Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Jolly Ball Fun

I decided to take a break since I'd been sitting at my desk all day, and when I went outside I found Bombay drawing in the sand with a Jolly Ball. He then picked up the the ball with his teeth and began pummeling me with it. It was pretty funny, so I had to get it on film, but of course by the time I returned with the video camera, he was no longer interested in playing.

I tried kicking the ball around to get the horses to kick it back, but they couldn't be less interested. Note Gabbrielle's big sigh of boredom after I pelt her a couple of times in the leg...



That was the best I could get out of them. I tried a few other things, like putting the ball in Bombay's mouth, but he wouldn't bite. Then my nosy neighbor came out and stared at me, so I called it a day. You can hear my neighbor's front door squeaking open at the very end of the video.

21 comments:

Groomer Angie said...

how funny, almost like she was saying *Sheesh Mom you're boring*

Maery Rose said...

Don't you just hate that!? I guess you have to just carry a camera around with you all the time for a sneak attack.

Paint Girl said...

Love Gabrielle's sigh!! Too funny. Of course they never want to do anything when you want them too, or when a camera is involved!
I wish my pastures looked nice and dry, like yours!! We have been having rain storms every other day or so, and the pastures are now lakes and mud. It is so bad. I hate this time of year!

Julie G said...

I think it's a fantastic video of how much you've desensitized them to things rolling around their legs... so well trained. Great JOB!

Breathe said...

A bit like the singing frog from the cartoons, right? :)

JeniQ said...

They never perform when we want them to do they?

Beautiful Arabians though.

Katharine Swan said...

Ha. Panama won't play in front of me. But I know he does, I've seen him when he doesn't think I'm looking... ;o)

Sydney said...

Lol they are like "but mom we just played that game!"

lytha said...

i loved the ominous creak of the door. ending the playtime, sadly.

just sometime, somehow, you gotta get the neighbor in the shot too.

~lytha

Leah Fry said...

As soon as I step out the door with the camera, I have two nosey-nosers checking it out. Unless I can get the shots from inside through a window, I immediately become the center of attention. The singing frog, like Breathe said...

Molly said...

Those babies love you.

Flip off your neighbor for me.

Nuzzling Muzzles said...

Even if I filmed or took pictures of my neighbors getting into my business, I couldn't post them. I could be held for slander if I use their names, show their pictures, or any identifying information such as their address or license plate. You wouldn't believe how many photos I've had to avoid posting because their vehicles got into the background of the pictures and the license plates were showing. I know I can always PhotoShop that out, but I rarely have the time to transfer the photos onto the machine that has PhotoShop and learn how to use it. I've been blogging for nearly two years and this is the first time I've taken the time to film and upload a video. I have taken pictures of my nosy neighbors, but it's only been when they were trespassing on my property. If the problem escalates, I can take the photos to the police. I've also been keeping a log of every time I catch them looking in our windows, trespassing, harassing me with their staring, eavesdropping, etc.

Katharine Swan said...

NM, your last post interested me since, as a writer, I know something about photo permissions and libel. I just wanted to post a little follow-up to what you wrote.

Technically, the biggest reason you can't post photos of them because it's illegal to use someone else's image without their permission. If their face shows well enough that they can be identified in the photo, you have to have a release form to show they've actually given you permission to use the photo.

Yes, that means a lot of people use photos they shouldn't on their blogs. Quite frankly, it drives me nuts. I've been well trained... ;o)

As far as using their names, since it's in print it would actually be libel, not slander. And technically, in order to win the case they would have to be able to prove that what you've said IS NOT TRUE. So if you had just factual information on your blog ("So-and-so was on my property this morning and stayed for 45 minutes") they most likely couldn't win a lawsuit -- especially with your photos as proof that you are telling the truth.

The other defense for libel is if it's clearly stated as your opinion. So if, in your rants, you said, "It's my opinion that so-and-so is a nosy beeeeatch," (rather than just calling her that without stating that it's your opinion) -- again, you've got a defense.

However, having a defense doesn't mean they couldn't take you to court, so even if you know you could win, naming names could cost you a lot of money. Long story short, I don't blame you at all for keeping mum on the topic.

Nuzzling Muzzles said...

Katharine - Thanks for that information. I've always wondered about the photo permission thing, because when I was younger I was in the news a lot, and I remember my father and I were always having to sign release forms. Then eventually it got to the point where I'd see my picture in the paper or on the news, and I say, "Hey! I never signed a release for that. Those journalists are getting slack."

I don't know the difference between libel and slander, so I'll look into that. As far as what is true, it can only be my word against theirs. I rarely have witnesses with me -- just my log and a few photos. Thanks.

Katharine Swan said...

NM, you're right, bloggers aren't the only ones doing it -- newspapers and magazines are using photos without release forms, too. It goes to show how the availability of information on the Internet has corrupted certain industries -- or maybe it has just made it more obvious when people do things like this?

Not long ago, I heard a frightening report on how people's photos were being stolen and used without their permission. (This goes beyond release forms, as it is actually stealing someone's intellectual property to use their photo without their permission.) The thing about it is that it was big companies doing the stealing. For instance, one was a case where someone realized the photo in a big company's newest marketing campaign had actually been lifted off of their Flickr page.

I'm not sure what makes companies or journalists think they can do things like that. Perhaps they are on a tight deadline, don't have time to get permission or find a different photo, and think, "No one will ever notice"? After all, it's just some average Joe's photo, right?

Anyway, please excuse my rant.

The difference between libel and slander is simply that slander is spoken, while libel is written/printed. Your photos would definitely be proof that you were telling the truth. Next time you are in a bookstore, look up the AP Style Guide -- it has a chapter on libel that is quite informative.

I do think that if you want to rant on your blog, leaving their names out of it is a good idea. You'd have to be very careful if you named names that you never said anything they could get you on, and that would be much fun -- or very cathartic -- for you. And anyway, in their case, naming names wouldn't accomplish much of anything.

Laughing Orca Ranch said...

Silly horses! The big sigh says it all. lol!

There are hundreds of photos in newspapers that show the faces of people out in public...just look at sporting events, 9-11 photos, Political outings, celebrities, fairs, and so on. Sometimes it's impossible to take a photo of anything without lots of people in it. I tend to get people's butt's in mine.

Is it illegal to post those photos? Or any photo at all with people in it who didn't sign a release form?
I was under the impression that when an 'adult' goes out into public (not a child), that any photo taken of them is permissable.

Does this mean that all of the photos taken on that blog 'people of walmart' are illegal, too? Sometimes they blur the faces, but not always.

I've posted photos of people from Ren Fair, both attendees and performers. Should I have went up to each one and had them sign a release form beforehand?

I won't post photos of children without approval from their parents first, but adults once they are out in public should be fair game.

If not then the rules need to be made more modern and updated or else there will be thousands...no make that millions, or frivolous lawsuits in the making. bah.

~Lisa

Laughing Orca Ranch said...

Oh! And I was just thinking back to your previous post, where I wrote about the 'flasher dude'.

Would it have been illegal for me to take that man's photograph and post it?

I mean, he obviously wanted to be seen...or at least, wanted his weener to be seen.
Could he have sued me for taking his photo and posting it?

If so, then this world is a messed up place.

~Lisa

Katharine Swan said...

Lisa --

It would be legal if you cropped off his face. It's the identifiable likeness that is the problem. People can't use your likeness for any commecial use without your permission. It's there to protect you too!

You're right, you can take photos of anyone you see out in public. The point is that you can't necessarily do anything you want with those people's images. This page does a really good job of explaining privacy laws versus publicity laws.

Interestingly, I've found several places online that say newspapers can use people's images freely as long as it's news. For instance, they don't have to get a criminal's permission to use their mug shot, and that makes sense! But unless you are pretty darn sure you could convince a court that your blog is a news site, I wouldn't risk it.

Interestingly, I've written for publications that require releases even when it is, technically, news. So if they are doing it, I'm guessing the law is subjective enough that small publications feel they would be better off safe than sorry. Personally, I agree -- you're better off making sure you have permission (in writing) before publishing photos of people!

fernvalley01 said...

All the good stuff happens when the camera isn't around here too!

Laughing Orca Ranch said...

So, it would have been legal to take a photo of that guy's weener and post it, but not his face?

Yep, like I said, this world is a messed up place....

~Lisa

Katharine Swan said...

Lisa, well, it might have gotten you flagged as a dirty site, but yeah, that's pretty much it. :-D

Messed up indeed.