QM2 – Quirky – Majestic – Peerless – Flawed

[scifisteve]

Great Pictures, Only got small taste of the QM2 during a Tour in August and your pictures have reminded me how much I am looking forward to my TA.

 

From your Shots it looks like they have repaired the Mosaic outside the Golden Lion, it had a fair bit of Damage when I saw it.

[bazzaw]

And just why should she or he......but I think Whitemarsh is a she....be obliged to post a picture of herself if she doesn't want to?

 

SHE?? -- you are deceived , my dear lady (Lottie)

 

The Internet is largely full of anonymous people.

 

Barry

[Calliope]

And just why should she or he......but I think Whitemarsh is a she....be obliged to post a picture of herself if she doesn't want to?

 

 

I have no doubt that he has been called, " a girl!," before. ;)

 

Perhaps I'll be able to persuade him to pose for photos at the CC Meet & Greet next month on the QE. Unfortunately or perhaps fortunately, I will not post any of my pics here for public consumption.

[Lottie A]

SHE?? -- you are deceived , my dear lady (Lottie)

 

The Internet is largely full of anonymous people.

 

Barry

 

Ah but then Barry.....how do you know I'm a lady?

 

Actually I am a woman.....and I hope I'm usually a lady too.....but my partner might say.....not always! :D

 

Anyway, my point was that whether Whitemarsh is male or female, and I stand corrected that he is male, he certainly does not have to post a photo of himself just because someone else wants him to.

[keithm]

In fact Whitemarsh is, I believe, male. I know it's a little confusing.

 

Of course if Whitemarsh had been in the cameras view he would have had no choice.

 

David.

Oh, please we ALL know he's a vampire & doesn't do well in front of mirror & cameras God knows I don't!

[keithm]

disappointing that so many poor reviews refer to bad design when in fact the design was necessary to fulfil its main role. Designed primarily to cope well as an ocean liner required to undertake transatlantic crossings year round and in all weather, this is not the best vessel for a sunny Caribbean or Central Mediterranean cruise. However no ship can compare when it comes to poor weather or heavy seas.

 

 

Aside from Todd English, three other speciality options are normally offered on an alternating basis, namely Lotus for Asian themed food, La Piazza for Italian and Coriander for Indian. I am slightly surprised it wasn’t called Cilantro as Cunard love to cater primarily to their wealthy American clientele, with dollars being the onboard currency and spirit measures being 1 ½ ounces. Yet they do still manage to fool some people into believing they are a British line.

 

On most evenings, part of the Kings Court Buffet area is converted and separated off…

 

[/url]

by movable screens that help to provide a more intimate feel for these “pop-up” venues.

 

[/url]

 

[/url]

 

Waiter service is provided and a $10 charge applies for each. On this short cruise only Coriander was offered, probably due to the huge demand amongst Brits for Indian food. This was to be the venue for my final dinner. The food was of a very high standard. Not quite fine dining in the class of the Cinnamon Club or Benares, but a world apart from P&O’s Indian buffet night. Anyone who enjoys Indian food would I am sure agree it was a bargain for what was on offer...

We loved the tasting in Lotus. My spouse, Richard being Chinese, really enjoyed the 6 times we are there(over 6 voyages).

[balf]

But only Whitemarsh, and those who already recognise Whitemarsh, would know who it was. I have exposed no ones identity in my photos.

 

And please do give me a few examples of "the possible implications when we publish photos of strangers". Especially to a relative small number of cruise enthusiasts on this site, not the worldwide media.

 

First, I hope you didn't take my comments as criticism in any way of your actions. You and others have one view I have the opposit one. I am sure we can respect the views of others without resorting to insults as we have seen.

 

In fact the contents of these boards are open to general view. You don't need to be a member to read.

 

Possible implications of having your picture published on line? We all know of the guy pictured on Street View coming out of a sex shop. Of course we can say serves him right, but we really don't have the right to moralise I think. Extend this to the guy who takes his special friend on a cruise without telling his wife. I could think of many more and you probably can also.

 

 

 

David

[missfrankiecat]

I've had another look through these excellent photos and I've spotted my son again, with me this time. It's a photo taken in the Britannia.

 

Message to Balf - I have already mentioned that my son is quite pleased to be in the photos, now I can say I don't mind being in the photos, so why are you going on and on about not having people in these photos without their knowledge?

 

As for not being able to film the professional performers- it's to do with each performers intellectual copyright and it's all very complicated, so just having an outright ban is easiest all round.

 

I think I am correct in saying an actor, singer or dancer has no intellectual property rights in their performance; the writers of the material they perform usually do. The reason for the request not to make audio or video recordings relates to copyright infringements of the writer/songwriter's material, not the performer's. Flash photography is simply distracting and/or dangerous. Just publishing a photograph of a performer (or any other adult) taken in a public place, provided there is no specific injunction in place, is perfectly lawful with or without their express permission. It happens day in day out in the real world!

[missfrankiecat]

First, I hope you didn't take my comments as criticism in any way of your actions. You and others have one view I have the opposit one. I am sure we can respect the views of others without resorting to insults as we have seen.

 

In fact the contents of these boards are open to general view. You don't need to be a member to read.

 

Possible implications of having your picture published on line? We all know of the guy pictured on Street View coming out of a sex shop. Of course we can say serves him right, but we really don't have the right to moralise I think. Extend this to the guy who takes his special friend on a cruise without telling his wife. I could think of many more and you probably can also.

 

 

 

David

 

It's an interesting debate but, if we agree the legality of publishing photographs of adults taken without their knowledge and express consent, what moral argument subjugates the freedom of expression of the photographer to the 'protection' of other's secrets? The 'implications' or consequences of the errant husband's photograph being seen by the wife derive from his voluntary actions not the innocent bystander's photograph? And to be less pretentiously philosophical, I'm guessing the cheating husband is not going to balk at making up a lie about who his 'special friend' is etc, is he? And unless the photo has them in flagrante (a whole other issue for the photographer and presumably never yet seen in the King's Court, however much standards have fallen!) who can prove otherwise?

[Olliesmum]

I think I am correct in saying an actor, singer or dancer has no intellectual property rights in their performance; the writers of the material they perform usually do. The reason for the request not to make audio or video recordings relates to copyright infringements of the writer/songwriter's material, not the performer's.

 

You are not correct about an artiste's intellectual property rights, they do. As I said before, it's all very complicated. It's a minefield involving agents, commission, release forms etc. so an outright ban is best.

 

Regarding material: Some will be in copyright, some will not, so once again an outright ban is best.

[Olliesmum]

 

Possible implications of having your picture published on line? We all know of the guy pictured on Street View coming out of a sex shop.

 

 

 

David

 

No, I've never heard of the man on Street View coming out of a sex shop. Perhaps you can supply reliable evidence of this story's provenance?

[Host Hattie]

You are not correct about an artiste's intellectual property rights, they do. As I said before, it's all very complicated. It's a minefield involving agents, commission, release forms etc. so an outright ban is best.

 

Regarding material: Some will be in copyright, some will not, so once again an outright ban is best.

 

That may be the case but Cunard does not have an outright ban - the only bans are on Audio, Video recording and flash photography. Still photographs taken without the use of flash are allowed in the theatre - unless the rules have changed since I was last on board (late October).

[cunardaddict]

We all know of the guy pictured on Street View coming out of a sex shop. Of course we can say serves him right, ...

David

 

Why that? Who will know his reason to go in there? Doesn't it all happen in your head only? And how did it get into your head? Bad boy...?

 

As you wrote - nobody has the right o judge.

 

So do not publish pictures of individuals without their authorization.

[BobBranst]

No, I've never heard of the man on Street View coming out of a sex shop. Perhaps you can supply reliable evidence of this story's provenance?

 

Here's one story from the London Telegraph.

[megacruiser]

It's an interesting debate but, if we agree the legality of publishing photographs of adults taken without their knowledge and express consent, what moral argument subjugates the freedom of expression of the photographer to the 'protection' of other's secrets? The 'implications' or consequences of the errant husband's photograph being seen by the wife derive from his voluntary actions not the innocent bystander's photograph? And to be less pretentiously philosophical, I'm guessing the cheating husband is not going to balk at making up a lie about who his 'special friend' is etc, is he? And unless the photo has them in flagrante (a whole other issue for the photographer and presumably never yet seen in the King's Court, however much standards have fallen!) who can prove otherwise?

 

 

Thank you missfrankiecat for hitting the nail on the head. And let's not forget that this is not about Street View, it's about a few incidental cruise photos being seen by a few hundred people.

[Pushka]

I understand that when you are in a public place, as in a street or shop etc, then there is no requirement to respect your privacy. Your photo can be published.

[Salacia]

It's an interesting debate but, if we agree the legality of publishing photographs of adults taken without their knowledge and express consent, what moral argument subjugates the freedom of expression of the photographer to the 'protection' of other's secrets? The 'implications' or consequences of the errant husband's photograph being seen by the wife derive from his voluntary actions not the innocent bystander's photograph? And to be less pretentiously philosophical, I'm guessing the cheating husband is not going to balk at making up a lie about who his 'special friend' is etc, is he? And unless the photo has them in flagrante (a whole other issue for the photographer and presumably never yet seen in the King's Court, however much standards have fallen!) who can prove otherwise?

 

I believe the laws of publishing photographs of adults taken without their knowledge and consent in public venues varies from country to country. In the US, it varies from state to state, and in Canada, it varies from providence to providence. As has been said, it is a complicated issue.

 

Like many, I've taken photos on board. Public settings, such as a sailaway, include the images of many passengers. Clearly, in such a setting, it is not possible to ask everyone's permission to take the photo - nor is that expected. The subject of the photo is the ship at sailaway, not any particular individuals.

 

Not as a criticism, but merely for discussion sake, please compare that scenario with the close-up photograph taken of six people eating in appears to be an intimate corner of a restaurant. Neither the ship nor the restaurant is the subject of the photo- the six strangers are. That photo has been published on a commercial website (Cruise Critic is a commercial website) without their permission as part of a review that is very favorable towards the food served in that particular restaurant.

 

Frankly, I don't know if the subjects even know of the existence of the photo, much less that it has been published - or if they are bothered that their images have been used in this manner. I don't know if they agree that the food was excellent, or if they felt otherwise and would not want their images used to support an opinion with which they disagree. Since I'm not a lawyer, I couldn't comment on the legal issues.

 

What I can comment on as an amateur photographer is that I there are certain boundaries I choose not to cross while protecting the privacy of others. And as a frequent passenger on Cunard, I feel there is a distinct collective atmosphere where a certain degree of privacy is cherished. But I understand that not everyone feels the same way, and in fact, enjoy seeing their image used as described.

 

Again - to stress - this has not been a criticism. I certainly hope it will not be construed as 'undue negativity', but rather a part of a debate whose time has come as camera use continues to proliferate, capturing candid, unauthorized photos of individuals.

 

Salacia

Edited January 1, 2014 by Salacia

[megacruiser]

I believe the laws of publishing photographs of adults taken without their knowledge and consent in public venues varies from country to country. In the US, it varies from state to state, and in Canada, it varies from providence to providence. As has been said, it is a complicated issue.

 

Like many, I've taken photos on board. Public settings, such as a sailaway, include the images of many passengers. Clearly, in such a setting, it is not possible to ask everyone's permission to take the photo - nor is that expected. The subject of the photo is the ship at sailaway, not any particular individuals.

 

Not as a criticism, but merely for discussion sake, please compare that scenario with the close-up photograph taken of six people eating in appears to be an intimate corner of a restaurant. Neither the ship nor the restaurant is the subject of the photo- the six strangers are. That photo has been published on a commercial website (Cruise Critic is a commercial website) without their permission as part of a review that is very favorable towards the food served in that particular restaurant.

 

Frankly, I don't know if the subjects even know of the existence of the photo, much less that it has been published - or if they are bothered that their images have been used in this manner. I don't know if they agree that the food was excellent, or if they felt otherwise and would not want their images used to support an opinion with which they disagree. Since I'm not a lawyer, I couldn't comment on the legal issues.

 

What I can comment on as an amateur photographer is that I there are certain boundaries I choose not to cross while protecting the privacy of others. And as a frequent passenger on Cunard, I feel there is a distinct collective atmosphere where a certain degree of privacy is cherished. But I understand that not everyone feels the same way, and in fact, enjoy seeing their image used as described.

 

Again - to stress - this has not been a criticism. I certainly hope it will not be construed as 'undue negativity', but rather a part of a debate whose time has come as camera use continues to proliferate, capturing candid, unauthorized photos of individuals.

 

Salacia

 

You can't be serious... How utterly ludicrous... This is clutching at straws. Firstly the subject of the photo that has the six diners is the restaurant surroundings, intended to distinguish the evening ambience from the Kings Court by day. The people in the photo are totally incidental.

 

And now you are trying to imply some sort of commercial benefit (to who knows who, perhaps you can explain?) from the promotion of a $10 meal on a cruise ship.. that there is some sort of implied endorsement by those other diners... Come on, get real. No reasonable person could take from that photo any implied opinion about what those people thought of the food. Even if there were cartoon speech captions coming from their mouths saying "hey isn't the food in this extra charge speciality restaurant first class", what difference would it make? The people are unknown so there opinion would be unlikely to sway others.

 

Again I make the point we are talking about a few hundred people seeing these photos as part of a photo tour.

[Salacia]

I understand that when you are in a public place, as in a street or shop etc, then there is no requirement to respect your privacy. Your photo can be published.

 

Shops, restaurants and many other places open to the public where I live are privately owned. In that case, the owner of the property is permitted to make the rules regarding photography. I have been in several establishments where a notice is posted that photography is not permitted. We even have some streets/roads and parks (such as Gramercy Park) that are privately owned - and there too, the owner of the property makes the rules regarding photography.

 

Here is a article from the New York Times published just yesterday about the increase in clubs banning photography. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/02/fashion/Instagram-photos-clubs-selfie.html?_r=0

[megacruiser]

I understand that when you are in a public place, as in a street or shop etc, then there is no requirement to respect your privacy. Your photo can be published.

 

Shops, restaurants and many other places open to the public where I live are privately owned. In that case, the owner of the property is permitted to make the rules regarding photography. I have been in several establishments where a notice is posted that photography is not permitted. We even have some streets/roads and parks (such as Gramercy Park) that are privately owned - and there too, the owner of the property makes the rules regarding photography.

 

This is irrelevant. Photography is not prohibited on Cunard ships.

[Salacia]

You can't be serious... How utterly ludicrous... This is clutching at straws. Firstly the subject of the photo that has the six diners is the restaurant surroundings, intended to distinguish the evening ambience from the Kings Court by day. The people in the photo are totally incidental.

 

And now you are trying to imply some sort of commercial benefit (to who knows who, perhaps you can explain?) from the promotion of a $10 meal on a cruise ship.. that there is some sort of implied endorsement by those other diners... Come on, get real. No reasonable person could take from that photo any implied opinion about what those people thought of the food. Even if there were cartoon speech captions coming from their mouths saying "hey isn't the food in this extra charge speciality restaurant first class", what difference would it make? The people are unknown so there opinion would be unlikely to sway others.

 

 

Again I make the point we are talking about a few hundred people seeing these photos as part of a photo tour.

 

Yes, I was being serious. I disagree with your opinion about the 6 people in your photo being incidental. Since I hold a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree, I speak with some authority on the subject, but I accept your opinion.

 

If you re-read my post, you will see that I simply mentioned that Cruise Critic is a commercial site because the discussion was regarding the publishing of photographs of individuals sans consent. Than anyone would derive any commercial benefit from your photographs is definitely not something that occurred to me, but upon reflection, I suppose anything is possible.

 

You seem unable or unwilling to discuss this matter collegiately, and that is unfortunate.

Edited January 1, 2014 by Salacia

[megacruiser]

Yes, I was being serious. I disagree with your opinion about the 6 people in your photo being incidental. Since I hold a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree, I speak with some authority on the subject, but I accept your opinion.

 

Since I took the photo I can say with absolute authority what the subject was. I don't care how many degrees you have and frankly I find it rather pathetic that anyone on here would try to boast about their educational attainments to prove their opinion is more important. Comes across as rather desperate. Your extrapolations are becoming increasingly absurd and I will let others judge the merit or otherwise of your contribution to this thread... which to remind everyone started as a photo tour of QM2.

[bazzaw]

It has been said that when we find ourselves in a hole -- we should stop digging!! :)

 

There are a few here in this thread who should stop digging.

 

Barry

[SEFlyer]

In the US, it varies from state to state, and in Canada, it varies from providence to providence.

Salacia

 

There are no 'providences' in Canada, only provinces.:D

[Salacia]

There are no 'providences' in Canada, only provinces.:D

 

Sorry, of course, you are correct. Must be that I always think of Canada as being so Heavenly:D