new thread
What wouldn't I give, if I knew, whether this is a man or a woman... I wish, it was a man, and he wanted his hair to grow even longer...
Amazing hair. I´ve been aiming for mid back all the time now but that picture makes me want to grow it down to my knees. Ah well... I think will be too much of a hazzle with that long hair though. :/
Awesome pic, Uwe. Thanks for posting it. I'm almost positive it's a female but regardless, that's enviable hair!
Yeah, the legs and pants would suggest it's a woman. Great hair though.
Matt
Yes I would concur that it is indeed a female. Darn!
peace, jonalbear
Hello,
When I was a bike messenger, I saw this camera crew on the streets, filming here and there in the city, back in the early nineties. One of the members of the crew, the soundman had hair like in the picture, long blonde hair way past his waist.
This dude always attracted my attention on my bike runs across the city risking traffic to deliver important messages, from office building to office building.
Have a nice day,
Georges in Montreal.
AWESOME!!! I never have the priviledge of witnessing hair that long here in Halifax, on either a man OR a woman. I THINK this is a woman, but it is hard to tell.
No matter who it is, I surely have never seen the likes of hair that long in real life. Only photos.
It is a woman as I think I see a clutch in her left hand. It has to be the prettiest hair I have seen in a long time.
When peoples hair gets too long is starts to look abit freekish.
Children get away with very long hair but as you get older it doesn't look good to be that long.
I'd love to see hair like it was when the world was a real place, not driven by what it is today, but that long is and has always been strange...
Oh, please please PLEASE let me look that "strange" then!!!!!!!!
--- And for those of you too young to know: the term, "freak" was often used to refer to hippies during the 1960's (and, in fact, still can be a term used in that way).
Someone called me that once, when I was all dressed up in a tux, at a very formal dinner-dance event with my brother & sister-in-law. A guy from the neighboring table turned around after seeing my multile hair-tied ponytail and said, "Hey, I didn't know they allowed freaks in here!"
Whether or not it was meant as a compliment, I joked back and thanked him for it!
- Ken
Indeed. "Hippies" was a term our fathers used when they said they hated hippies. We disdained the word and called ourselves "freaks". Nowadays the term "hippies" has come into more general use and we embrace it, of course.
The word "freak" appears in a lot of music and literature from the period, such as the line in the Five Man Electrical Band song "Signs": Long haired freaky people need not apply. And there's the expression flyin' the freak flag which means "having long hair".
Besides meaning "being into the hippie scene", the word "freak" came to mean being into any scene. "Phone freaks" are guys who are into doing crazy things with the telephone system, for example, and a guy who is really into photography could be said to be a "photography freak".
Of course the word "freak", besides having its meaning in the hippie sense, also retains the traditional circus sense of the word. It is not in that case generally seen as complimentary. If someone calls you a freak because you have long hair, sometimes you aren't going to know which sense of the word was intended. You have to get that from their demeanor or other conduct.
The opposite to "freaks" in the 1960s was "straight people", but that phrase is seldom used now because of its later adoption for use in another context, meaning "heterosexual".
Bill
. . . "Almost Cut My Hair". Bill, thank you. Exactimundo, everyone! The one particular stanza in the lyrics that LEAPS to mind is, "I feel like lettin' my freak flag fly!", inferring that the protagonist in the song wishes to allow his long hair to flow (or fly, if you will) in the breeze in an unrestrained fashion.
Touche again, Bill. Back in High School in the 1970's, when my coterie of fellow longhairs and our girlfriends socialised, we referred to ourselves as "freaks". It was a term of endearment, not a verbal joust.
Well put, well put! I, as everyone who knows me can attest, am a "mythology freak", and have been since the first grade (!), largely in part due to the Ray Harryhausen live action and stop motion animation classic, "Jason and the Argonauts".
Yes, yes, and yes! As with any subcultural argot that inevitably filters into mainstream usage, a word may have diametricly opposing meanings. This is the case, too, with the word "freak". It might mean something derogatory.
Why, even persons who'd've been considered qualified of being cast in the role of an exhibition in a circus side show, often referred to as "freak shows" (I know that THAT was where I first ran to, when going to an amusement park as a child), are nowadays given a more dignified nomenclature, that being "special people".
Irregardless, there'll always, always be a counter-cultural inference to the very outward appearance of the long-haired "freak" in the contemporary world, the reason my/our choice of desporting myself/ourselves WITH such a choice of hair/beard length can STILL garners looks and spoken sentiments of derision. Witness Urban Cowboy's experience at a weddind, despite being clad in the de rigor tuxedo.
Yeah, isn't that interesting. What the Beatniks of the 1950's and 60's called "squares" later became "straights", probably from the even more colloquial "straight-laced", from the Victorian/Edwardian eras. And now, as Bill just pointed out, "straight" and "heterosexual" are inextricably entwined. Go figure. LET'S HEAR IT FOR SLANG TERMINOLOGY, EVERYBODY!
Yours etymologically,
Quenyan
There aren't freekish short haired people... if a shaved head is not freekish, why naturally grown hair that hasn't reach terminal would be? I mean, growing your hair is more human and natural than cutting it off...
;)
I couldn't agree more. I only hope that I can be lucky enough to be half as "freakish" one day. :)
Sure hair that long is out of the mainstream culture these days but not universally. When it comes to women length such as the one shown is not unheard of while the men are a more notable rarity. Even these days having that length is not the oddity, seeing it completely down loose is since extra long hair is most often protectively worn up.
Historically, such great length is well documented in many old photos. While the famed Sutherland sisters toured the US showing off their hair and hawking questionable growth products they were an attraction as much for the beauty of their hair as the novelty of it. Recently DeeDee found a photo in her attic showing a woman from about 100 years ago with hair to her ankles (and maybe she would link it for us) so length is unusual but not strange. Particularly when you have it on yourself it becomes unremarkable.
Elizabeth
And I agree.
It was not freakinsh at all to have long hair back in the 1800's. I think it was more the norm, than not. They might not have worn it down out in public, but I think most women had extremely long hair...I have some elderly aunts that are always telling me I need to put my hair up. Got to love 'em! =o)
Justin colorized it for me and I love it! =o)
Huh? I always thought people didn't have hair that long because their hair wouldn't grow that long or caring for it was too much work for them. Most people in Arizona don't have hair any longer than mid-back, and a rare few people have waist-length or longer, probably because of the heat, I imagine. Most women I see have shorter hair than I do. XD
I intend to have extra long hair if I can, because it looks too damn awesome, and it'd look that much better on me. I wish more people had hair that long, it looks much better and is much more attractive. I didn't know most people had their hair shorter than that by choice, I had assumed it just couldn't get that long. I don't see why long hair like that is out of mainstream culture (but then, I question the tastes of plenty of people), but that's a shame since it looks so much better. That's good to know, so maybe my hair can grow that long eventually.
Most people never are aware how long their hair can grow, part through disinterest and also because of a culture that does not encourage long hair or knowledge of decent care that permits long hair. In your area heat certainly plays a part too. Hopi men have a traditional bun style for a reason. Nobody wants loose or ponytailed hair trapping heat on their neck.
One of the surprises I have found when talking to people about hair is how many people do know someone with extremely long hair or even have it in their family. My family certainly isn't like that but it amazed me how many people have said some great-aunt (never an uncle though I've heard some pretty neat beard stories too) had hair to the floor or that their sister used to have knee length hair but got tired of it/talked out of it.
Keep growing, there are certainly men that have made such length as the link to a painting from the 1860s shows and it sounds like you will enjoy finding out if you are among them. I wish you success, Grant.
Elizabeth
I'd bet that's a woman. Either way, that's some beautiful hair!
--
Splat
Great looking hair, it doesn't matter if it's a man or woman. My goal is to reach ankle length hair (I know it would be hard to care for but it would be worth it!) and seeing someone with hair that long is inspiring!
A photo that is not yours to distribute with no credit to the photographer who snapped and published the woman without her permission most likely. To top it off their hair isn't long enough for you. How charming, Uwe.
Elizabeth
Hey Elizabeth, you know I like you a lot and consider you a friend so let me be honest here. on this issue you really need to chill out. You are the only one who gets stuck on this issue much as with the photos of children published here long ago.
I get that you are concerned but please keep these opinions on this subject to yourself please. It will just start trouble and no one will benefit.
We are all cool with this pic, besides Elizabeth, so lets leave it at that and not start a thread that will have to be deleted later :)
Applauds
At the risk of giving this more attention, this picture was in the public domain, anyone could find it. But I suppose that due credit could be given to the photographer or web site where it was found by including a link that would point there. Would that be adequate?
Bruce
Um. No. The Internet is public domain. Anyone can take a photo posted on the Internet and distribute it. Uwe's not taking credit for it (which would be wrong), so there's absolutely nothing wrong with posting it. Welcome to the Internet; redistributing a photo without giving credit is perhaps as mild as it gets here. If you're easily offended, especially by things like this, the Internet isn't the place for you.
As for the person in the photo, there's nothing incriminating about it, so there's nothing for him/her to worry about. The face isn't even visible.
Yes, I've considered the possibility if a photo of me were distributed without my consent on the Internet. I'd grin and bear it. There's nothing I could do about it.
First of all, if you go out onto a public street, you are apt to be photographed. I live in a tourist town, and people have for years walked around with cameras, snapping away. Lately with cell phones that happens everywhere. If you don't want to be photographed looking a certain way, then don't go out looking like that!
Recording of the voice is legally different in many places, including California. If you run a video camera with the microphone on, and without obtaining the permission of those speaking, you are apt to be violating the law.
People do have a "right of privacy". This right provides a much larger umbrella of protection over private individuals than it does over individuals of public interest. Mere photography of someone is not going to trigger that, but portraying them in an unflattering light may. Some of the anti-mullet sites we've seen are examples of how one can cross that line.
Now, to copyright. It belongs to the PHOTOGRAPHER, not to the person photographed. Except for the mirror shots on this site, almost every photo you see on this site was taken by someone other than the person portrayed. In a personal setting such as these photos' being taken, there is a presumption that the photographer is okay with the subject of the photo using it for non-commercial personal purposes, such as posting it here.
Copyright has an exception called "fair use". In rough terms, this means one can use small pieces of a creation where they are not taking so much of it that they'd deprive the creator of revenue. Book reviewers quoting passages from books, college professors handing out short excerpts in class, etc., are examples.
Using one photo in a discussion of how long human hair can grow, for example, is different than copying a whole web site that features ultra-long-haired people. There are no hard-fast rules; custom often dictates what is acceptable, what is a gray area, and what is not acceptable.
On the Internet, use of one photo in a non-commercial context has come to be seen as acceptable, unless the photo itself constitutes a unique work of art. People link photos all the time into their MySpace pages, for example, and they do that here. As a non-commercial site where people are making personal postings, we don't get concerned with copyright issues over one photo unless a copyright holder actually complains. We don't have the time. MySpace doesn't either, so why should we?
Copyright and right of privacy are two separate issues, by the way, and the legal use of material requires that the requirements of both be met. Right of privacy is often more of a concern on a site like this than is copyright, although most people think primarily in terms of copyright.
Bill
Thank You Bill,
I was going to dig in my miscelaneous legal file and try to respond as you did however you did a much better job. As I attend Metal festivals and Ren Faires I will be posting an occasional pic here and there in the future. I'll keep it to a minimum and spread it out as not to gobble up bandwith or clog up the board.
Maybe I'll do a website if I have enough.
Peace
Kevin
In the case of photographed ARTWORK it is usually the artist and not photographer of the painting who is credited. Otherwise it is the guy/girl snapping the pic who gets the credit.
Indeed, the law is never simple, and that is why lawyers' offices are lined with shelves of books. There are always exceptions to exceptions to exceptions. Who has the copyright to the above picture, Whistler, my partner who took the picture, or the guy who designed my T-shirt!
Bill
Another contender is the Musée d'Orsay who owns the painting, though it is amusing the museum credits the copyright to a photo of it on their own website to the photographer who took the picture for them. Copyright aside, credit for a photo like yours also gets an appreciative nod from me to the person who grew the hair. What the photographer captures in an instant represents years of work on the part of their model.
Elizabeth
Cool, Elizabeth, that you see my mane as a work of art! [big grin]
Bill
I thought it was neat you mentioned your shirt. While the discussion was copyright it reminded me that shirts get little credit for their artistic value. I know I have more art in my closet than on the walls.
I'm scrapping my response to your informative post because I'd rather pick your brains at the next meet. I'm fascinated by legal rights and enjoy the discussion. However, there is one thing I should salvage- This is as good a time as any to clarify my original comments were directed to Uwe's conduct and not to this site, it was never my intent to criticize the hyperboard for the photo appearing here. I am interested in discussing the issue and killing the original post would be the opposite of that.
Elizabeth
In the interest of maintaining group harmony, suggestions for policies and comments about the behavior of other users must go to the crew, not onto the board, so there's nothing to add here.
Bill
Disney. You'll be hearing from them in the morning. :)
Oh please, it's a picture of someone from behind, like they would even realise it was them or even care for that matter.
We recognize men here all the time by their hair alone so I don't think it a difficult thing for someone to recognize their own photograph. Certainly I could pick my own hair out of a lineup even if other clues such as clothing and location had been removed. Finding the photo (that was taken unknowingly) to complain is the problem, not identification.
If it was such a small matter to ask permission beforehand then people would. However, there is a lot to be said for not asking for fear the answer would be no. I also understand it would not occur to everyone that people might not want their image distrubuted and that is why it is important to make peope aware. One of the big points of this board is expecting respectful treatment from people who aren't longhairs toward longhairs. It seems reasonable enough to expect respect from everyone.
Elizabeth
Etiquette dictates that we cater to the whims of 'reasonable' people, not all people. The question is thus what do we consider to be reasonable.
In this day and age, cameras are common, and if you are somewhat unusual looking, you will get photographed. And if you or someone else puts your picture on the Internet, others will look at it, tell their friends about it, and perhaps pass it around.
Expectations can change. This is what is expected in the year 2007. Comments to this thread overwhelmingly confirm that that is the current expectation.
I am unusual enough that I sometimes get photographed. Sometimes people ask, sometimes they don't. That's life in the third millinneum.
The pictures taken of me don't show anyone anything that anyone who sees me on the street doesn't see anyhow. If I didn't want to be seen like that, I wouldn't go out looking like that.
Bill
Whether male or female, it's a very inspiring picture. Thank you.
This is, quite possibly, the most beautiful head of hair I've ever seen. It's just absolutely perfect in every way.
That gorgeous mane almost certainly belongs to a woman. Even though it is a still photo, I can see how that person walks and moves. Moves and walks like a woman.
Absalom
Regardless of what you can get away with on the internet OR what is legal, posting (without attribution) another person's pictures of a subject who likely wasn't informed or give consent is tacky.
Copyright does exist on the internet, and it belongs to the photographer, common courtesy requires that you at least credit the photographer (if known)
Taking pictures of subjects who haven't given consent, while legal (in some situations) and then posting them in a very public place isn't very nice. This one is favorable, and a good picture, and MLHH is a nice board, but...Say it was you, and it was posted on a bunch of fetish boards, for either admiration or ridicule? Now...I have released some similar pictures of me into the internet, since it amuses me that some fetishist may be whacking off to a picture of a guy all unknowing.
Personally, I don't much mind if people take pictures of me and my hair. I appreciate the courtesy of asking, and offers to email me copies are extra nice. When I take pictures, I would ask the subject if I was going to post or share the image and always offer to email copies (or post to a specific URL for their download).