I Cant Decide If This Is Cool Or Creepy...

[Lee]

http://tapthatguy.com

Its basically just pics of guys that people have seen in public that they think are hot and uploaded to the web for everyone to see.

Im really not sure how id feel if one of my pics ended up on this site after it was taken by some random guy in the street without my knowledge.

What are your thoughts on this, cool idea of creepy in a 'stalkerish' type of way?

Regards,

Lee

[longboardjim]

neither , it's something people with blogs would do since there's no "modeling agreement/fee" involved and the "circulation" is "limited" , I myself do not "snap & post" in the event you "snap" something you $houldn't. ( interpreted: responsible people ask permission and check I.D )

jim

[SirGuy]

I think of it as a 'bottom of the barrel' voyeur concept.

[Rich]

i think it is a bit of both i would not like to be seen on a site like that without knowing about it

[rickbuddyprofit]

I think any of these people would be upset at having their photo taken and put up on a site without knowing. But these same people probably posts a couple hundred pictures of themselves online on Facebook or MySpace or whatever. And in this site's defense, photos are submitted of people who are hot (not people who are seen as ugly or unattractive) so it is done in a complimentary site.

I kind of agree with the person who wrote that this is bottom of the barrel voyeurism, but hey, taken for what it is, this site is fun. I kept clicking the random link to see who would show up next. It was entertaining for about two minutes. It doesn't hold any long-term appeal though.

[chadknowslaw]

I vote Creepy.


I don't like the idea of taking pictures of non-famous persons then posting those pictures without the subject's knowledge or permission.

[Squirt]

RawTop posts pictures of people in Gay bars on his blog, without their permission, I find that creepy, but evidently someone thinks it's cool :goatse:

I don't think it's illegal, does that make it ok?

[SirGuy]

I don't think it's illegal, does that make it ok?

It comes down to a question of ethics - and this industry has done a superb job over the years of demonstrating very little. In a lot of cases the almighty buck prevails.

[Squirt]

It comes down to a question of ethics - and this industry has done a superb job over the years of demonstrating very little. In a lot of cases the almighty buck prevails.

You're right.

Thankfully, people with integrity last a hell of a lot longer then the assholes who screw everything up short term, though the negative stigma seems to stick with the industry in general :bullcrap:

[jIgG]

creepy indeed

wonder of the legalities. I know TV stations in the US can't show faces and blur them out or shoot from the neck down, especially stories about weight.

only a matter of time someone sues

[tim460]

creepy and I think probably illegal depending....

[StunnerJesse]

creepy and I think probably illegal depending....

I don't think this particular site would be illegal because I do not see them trying to monetize it.

I don't think it's any different than ending up on a party promoters website from a club night.

I know that there are hundreds, if not thousands of photos of me out there on various websites from club nights. They don't bother me because my name isn't attached to them. My life is an open book, but if somebody would stumble across one and make an issue of it, I'd ask why they were on that site in the first place and then tell them to STFU.

[LavenderLounge]

Creepy. And I take paparazzi photos at street fairs and clubs.

The difference between what I do and this site is I only shoot at events that by nature are "see and be seen". Plus, I ASK to take their picture, they look directly at the camera and know their photo is being taken.

Conversely, none of the photos posted to Flickr have signed consent forms either.

Here's a somewhat related article about newspapers and magazines buying amateur photos for pennies from online photo sites rather than paying professionals and photojournalists:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...BU2H19DPFN.DTL

[Jeff@UKSLads]

I myself think it's creepy. It's a really good thing the person isn't monetizing on the pics. Its rather interesting that people don't seem to notice their picture is being taken though. I suppose the photographer may have a hidden camera. Or maybe it's just people have their "blinders" on because it's New York. Who knows? Personally I'd make sure that pic didn't go anywhere if it was of me. If I choose to put a picture of myself up on the internet, I do it. If I didn't give you permission for you to do it...no way.

[DonMike]

I think it's creepy. I've seen blogs of candid people before. There's one, I don't remember the url anymore, where a guy snaps pics on the morning train and then writes funny captions for them. But it's all in fun. Well, unless someone does something rude to him then he calls them out. But in a way I'm kinda glad because people think they can get away with being assholes because there's nothing anyone can do about it, and now someone is. So in that respect, I'm all for that.

But taking pics of people for fun, or when they're in a public event and all that is one thing, but when you take a photo of a person and sexualize them, especially against their will, is very creepy and I would think there is some legal issue. I mean, what happens if you walk up to a stranger and say "I'd like to hit that" or "Man, you got a nice package", wouldn't that be sexual harassment. Well, okay, not if you're at the Folsom Street Fair, but I digress. So why is this any different. Don't get me wrong. I think the world would be a much better place if we could say stuff like that without repercussion and the person you say that to would automatically take it as a compliment rather than getting offended but that's just not the world we live in.