Filming wild animals is a breach of their privacy "rights" Discuss?

Just when you think they couldn't possibly get any more ridiculous than they quite plainly are another article pops up to make me weep. The problem is there's so many halfwit readers that take stuff like this seriously the daily mail is doing more to spread fear and terror than recognised terrorist groups.......

Off to upset some flowers by poking a macro lens at them now......
 
Animals don't have Privacy Rights...what the F are these people on?
:cuckoo:
 
I think that chap may be a mental. If I were his GP I would call the men in white coats and have him sectioned.
 
Arkady said:
Animals don't have Privacy Rights...what the F are these people on?
:cuckoo:
Click to expand...

Whilst not being a 'tree hugging do-gooder leftie beardie' as Clarkson would say, I disagree entirely with that comment, sorry chap. By definition, any animal which is protected has rights...in some cases more than us!

What right does anyone have to disturb a wild animal? No right at all.

Having said that, I think this latest idea is a bit mad. I have no problem with anyone filming/photographing wild animals provided the animals are not disturbed or otherwise prevented from going about their usual business of trying to cling to life. All I'm saying here is I do object to people disturbing a wild animal just for the sake of capturing images. If anyone disagrees with that sentiment he/she has no morals.
 
Have to agree with Arkady, the world has finally gone mad. The only time I would consider it unethical or insensitive is if you're purposely disturbing an animal for the sole purpose of getting the shot. This rubbish of "Privacy Rights" with species that have no concept of recorded media is balony to be honest.
 
Ste Manns said:
Whilst not being a 'tree hugging do-gooder leftie beardie' as Clarkson would say, I disagree entirely with that comment, sorry chap. By definition, any animal which is protected has rights...in some cases more than us!

What right does anyone have to disturb a wild animal? No right at all...
Click to expand...

I said Privacy rights - I didn't say they have no rights...read carefully before posting please...
 
Arkady said:
I said Privacy rights - I didn't say they have no rights...read carefully before posting please...
Click to expand...

I did, and you're still wrong. There are species out there with total privacy rights, described as such. Reasons include but are not limited to, the safeguard and total non disclosure of a species remaining populations whereabouts/geographical location. Filming and study can only be carried out under strict guidelines once permission has been granted by the relevant authority. It may be symantics, but these laws are called 'privacy rights'.
 
Ste Manns said:
I did, and you're still wrong...
Click to expand...

In your opinion he's wrong. I disagree with you, and in my opinion I think you're wrong. I reckon they titled it "Privacy Rights" but it's actually down to survival. Even if they did have "Privacy Rights", what gives those authorities the right to decide who's allowed to be in breach of it?

Privacy rights is a human concept, not an animal concept.
 
animals neither understand, need or have any concept of privacy rights.
It is something acquired by man, along with Guilt, sin and lust.
Animals in their innocence simply live their lives.
 
Typical rubbish from the Daily Fail.

What this guy hasn't considered is that the animals that get the best protection are those that have a high profile. Nature films are required to drive the goodwill towards these creatures.
 
There is nothing to stop you taking pictures of any animal in the wild from public areas. There is a difference between disturbing an animal/damaging nesting areas and taking a shot from the road side.


Ste Manns said:
I did, and you're still wrong. There are species out there with total privacy rights, described as such. Reasons include but are not limited to, the safeguard and total non disclosure of a species remaining populations whereabouts/geographical location. Filming and study can only be carried out under strict guidelines once permission has been granted by the relevant authority. It may be symantics, but these laws are called 'privacy rights'.
Click to expand...
 
These people with daft statements are dug up/pursued by the papers/media to fill in column inches/air time, no more no less not even worth a discussion tbh.:cuckoo:
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
animals neither understand, need or have any concept of privacy rights.
It is something acquired by man, along with Guilt, sin and lust.
Animals in their innocence simply live their lives.
Click to expand...

:agree:

Sounds like someone looking to get their name out to the world to me. Absolute total rubbish, as long as the animal is not unduly disturbed or driven to behave in ways other than naturally then there is no problem and no 'privacy Rights' such as those expressed by the person in that article.
 
If an animal is prepared to hump in full view - and which of them do so only behind closed doors/caves/hutches/etc. then it's not concerned about privacy is it - a bit like those humans who are into 'dogging' :D

That it should also die in full view is also not a privacy issue, otherwise we'd have to drive about with blackout windscreens for all those damn bugs that end their lives on our windscreens

I look forward to the first Zebra herd's litigation for privacy infringement when next eaten on film by a lion :lol:

DD
 
Perhaps we will get animals standing for parliament next?

Oh wait a minute who was that donkey on the box earlier?????
 
Ste Manns said:
I did, and you're still wrong. There are species out there with total privacy rights, described as such. Reasons include but are not limited to, the safeguard and total non disclosure of a species remaining populations whereabouts/geographical location. Filming and study can only be carried out under strict guidelines once permission has been granted by the relevant authority. It may be symantics, but these laws are called 'privacy rights'.
Click to expand...

Semantics aside, I still think more people would agree with me that it's total BS...

Animals have no rights other than those we humans ascribe to them... they have no innate rights as such...
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
animals neither understand, need or have any concept of privacy rights.
It is something acquired by man, along with Guilt, sin and lust.
Animals in their innocence simply live their lives.
Click to expand...

:clap: :thumbs:
 
POAH said:
There is a difference between disturbing an animal/damaging nesting areas and taking a shot from the road side.
Click to expand...

As a general rule I agree with that sentiment.

But, has anyone noticed the first paragraph of this article?

The claim comes from Dr Mills, 38, a senior lecturer on film and television studies and expert on situation comedies,

Perhaps we are all being wound up :thinking:
 
If even PETA disagree with him then this chap is surely on a hiding to nothing.
 
DiddyDave said:
That it should also die in full view is also not a privacy issue, otherwise we'd have to drive about with blackout windscreens for all those damn bugs that end their lives on our windscreens

DD
Click to expand...

Not to mention the, kamikaze pigeons, rabbit slalom and mating ducks I have to avoid on my way to work every morning. :D
 
If the Queen sees fit to give Sir David Attenborough a knighthood for his work then who's to argue.
 
Woblee said:
If the Queen sees fit to give Sir David Attenborough a knighthood for his work then who's to argue.
Click to expand...

Which has precisely what to do with this thread...?

*edit* Sorry - I read that the wrong way...as you were...
 
:thinking::lol::cuckoo:

'We can never really know if animals are giving consent, but they often do engage in forms of behaviour which suggest they'd rather not encounter humans, such as running away or building a burrow.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nimals-wild-breach-privacy.html#ixzz0mb4faqFS

I just imagined crowds running away or hiding behind bushes when a togger pulls out his camera in the street.

Human notions of privacy which rest on ideas of location or activity are ignored in terms of animals.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nimals-wild-breach-privacy.html#ixzz0mb5g2DRL

Think about it Sherlock, you'll get there...

Some people...
 
I can't believe I've wasted a few minutes of my life reading you lot arguing about animals and their right to privacy. :cuckoo:

God forbid, I'd better remove that webcam from the henhouse incase Nugget sues me under Article 12 (4) (d) (amended) of the European Convention for Animal Rights for filming her while she's popping out an egg. :D
 
Do Not take this as a serious article by the Daily Mail, Oh that's right in that paper it cannot be serious can it. I'm with hacker on this one except I don't get my rocks off with animal porn, or do I, humans are animals aren't we. Put the web cam back Hacker & enjoy your wildlife filming until the Euro Meisters actually believe the Daily crappy stupidity.
 
I'm not at all surprised. I dislike creationism and the ignorance it brings, but I can at least understand the attraction to it for the answers it claims to give. Things like this I simply do not understand. Do people actually agree with such bizarre hypochondria? Soon shaking hands will not be politically correct because you are invading their personal magical aura of pixie dust that was created by the super evil wizard Creditcrunchpedophileglobalwarmagamatron as penance for making a racist slur about a jam donut infected with swine flu.
 
Arkady said:
Semantics aside, I still think more people would agree with me that it's total BS...

Animals have no rights other than those we humans ascribe to them... they have no innate rights as such...
Click to expand...

Neither do people.
 
animals have the right not to be treated cruelly, and to a certain extent privacy as well. how ever with out thee documentaries what would we know about these animals in the first place? conservation would be non existent, and we would have probably wiped out a lot more species than we already have a long time ago. These documentaries are wonderful and bring information and images 99% of us would have no chance of seeing other wise, and at the same time making us aware of whats going on in the world and how important it is for all of us to do what little we can so that future generations can enjoy this wonderful planet and the amazing creatures that inhabit it. NO matter what you may think of the BBC it is by far the best at documenting wildlife any where on the planet and i hope it carries on the incredible work it has done over the years.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
animals neither understand, need or have any concept of privacy rights.
It is something acquired by man, along with Guilt, sin and lust.
Animals in their innocence simply live their lives.
Click to expand...

The truth...........:thumbs:
 
Anthropomorphism - the attribution (by humans) of human characteristics to animals. :cuckoo:
 
cor blimey...there goes my safari shots...no model release and some of the shots were of cubs..
dohhhhhh
 
i love pictures 1,3 and 7 they are so sharp lovely shots well done.
 
Jamesstan said:
animals have the right not to be treated cruelly, and to a certain extent privacy as well. how ever with out thee documentaries what would we know about these animals in the first place? conservation would be non existent, and we would have probably wiped out a lot more species than we already have a long time ago. These documentaries are wonderful and bring information and images 99% of us would have no chance of seeing other wise, and at the same time making us aware of whats going on in the world and how important it is for all of us to do what little we can so that future generations can enjoy this wonderful planet and the amazing creatures that inhabit it. NO matter what you may think of the BBC it is by far the best at documenting wildlife any where on the planet and i hope it carries on the incredible work it has done over the years.
Click to expand...

+1

similarly for all creation...alive or not...trees are alive...:|

i have been richly rewarded with all scientific and wildlife programmes...and the vet ones...animals are wonderful
 
KC Leblanc said:
Typical rubbish from the Daily Fail.

What this guy hasn't considered is that the animals that get the best protection are those that have a high profile. Nature films are required to drive the goodwill towards these creatures.
Click to expand...

what some people forget, is that alot of these "high profile" creatures have been almost destroyed by the biggest animal of them all so they deserve the protection they have. I have seen people catching animals and placing them in a setting better suited to the picture they want to take.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top