Jump to content
Pearl178

"selfies"

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Once you put out a photo of yourself, it automatically becomes public property. It doesn't matter what someone does with that photo. It's their right.

If you are a leader, how do you protect everybody from someone who abuse the public photo ?

And how do  you prevent someone from committing injustice to himself and injustice to everybody.

Is committing injustice is everybody's right ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once you put out a photo of yourself, it automatically becomes public property. It doesn't matter what someone does with that photo. It's their right.

Thankfully, that's not the law where I live!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/23/2014 at 0:58 PM, Chair Pundit said:

Once you put out a photo of yourself, it automatically becomes public property. It doesn't matter what someone does with that photo. It's their right.

Their right extends to the purpose for which the photo was originally intended: for watching. The rest is copyright, not their right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their right extends to the purpose for which the photo was originally intended: for watching. The rest is copyright, not their right.

Where is the watermark? I don't see it. There is no intellectual property protection in the absence of any sign signifying sole ownership, which is applicable to most photos posted on social media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/24/2014 at 11:45 AM, Chair Pundit said:

Where is the watermark? I don't see it. There is no intellectual property protection in the absence of any sign signifying sole ownership, which is applicable to most photos posted on social media.

Forget water and soil-marks. The point is simple: If you're going to mess with a picture that doesn't belong to you, get ready for your nose to be broken into a bleeding sodden flattened strawberry if and when you're found - and the resultant bloodmark will be the mark you're seeking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Selfie : Hi, I am not sure if I am good looking, but people say, I am? - I need to see if I am. Yes, let me get courage, but, wait, this is not me, hmzz, wait, look, I will take a picture of me, wearing my new thought process, ( purchased product ), ones requires justification to act upon.

Click - upload - likes - Yes, I am happy, I am worth something, not U G L Y - woot - life is great -

           upload - No likes - Nooo, I am worth nothing, life over - eat more, get fat, another click, the circle goes again. oooo A like, maybe I am not ugly, ohh the person that liked is ugly too, ye whatever - I don't think so.

See the pattern - the objective of selfies is narcissism, but to the extend that likes are also appreciated if they are in numbers and probably when they are liked by good looking narcissist.

AND - singles guys stalking girls - to be friend them, for possible marriage -

Female Conclusion - OHH this guys are so pervs, trying to befriend me and liking my pics - 

Guy Conclusion - Grrr stupid girls, why do they advertise themselves, then complain -

Satire at its best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forget water and soil-marks. The point is simple: If you're going to mess with a picture that doesn't belong to you, get ready for your nose to be broken into a bleeding sodden flattened strawberry if and when you're found - and the resultant bloodmark will be the mark you're seeking.

I had a friend in college who lost her Facebook account to a hacker (within her own family.) She had a bunch of photos in her album which I liked and had saved in my files. The social media was my only means of contacting her since I didn't have her number at the time, and she hardly attended classes. It got to a stage where she had missed more than two weeks of college, and I wanted to know if anyone in class knew where she was. So I uploaded a few of her photos on my wall, asking if any of my fellow classmates had any idea. I received a barrage of complaints from them telling me that I shouldn't upload her photos without her consent, and that I was a "weirdo" for saving her photos in the first place. My responses were entirely rational:

- She was a friend.

- Everyone in class was already well acquainted with her.

- There was no way I could get her consent in her absence. (Stating the obvious out of unfortunate necessity.)

- The photos I uploaded of her had already been made public on her account.

- To be called a weirdo for merely saving someone's photo is a reflection of irrational societal prejudice. I have no taint in the slightest.

Point being, there is nothing wrong with using public photos of others in certain circumstances to your advantage. It is legal so long as it does not put the individual in some sort of tangibly grave danger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/22/2014 at 7:46 AM, Marbles said:

The staggering lengths some people go to service their fantasies. I wonder what goes on in their minds.

Something like this happened with my sister. She had an FB account and she was very cautious about whom to admit into the friends list and kept privacy settings tight. But somehow some deranged boy from the university saved a picture of her in the Bhurban mountains and guess what he did: He had it printed in large size, like a window-sized advertisement, and glued that poster on a college wall with "I love you [name]" embossed in golden letters on the lower margins. This was his way to professing his 'love'. That was one big move after a couple of valentine cards she had received previously, anonymously.

That day my sister removed all her online pictures and deactivated the bleeding FB for good.

That boy was so 'brave' he never dared to reveal his pathetic identity and to this day we have no idea who he was, from the class, from the sports managing group, from the teacher-student liaison committee, from....no idea.

That's disgusting, but I'm wondering if it could have been someone who didn't like your sister. It may have even been a girl. Some losers will go out of their way, and spend enormous amounts of time and money, to bother others. If your sister had beef with someone who had access to her pictures, all they had to do was make that poster, send those cards, and people would automatically assume that she had a lover. Regardless of how disturbed your sister must have felt seeing these things, if others got wind of this happening they could easily use this nonsense to spread rumors and ruin her reputation. Some people are despicable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/24/2014 at 4:52 PM, Gotham said:

That's disgusting, but I'm wondering if it could have been someone who didn't like your sister. It may have even been a girl. Some losers will go out of their way, and spend enormous amounts of time and money, to bother others. If your sister had beef with someone who had access to her pictures, all they had to do was make that poster, send those cards, and people would automatically assume that she had a lover. Regardless of how disturbed your sister must have felt seeing these things, if others got wind of this happening they could easily use this nonsense to spread rumors and ruin her reputation. Some people are despicable.

It might have been so, though she didn't have any beef with any of her girlfriends but who knows what goes in the minds of some people. But yes she was disturbed with what's happened but none of us took it seriously or worried about any possible consequences, because there couldn't be any. Reputation of a girl suffers when there's some information or incident that needs to stay confidential, but spills out enough for others to get wind of it. Nothing of this sort was on the cards; instead, the incident made a sort of admirable heroine out of her in the college, you know how college-going youth are, but that wasn't too hard to handle.

Such gimmicks as one pulled by that anonymous individual only make monkeys of those who attempt them.

On 7/24/2014 at 4:49 PM, Chair Pundit said:

I had a friend in college who lost her Facebook account to a hacker (within her own family.) She had a bunch of photos in her album which I liked and had saved in my files. The social media was my only means of contacting her since I didn't have her number at the time, and she hardly attended classes. It got to a stage where she had missed more than two weeks of college, and I wanted to know if anyone in class knew where she was. So I uploaded a few of her photos on my wall, asking if any of my fellow classmates had any idea. I received a barrage of complaints from them telling me that I shouldn't upload her photos without her consent, and that I was a "weirdo" for saving her photos in the first place. My responses were entirely rational:

- She was a friend.

- Everyone in class was already well acquainted with her.

- There was no way I could get her consent in her absence. (Stating the obvious out of unfortunate necessity.)

- The photos I uploaded of her had already been made public on her account.

- To be called a weirdo for merely saving someone's photo is a reflection of irrational societal prejudice. I have no taint in the slightest.

Point being, there is nothing wrong with using public photos of others in certain circumstances to your advantage. It is legal so long as it does not put the individual in some sort of tangibly grave danger.

An error of judgement at best - If I were you I'd type out her name, which would link it to her profile in hyperlink, and ask if anyone had heard a word about her absence. I wouldn't go so far as to re-post the photos that were not personally sent to me in an e-mail with the permission to use them as I saw fit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An error of judgement at best - If I were you I'd type out her name, which would link it to her profile in hyperlink, and ask if anyone had heard a word about her absence. I wouldn't go so far as to re-post the photos that were not personally sent to me in an e-mail with the permission to use them as I saw fit.

There was no profile existent, though. Whoever hacked the account disabled it. I see no ethical controversy in posting photos of others already made public. It is each individual's responsibility to broadcast aspects of their life they want the public to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My God, who cares! Stop condemning others and look to yourselves you fools! Surely, is not God our final judge?? If others feel fine posting selfies on their profiles, and dressing how they wish, then that is their decision, we all have free will and have a mind that allows us to choose what and how we follow, with deviations from the rooms depending on each persons interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My God, who cares! Stop condemning others and look to yourselves you fools! Surely, is not God our final judge?? If others feel fine posting selfies on their profiles, and dressing how they wish, then that is their decision, we all have free will and have a mind that allows us to choose what and how we follow, with deviations from the rooms depending on each persons interpretation.

True.

But we still ought to discuss why we think it's a bad idea.

My little daughter loves taking selfies and going back and looking at them later. I hope the fad passes by the time she's old enough to use social media, else I might have to restrict her. But for non family members, it's fine.

I still think it's sad though. It makes me think a person has no friends or family nearby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a friend in college who lost her Facebook account to a hacker (within her own family.) She had a bunch of photos in her album which I liked and had saved in my files. The social media was my only means of contacting her since I didn't have her number at the time, and she hardly attended classes. It got to a stage where she had missed more than two weeks of college, and I wanted to know if anyone in class knew where she was. So I uploaded a few of her photos on my wall, asking if any of my fellow classmates had any idea. I received a barrage of complaints from them telling me that I shouldn't upload her photos without her consent, and that I was a "weirdo" for saving her photos in the first place. My responses were entirely rational:

- She was a friend.

- Everyone in class was already well acquainted with her.

- There was no way I could get her consent in her absence. (Stating the obvious out of unfortunate necessity.)

- The photos I uploaded of her had already been made public on her account.

- To be called a weirdo for merely saving someone's photo is a reflection of irrational societal prejudice. I have no taint in the slightest.

Point being, there is nothing wrong with using public photos of others in certain circumstances to your advantage. It is legal so long as it does not put the individual in some sort of tangibly grave danger.

Usually men only save female's photos if theyre family (Like maybe an uncle) or if they are prevs who plan to look at them again for enjoyment. That is why you were labelled as a weirdo. You and marbles make me glad I dont use fb anymore. If I had a male friend who was saving my nice photos, Id punch in the face also. Its disrespectful to save other people's photos even if its not illegal. You as a :Muslim should not be saving and re looking at nice pictures of females anyway. Lower your gaze bro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

To be frank obsession with selfies seems to be indicative of narcissism. What on earth are selfie mean to show.

Plus a person visits a place, on returning he showers his wall with his pics showing him fro every possible angle.

What the hell, why dont you share pics of the place and its beauty.

Just my personal thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not going to lie, I love to post pictures with friends.  I also use my face as my profile picture of FB to identify myself.  Many people are not good with names, but will remember a face.  What I do not understand is why Muslims don't tell men to take their pictures down as well?  Are there not homosexuals or perverts out there?  Whenever I see a post about pictures it is directed only at women.  On topic, like I said I have a picture of my face as my FB profile picture and a Muslim guy with his main picture him showing his six pack, exposing his aurah sent me a message telling me I should remove my picture.................................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beach In France Sets Up No-Selfie Zones Patrolled By 'Spam Police'

Yes, the world has come to this.

In an effort to cut down on selfie-mania -- the phenomenon already fueled by selfie stands and selfie-sponsored vacations -- one beach in France has created official no-selfie zones. The areas are intended to stop vacationers from posting obnoxious pictures of their designer bikinis, their beachfront cocktails and those dreaded hot dog legs.

It's a serious measure, but it's got to be taken.

The beach is La Garoupe, a "posh" strip of sand in the south of France where "selfies" are also called "braggies," for the boastful manner in which they're often posted. A phone company sponsor has set up signs to mark specific "No Braggies Zones" on the beach.

The "Holiday Spam Police" will troll the zones in search of perpetrators, ready to shame anyone caught snapping a duck-faced solo shot.

Ironically, beach-goers are encouraged to whip out their phones and comment on any selfies they see with the hashtag #holidayspam.

"The Garoupe beaches are among the most glamorous and pristine beaches in all of France," a spokesperson for the beach told the Daily Mail. "We want people to be able to enjoy our exclusive beach in the moment, not spending the majority of their time bragging to their friends and family back home."

We couldn't agree more.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/24/beach-selfie_n_5699171.html

...The world has gone mad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/31/2014 at 1:32 PM, Shian e Ali said:

I thought people were posting their selfies in this thread. Lol! I wanted to check what kinda weirdo wanted people to post their pics here. :P

If you had noticed the inverted commas besieging the title of the thread you wouldn't have mistaken it for a thread of original selfies :P

Share this post


Link to post
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


  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • Iran condemns Egypt terrorist attack Tehran (ISNA) - Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Bahram Qassemi has strongly denounced a deadly terrorist attack in the Egyptian city of Arish, which killed and wounded hundreds of people on Friday morning.   In a statement, Qassemi blasted the brutal attack and expressed sympathy with the Egyptian nation and the bereaved families of the victims. "Undoubtedly, the Takfiri terrorism that is suffering the heaviest defeats these days in the region does not refrain from making any desperate effort and ruthless move to assert its existence once again," he noted. "This sharply increases the responsibility of regional governments to gain a real and accurate understanding of terrorism and to seriously and collectively counter it," Qassemi went on to say. He also called on all nations and governments to be as vigilant as possible at this particular juncture in the face of new plots by the bloodthirsty losers. End Item https://en.isna.ir/news/96090401571/Iran-condemns-Egypt-terrorist-attack
    • They have mutual responsibilities. Quran orders women to have hijab and men to lower their gaze. Men dont have to cover their hair because a man whose hair is uncovered doesnt seem attractive to women. Women are much different from men. Due to their different creation, men and women have different responsibilities. For example, men have to work to support their families but women dont have to do it. Or another example is jihad (to fight in the fields) which is not wajib for women. If you dont like the way you look when you cover your hair then just change your scarf. There are many different styles; you may like some of them.  
    • hi the allowing for human cloning is permitted for curing & wellness not for beauty Site code fa599 Archive code 549 Genetic modification profile and Soul problem Thematic classification of rights and judgments Genetic modification Genetic modification share                   Summarize the question What is the genetic and neonatal birth order of this method? question What is the genetic modification of Islam? How does a person come up with this method and how do you solve the problem of the soul? Concise answer The genetic modification in NIC has a type that is normal in nature, which is different from the rule, but in general, if the correction is based on the embryo or sperm and oocyte of the couple, to prevent the occurrence of hereditary and genetic diseases And the birth of the baby is paralyzed and ill and also causes the physical or mental perfection of the infant and does not require any other haram action, according to the Shari'a do not have such an obstacle. And the child born in this way, because of the husband's sperm and ovum, has no problem.   But in relation to the problem of the soul, it should be said that if this correction is before the breath of the soul, there is no problem, and if, after blowing the soul into the body (four months), it is still not difficult, because the soul and soul that after During the stages of growth, the body is given to the body, it is related to that body, and with it's life, and the person's identity depends on the personality of the same soul, and the Takvina spirit and the body of that body and body are intrinsic to that soul.   Detailed Answer The advancement of science and technology in recent decades has provided significant services to human health, health and improvement of human life. Among these advances in the field of medicine, scientists have been able to invent some methods to prevent inherited and genetic diseases so that they can modify the embryo or sperm and ovum in the early stages of growth. And prevent the birth of sick and paralyzed and defective babies.   Obviously, as the wisdom and consequently sharia judge, the patient should go to the doctor for treatment, and if he is diagnosed by a doctor, he should do this. By saying this, if there is such a possibility that in the early stages of the dismemberment of the sprout and before the birth of the infant or the patient can be prevented, there should be no problem.   Genetic modification in the medical sciences has different types, which is natural in terms of its kind, which is different from the jurisprudential point of view. But what is said in answer to the question is that in general, if the modification is carried out on the fetus or sperm and the egg of the husband and wife, and without combining it with sperm of a man or an ovum of another woman, and that leads to health and physical perfection Or spiritual, and does not require another forbidden act, this correction is permissible. But if it is possible that the corrective action would not be useful and that the defect may be caused by the fetus, the permit is the place of the problem.   Since the birth of a newborn born in this way has not been violated, this infant belongs to the husband and wife of the Shari'a.   But if genetic modification is carried out by combining sperm with a man or an ovum of another woman, who is joining the believer of this work and the child who is born of this process? There are different views among the jurists.   Below, we will draw your attention to the following issues:   1. What is the pregnancy sentence for a woman with a sperm of her husband? Is the child born in this way the decree of a true child?   All the great authorities: The principle of this task is unimportant; provided that it is avoided of the forbidden pretext (such as the look and the touch of a non-lawyer) and the child is born, all the rules of the child of that husband and wife are. [1]   2-   What is the decree of introducing sperm to a woman's womb if her husband is not supportive?Who is the child who is born?   All the great authorities (except the Grand Ayatullah Khamenei): This is forbidden, and if a son is born, it belongs to the owner of the spit and to the woman who owns the womb. [2]   Grand Ayatollah Khamenei: The principle of this task is unimportant; provided that it is avoided of the forbidden pretext (such as the look and the touch of the nonhuman), and if a son is born, it belongs to the owner of the spit and to the woman who owns the womb. ]   Concerning the soul issue, here it should be said that if this action was carried out in the very early days, it does not have an embryo at all. And if it is after that, the spirit that is not removed from the body and no other spirit has come to its place. In any case, the soul and soul, which is given after a process of growth to the body, is related to that body and with its lifetime, and the diagnosis of that body depends on the personality of the same soul, also It is the spirit of Tekvivna and the temporarily possessed by that body, and that body is the mumble of that spirit.   The result is that if it is a genetic modification without committing unlawful acts and thus preventing the birth of defective babies, it is not only permissible, but also desirable, because of the birth of sick and sick babies who are nursing and nursing and raising children It has many problems for parents and family, prevention and safe delivery of children to the community.   The response of the Office of the Grand Ayatullah, Fazel Lankarani (Al-Ajali), to the question:   Genetic modification, if it is limited to treating drugs and the like, does not involve the inoculation of the male vagina, and there are no conflicts with the spirit issue.   The Office of the Grand Ayatullah Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi (Azhali):   Correction is by no means a problem, but simulation is not allowed. And there is no problem in the spirit of genetic modification.     [1] Khamenei, Ayubawat al-Sathatat, S 1271 and 1277; Imam, Tahrir al-Waslah, C 2, Allaqih, M 1; Tabrizi; Sūrat al-Najajah, vol. 5, p. 1013; Fazil, Jameem al-Masaleh, vol. 1, 2103, 2104; Vahid, The explanation of al-Masaleel, 2900; Sistani, the explanation of Al-Masaleh, the artificial insemination, M 69; Safi, Jamea Alahakam, J 2, S 1392; Opri, J 2, S 1392; Optical, Esfahat, C 2, S 903 and C 1, 985 ; PICKTHAL: Sufatiat, 2nd Dec., 1757, and Office: Behjat. [2] Imam, Tahrir al-Waslah, C 2, Al-Jalah, M 2 and 3; Tabrizi, Esfahat, S 2094: Fadhil, Juma al-Masaleel, J 1, S 2105, and Wahid, explaining al-Masaleel, M 2898; Sistani, explaining al-mussel, artificial insemination 65; Safi, Jamaalahakam, J 2, S 1391; Optical, Sufatiat, C 2, S 908; Mt. Sufatiat, vol. 1, p. 1527; and Behjat, Medical Essay, p. 35. [3] See: Abuba elastatat, p. 304, 1275, 1277 and 1271; Student's dissertation, Hosseini, Sayed Mojtaba, Pages 292-293, S 475,476 and 477. persian source translate by google translate:http://www.islamquest.net/fa/archive/question/fa599
    • hi the Imams do miracle for everybody the Iranian have the honor that Imam Reza(as) & his Sister Lady Fatima Masoumeh (as) buried in Iran but other countries like Iraq & Syria have this honor but unfortunately the Wahabist of Saudi arabia insulting the holy Imams (as) & Lday Khadija(as) & Abbas(as) the uncle of prophet(pbu) & Abdulmotalib(as) by destroying the Baqi Shrine. 
    • To prove Ayatollah Khamenei's vision is wrong we should know how Natives treated settlers upon their arrival.  Is it not documented that there were fair exchanges in the beginning? Then how did that turn into human hunt afterwards ? And even if reciprocal animosity did take place, how do you ignore the feeling of the person holding a gun against one who does not. It is almost impossible that mass killing took place without some form of self contentment. And I am not just trying to justify Sayid's word. Go see any civil war when two former neighbors fight, it is often with this feeling of destructive pleasure.
×