapolation (kal vechomer)still stands for those who make up this policy for their newspapers.
If you just want to criticize, then I can’t expect you to see that you’re going way overboard.
(At risk of derailing this thread:)
ROB:
“If we accept your views, we are not better than the Taliban.”
Are you serious? Can you really not see the difference between editing a picture and mass, wanton murder? How could you even say such a ridiculous thing? It’s people with attitudes like this that shout “Nazi!” at Israeli soldiers. Comparisons like these are A) ridiculously stupid B) highly offensive C) have all the intellectual weight of insulting somebody’s mother and D) cheapen true evil by equating it with anybody and everybody who disagrees with you.
Arguments are supposed to work. It doesn’t matter if they make sense.
And besides, hevai dan es kol adam li’kaf zechus – when in doubt, we are supposed to assume the best of our fellow Jews.
How come then some dont say the same thing for YCT and Avi Weiss?
Again one is not supposed to veer from the torah from the left or THE RIGHT.
Actually the comparisons between the Taliban are more alike than you realize, The people at Charlie Hedbo were murdered because some muslims wanted censorship and didnt want people to see pictures of Mohammed. Hamaser is censoring photos because some dont want to see pictures of women
What ridiculous analogies. There’s no doubt about Avi Weiss and YCT, they are trying to destroy Yiddishkeit. Your conjecture that maybe Hamevaser violated copyrights is in any way comparable??!!
And are you really trying to compare evil murderers to newspaper publishers who alter a picture out of a sensitivity to potential aveirah??!! Do you really believe what you posted?
Actually, you’re the one who seems to want to censor what a certain paper publishes, so if you really insist on inane analogies…
These people are destrying yiddishkeit and maybe even worse than Avi Weiss
The Hamavaseer picture has been posted all over the internet and many articles have been written about it in all sorts of media. They have made a mockery of the wonderfulness of Yiddishkeit, people see yiddishkeit as no differnt than the Taliban and some of the comments were worse. They see yiddishkeit as some backward misnogomyst society and see the torah lifestyle as backward, wrong and evil. Is that a “Kiddish hashem”.
One should show the beauty of torah at all times
mw13: no one is equating anyone to -G-d forbid- the Taliban in their savagery ! However, this attitude of new and illogical new ways is spreading like widlfire- whether like this instance, of erasing a woman from photos, or going overboard with checking fruits ,or learning for everyone all the time -all of this is a symptom of total ignorance of reality and real life. In that, this approach is much too close to Wahabism or Talibanism than I care for.There is a real world out there and that includes half the population known as women and that exists on a honest day’s work.
zd, your consistent logical obtuseness is astounding.
If we gauge whether something is right or wrong by how Jew haters and/or religion haters react to it, we would have to give up frumkeit in total to satisfy them, and it wouldn’t even work for the Jew haters.
They also make fun of kashrus (even worse than rob does), taharas hamishpacha, milah, and other mitzvos. Should we give these up as well?
They also make fun of kashrus (even worse than rob does), taharas hamishpacha, milah, and other mitzvos. Should we give these up as well?
Those things are clearly in the torah, this is not, this is some chumra.
But you said it’s wrong because they mock us for it.
If it’s a chumra you don’t want to keep, that’s fine, nobody’s forcing anything on you, but don’t be so intolerant of others’ ideals.
shmiras einayim is a chumrah?
am i in reality here?
seriously?
the gemara says afilu etzba ketana (even a pinky) if looked at for pleasure is an aveirah, why should you put someone in that situation
CA, the policy of not publishing pictures of women who are dressed okay is a chumra. Do women need to wear gloves?
CA
By that measure, one shouldnt even walk in the street.
If it’s a chumra you don’t want to keep, that’s fine, nobody’s forcing anything on you, but don’t be so intolerant of others’ ideals.
I see lots of people intolent of “kulas”, Nobody is forcing others to Drink Chalav Stam for example
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.