QM2 – Quirky – Majestic – Peerless – Flawed

[Olliesmum]

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).

 

That's what was being discussed- an outright ban on audio,video due to copyright reasons and flash photography for safety. I never said there was a ban on non flash photography.

[Olliesmum]

Here's one story from the London Telegraph.

 

Ah yes, The Daily Telegraph ....you can believe everything you read in there (not).

[BobBranst]

Ah yes, The Daily Telegraph ....you can believe everything you read in there (not).

OK :confused:. Perhaps you might believe BBC or one of the dozens of other links you will find with a simple Google or Bing search.

 

I believe some of this somewhat heated discussion could have been eliminated if Cruise Critic site patrons were to follow the recommendations used on many other sites that request persons wishing to post more than one or two photos to post them to a web photo hosting site and just provide the link to the photos rather than the actual photos. It might save some band width too.:)

Edited January 1, 2014 by BobBranst

[Gilpet]

Thanks so much for posting your picture review megacruiser :). I'm not a Cunard fan but had booked the Eastbound transatlantic on QM2 purely as a form of transport to get back from the US without flying.......you're review had managed to change that and I was feeling quite excited about that part of our trip - sadly I was quickly reminded of why I'm not a Cunard fan :rolleyes:

 

Gill

[Olliesmum]

OK :confused:. Perhaps you might believe BBC or one of the dozens of other links you will find with a simple Google or Bing search.

 

I believe some of this somewhat heated discussion could have been eliminated if Cruise Critic site patrons were to follow the recommendations used on many other sites that request persons wishing to post more than one or two photos to post them to a web photo hosting site and just provide the link to the photos rather than the actual photos. It might save some band width too.:)

 

The only people who were getting heated up just came onto this thread and used the excuse of the photos to do a bit of borderline bullying. It's pathetic.

 

I would also like to add that as you live in Kansas, you might not be aware that you can't believe all the BBC churns out either. But this is not the place to debate state ofthe British media.

[BobBranst]

I would also like to add that as you live in Kansas, you might not be aware that you can't believe all the BBC churns out either. But this is not the place to debate state ofthe British media.

 

I frequently question of the version of the news that American networks broadcast. However, those of us living in the midwestern USA are not as cut off from the UK and European media as much as you might think. In addition to BBC America, many regularly watch BBC, ITV and 4oD over the internet using VPN servers in the UK.

[Salacia]

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.

 

An interesting question that occupies the studies of many first year visual art students: what defines the subject of a work? In representational photography (or painting, for that matter) there are certain established criteria. The most common, and widely accepted is - what occupies the most space in your work is the subject. An internet search on "what determines the subject of a photograph" might be interesting to you.

 

I fully accept that a photographer's intent on capturing a scene and making it the subject of the photo can differ from what is an objective opinion of the subject of the photo. But not to get lost in the weeds here, I understand that is a topic not of interest to you, and there is no point in discussing it further.

 

If you think I was boasting about having a degree in fine arts, you are mistaken: if I wanted to boast about anything, it wouldn't be about having a degree in a field that results in one of the lowest income post graduation (with a few notable exceptions). It just happens to be my area of study, and while I have said repeatedly that I accept your opinions, I disagree with them for reasons given. That you have not given me the same courtesy paints a picture all it's own. My opinions are no less important than yours, or anyone else's opinion. Nevertheless, I do take personal pride in having successfully completed my studies, and I am happy to share whatever I learned from excellent professors with anyone open to learning.

 

And now back to the photo tour, sorry for the interruption.

Edited January 2, 2014 by Salacia

[Olliesmum]

Megacruiser, just ignore them.

[Pushka]

I just like looking at pictures. Of people enjoying themselves. Enjoying their cruise. I certainly have no interest in who they are. I'm sure none of us do (except those who've seen themselves and they seem quite chuffed.)

Edited January 2, 2014 by Pushka

[Salacia]

My son thinks it's great that his photo is on here.

 

Cunard stick photos and video of passengers all over the place but you don't seem to mind that. My son. as a professional artiste, did not think it so great when Cunard filmed him singing without his knowledge a couple of years ago and attempted to sell it.

 

I'm very sorry that your professional artiste son had this problem. Perhaps he was not old enough to sign the passenger contract at the time? But some adult must have done so and agreed to this in his name:

 

copied from http://www.cunard.com/legal-information/

 

"16. USE AND DISPLAY OF LIKENESS; PERSONAL DATA; PRIVACY NOTICE; PUBLIC WIRELESS SERVICES.

 

You grant Carrier and its licensees the right to use Your photograph/voice/indicia taken during Your Voyage, in any fashion for any purpose in all media now known or hereafter devised without any limitations whatsoever. Professional photographers photograph Guests, process, display and sell such photos to You and other Guests. Carrier may utilize closed circuit television or other surveillance means on board the Vessel and You agree You have no expectation of privacy on board the Vessel."

 

 

Cunard is very clear that we have no expectation of privacy on the vessel. And that is proving to be clearer every day.

 

If you think I don't mind this, you are mistaken. But I have no right to argue with a passenger contract that I signed - nor do you, Ollie, or anyone else. I do feel that a discussion about passengers taking photos of strangers on board without their knowledge and approval and posting those photos on the internet is a matter worthy of discussion. Of course, you could always ignore it and complain later.

Edited January 2, 2014 by Salacia

[megacruiser]

An interesting question that occupies the studies of many first year visual art students: what defines the subject of a work? In representational photography (or painting, for that matter) there are certain established criteria. The most common, and widely accepted is - what occupies the most space in your work is the subject. An internet search on "what determines the subject of a photograph" might be interesting to you.

 

I fully accept that a photographer's intent on capturing a scene and making it the subject of the photo can differ from what is an objective opinion of the subject of the photo. But not to get lost in the weeds here, I understand that is a topic not of interest to you, and there is no point in discussing it further.

 

If you think I was boasting about having a degree in fine arts, you are mistaken: if I wanted to boast about anything, it wouldn't be about having a degree in a field that results in one of the lowest income post graduation (with a few notable exceptions). It just happens to be my area of study, and while I have said repeatedly that I accept your opinions, I disagree with them for reasons given. That you have not given me the same courtesy paints a picture all it's own. My opinions are no less important than yours, or anyone else's opinion. Nevertheless, I do take personal pride in having successfully completed my studies, and I am happy to share whatever I learned from excellent professors with anyone open to learning.

 

And now back to the photo tour, sorry for the interruption.

 

You never give up. Seems to me some people could cause an argument in an empty room. And whilst some may feel I am as much to blame I would point out that I did not choose to introduce such a tangential diversion from what was meant to be an interesting photo tour and review.

 

An interesting question that occupies the studies of many first year visual art students: what defines the subject of a work? In representational photography (or painting, for that matter) there are certain established criteria. The most common, and widely accepted is - what occupies the most space in your work is the subject. An internet search on "what determines the subject of a photograph" might be interesting to you.

 

It is of no interest to me whatsoever. I have already given the definitive answer as to the subject of the photo. It is the surroundings in which passengers dine when Kings Court is converted to Coriander.

 

I fully accept that a photographer's intent on capturing a scene and making it the subject of the photo can differ from what is an objective opinion of the subject of the photo.

 

If you accept it, I wonder why you continue to put forward an argument against it. As for "objective opinion" I see this more as you adopting a stance that allows you to pursue your own agenda.

If you think I was boasting about having a degree in fine arts, you are mistaken

 

Here is what you said:

 

Since I hold a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree, I speak with some authority on the subject.

 

My opinion of such a remark: crass and vulgar. I am sure others will make up their own minds.

 

As for not accepting your opinions, as far as I am concerned nothing you have said here is of any merit in relation to a photo tour of QM2 shared with a few hundred people on a cruise forum. Clearly this is an area of great interest to you and can I respectfully suggest that if you feel it is worthy of a debate, why not start your own thread in the appropriate place "Photo and Camera Discussions". You can then allow your vivid imagination to run riot and explore endless possibilities on the ramifications of daring to share photos that include the faces of individuals.

 

I for one promise not to go near it and certainly would not be so rude as to hijack it.

[capnpugwash]

Partial quote

If you think I was boasting about having a degree in fine arts, you are mistaken: if I wanted to boast about anything, it wouldn't be about having a degree in a field that results in one of the lowest income post graduation (with a few notable exceptions).

 

I have a friend who works as a night desk clerk in a motel and they don't seem to have a bad income, perhaps you might consider that as an option.

[pepperrn]

Hello Megacruiser,

 

May I thank you for your excellent pictures and review of your time on board QM2. Well done :) .

 

(Please ignore some of the comments posted in this thread, the posters concerned unintentionally say far more about themselves... than they will ever realise...

Certainly more information... than can be ascertained from looking at a picture of a complete stranger who incidentally appears in a photo taken on a ship some time ago. That person may never be seen here again, whereas certain posters will pop up time and again... pontificating on any and every subject, keen to see their opinions taken seriously and increase their post count (an over-riding obsession for some)).

 

I boarded QM2 on 15th December and will be adding the pictures I took during the crossing to my flickr page (link below) shortly.

 

Once again, thank you and all best wishes for 2014 :)

Edited January 2, 2014 by pepperrn

[megacruiser]

Hello Megacruiser,

 

May I thank you for your excellent pictures and review of your time on board QM2. Well done :) .

 

(Please ignore some of the comments posted in this thread, the posters concerned unintentionally say far more about themselves... than they will ever realise...

Certainly more information... than can be ascertained from looking at a picture of a complete stranger who incidentally appears in a photo taken on a ship some time ago. That person may never be seen here again, whereas certain posters will pop up time and again... pontificating on any and every subject, keen to see their opinions taken seriously and increase their post count (an over-riding obsession for some)).

 

I boarded QM2 on 15th December and will be adding the pictures I took during the crossing to my flickr page (link below) shortly.

 

Once again, thank you and all best wishes for 2014 :)

 

Thank you so much. I feel less agitated now.

[Whitemarsh]

I just like looking at pictures. Of people enjoying themselves. Enjoying their cruise. I certainly have no interest in who they are. I'm sure none of us do (except those who've seen themselves and they seem quite chuffed.)

 

I feel exactly the same. Which makes it such a shame that Salacia and Balf feel the need to increase their post count in this manner.

 

I always feel slightly envious of the strangers I see in photos taken on a Cunard ship. They're on a cruise having a great time and I'm stuck at home. :(

Edited January 2, 2014 by Whitemarsh

[Olliesmum]

I'm very sorry that your professional artiste son had this problem. Perhaps he was not old enough to sign the passenger contract at the time? But some adult must have done so and agreed to this in his name:

 

copied from http://www.cunard.com/legal-information/

 

"16. USE AND DISPLAY OF LIKENESS; PERSONAL DATA; PRIVACY NOTICE; PUBLIC WIRELESS SERVICES.

 

You grant Carrier and its licensees the right to use Your photograph/voice/indicia taken during Your Voyage, in any fashion for any purpose in all media now known or hereafter devised without any limitations whatsoever. Professional photographers photograph Guests, process, display and sell such photos to You and other Guests. Carrier may utilize closed circuit television or other surveillance means on board the Vessel and You agree You have no expectation of privacy on board the Vessel."

 

 

.

O

 

Oh, for heaven's sake. You were not there so why are you making assumptions to me who actually was?

 

I could explain what happened to my son but I can't be bothered, neither can I be bothered to discuss the legal ins and outs of why the above contract is not as watertight as you seem to think it is. BTW my son is not called Oliie and was twenty six at the time. Ollie is a tortoise.

[Ray66]

I'm very sorry that your professional artiste son had this problem. Perhaps he was not old enough to sign the passenger contract at the time? But some adult must have done so and agreed to this in his name:

 

copied from http://www.cunard.com/legal-information/

 

"16. USE AND DISPLAY OF LIKENESS; PERSONAL DATA; PRIVACY NOTICE; PUBLIC WIRELESS SERVICES.

 

You grant Carrier and its licensees the right to use Your photograph/voice/indicia taken during Your Voyage, in any fashion for any purpose in all media now known or hereafter devised without any limitations whatsoever. Professional photographers photograph Guests, process, display and sell such photos to You and other Guests. Carrier may utilize closed circuit television or other surveillance means on board the Vessel and You agree You have no expectation of privacy on board the Vessel."

 

 

Cunard is very clear that we have no expectation of privacy on the vessel. And that is proving to be clearer every day.

 

If you think I don't mind this, you are mistaken. But I have no right to argue with a passenger contract that I signed - nor do you, Ollie, or anyone else. I do feel that a discussion about passengers taking photos of strangers on board without their knowledge and approval and posting those photos on the internet is a matter worthy of discussion. Of course, you could always ignore it and complain later.

 

At what point have you signed a passenger contract? I don't remember ever doing. You've got me wondering now.

[capnpugwash]

O

 

Oh, for heaven's sake. You were not there so why are you making assumptions to me who actually was?

 

I could explain what happened to my son but I can't be bothered, neither can I be bothered to discuss the legal ins and outs of why the above contract is not as watertight as you seem to think it is. BTW my son is not called Oliie and was twenty six at the time. Ollie is a tortoise.

 

Now that would be a difficult birth!! :eek::D:eek:

[missfrankiecat]

At what point have you signed a passenger contract? I don't remember ever doing. You've got me wondering now.

 

Certainly, I've never signed one nor been asked to. I suppose we'll have the usual 'every passenger's experience is different and just because it didn't happen to you doesn't mean it didn't happen to me' explanation trotted out.

[Olliesmum]

At what point have you signed a passenger contract? I don't remember ever doing. You've got me wondering now.

 

And I don't suppose you have signed a release form for your intellectual copyright to be used for commercial purposes by Cunard either!!

 

A lot of these "Terms and conditions" that companies like to trot out are legally meaningless but people just accept them without question.

[capnpugwash]

And I don't suppose you have signed a release form for your intellectual copyright to be used for commercial purposes by Cunard either!!

 

A lot of these "Terms and conditions" that companies like to trot out are legally meaningless but people just accept them without question.

 

I agree, it's similar to ticking a box on a website indicating that you have accepted 1000 pages of small print.

[Salacia]

At what point have you signed a passenger contract? I don't remember ever doing. You've got me wondering now.

 

Ray, sorry, "signed" is not the correct term since we do the process on-line. I'm not sure what the best word is to describe the agreement.

 

As I said earlier, I'm not a lawyer - I only know that apparently, Cunard's position is that we agree to their terms and conditions as outlined in the Passage Contract when booking the voyage.

 

"...Upon booking the Voyage, each Guest named on the travel summary explicitly agrees to the terms of this Passage Contract... " http://www.cunard.com/legal-information/

[skyking]

Great pics, brought back some fun memories of our voyage on the QM2. Thanks!!!

[jsmeeker]

What a wonderful review. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and views of the ship and the cruise. And thanks for the beautiful photographs. They are first rate.

[Olliesmum]

Ray, sorry, "signed" is not the correct term since we do the process on-line. I'm not sure what the best word is to describe the agreement.

 

As I said earlier, I'm not a lawyer - I only know that apparently, Cunard's position is that we agree to their terms and conditions as outlined in the Passage Contract when booking the voyage.

 

"...Upon booking the Voyage, each Guest named on the travel summary explicitly agrees to the terms of this Passage Contract... " http://www.cunard.com/legal-information/

 

I refer you to my post number 120, you do not seem to have read it.