[pietherr]

You want to restrict the number of similar pictures, not the number of pictures taken at a specific spot. So you should decide based on the what's in the view of the lens, or after taking the picture.

Imagine a polaroid camera that shreds the picture if it's deemed not original enough :)

[CWuestefeld]

As it happens, on Sunday I posted a photo to my photography club's G+ page. Another member noted the location, and replied with another photo she'd taken months ago of the exact same subject, standing maybe 15 feet from where I'd taken my photo.

Although we know that the subject of both photos are the same, what's interesting is that to a first approximation, they appear to be pictures of entirely different things. We were commenting how radically different can be the interpretation of two different artists when seeing the same thing.

The error that the OP makes is that what makes the photo is what you're taking a picture of. At least in the art of photography, that's barely the beginning of it. A photograph is something that the artist creates, not something that he takes of a particular thing.

[georgemcbay]

"A photograph is something that the artist creates, not something that he takes of a particular thing."

To be pedantic, it can be either.

I do hobby photography that I take fairly seriously ( http://gmcbay.com/ ), but sometimes I really just take a snapshot of a thing just to document that thing, without thinking about the lighting or the composition or anything -- just want to post it up on ebay or facebook or whatever for illustration, not trying to have it be "art".

Many (probably most?) photographs are in the "taken" group as opposed to the "created", I'd think.

[dalke]

The New York marathon has around 50K finishers. Many of the finishers will have friends and family taking pictures of them crossing the finish line.

That will end up generating many similar pictures taken from near one area and within a short time.

[Someone1234]

Right. But nobody is trying to force anyone to use this, the whole point is to help people take original and interesting pictures.

If you want to take family pictures of a race event, just use a regular camera, not a specialised artistic one.

[Lawtonfogle]

>But nobody is trying to force anyone to use this

Of course not. But please note that all cameras that do not include the GPS restriction feature to ensure that they are not being used to photograph either copyrighted or protected scenes will now have a protection tax that will be used to cover the litigation and enforcement costs resulting from the misuse of such cameras. Regulation is also currently being purposed to require the sale of cameras which can so easily be abused to be restricted only to licensed individuals. To ensure your best experience with these new anti-terrorism measures, your ownership of existing cameras will be grandfathered in.

You might also be excited to know that we are currently working on updates that will also help protect children by ensuring that no photo of a child can be taken without his or her parents' express approval! More details will be released soon!

[dalke]

Point taken, and a good one as well. I (metaphorically) withdraw my comment.

[joosters]

That would be fantastic - I'd love a system that would stop someone taking more photos if they already had too many similar pictures in their own camera roll. Just think of the time it would save when someone is boring you with their 1000s of holiday snaps :)

[QuotedForTruth]

Thats addressing the problem at the wrong end. I take many photos of the same subject often, but Im only ever going to show the best one or two to anyone. People need to learn to edit! There is a side benefit that you look like a much better photographer when people only see your best. They dont even think about all the rejects.

[mikeash]

That could be useful in all sorts of comments. A music composition app that destroys any work that's too derivative. A Twitter client that blocks repetitive tweets. Maybe Hacker News comments could benefit.

[joosters]

A hacker news bot that auto-posts common messages would save us lots of arguing time. e.g. Whenever a submission references some c/c++ code, the bot could auto-post a whole thread of arguments about 'why are people still using this insecure language?', thus saving HN denizens from posting and arguing over the same thing...

[darkerside]

The path to innovation shouldn't need rails. Maybe what I'm trying looks pretty similar to things that have come before, but perhaps it's different in some way I understand and which a machine does not. Rather than a destructive feedback mechanism which would only discourage brainstorming, I'd rather see some kind of "genericity meter" to provide real-time feedback without stopping the artist from going down a path that is at least new to them.

[oe]

There was an IRC channel (or an idea of one?) where saying anything that was said before would lead you to be kicked. Edit: linked elsewhere in this thread: http://blog.xkcd.com/2008/01/14/robot9000-and-xkcd-signal-at...