Another vacation etiquette question

[snowdragon]

If I buy a meal and don't finish it, someone else at my table may want to do so. Snce I paid for the meal, I can say no, it is my right, but to do so would be pointless and, I would say, hoardish (I know that is not actually a word). It is my meal to do with as I please, but I might end up a lonely diner.

You can't BE serious? Now  even left over is not the property of the owner but must be given to whom ever wants it at the table? Wow.  Frankly if I have no rights to my own property I would be happier and less resentful without friends like that.   but if my friends are going to think less of me because I want to keep my property rather than give it anyone who feels entitled to it - they are not my friends, really.

[miranova]

If I buy a meal and don't finish it, someone else at my table may want to do so. Snce I paid for the meal, I can say no, it is my right, but to do so would be pointless and, I would say, hoardish (I know that is not actually a word). It is my meal to do with as I please, but I might end up a lonely diner.

It is not wrong to say 'yes'. It is also not wrong to say 'no'. You do not get to decide that it is 'pointless' for me to say 'no'.

Well....it may be semantics but I think people "decide" things like this all the time in their heads.  People make judgements about people based on their behaviors.  "Pointless" is by nature a subjective term, and a matter of opinion.  So yes you can keep your food (and I think the better analogy to this case would be without giving a single explanation like wanting the leftovers, since OP did not give any explanation), but you can't control what people think about you.  I think it would be rude to say anything, but thoughts can't be policed.

[LeveeWoman]

If I buy a meal and don't finish it, someone else at my table may want to do so. Snce I paid for the meal, I can say no, it is my right, but to do so would be pointless and, I would say, hoardish (I know that is not actually a word). It is my meal to do with as I please, but I might end up a lonely diner.

I don't think this is comparable. The art work is something she produced, something over which she labored. A meal is something you buy.

[miranova]

If I buy a meal and don't finish it, someone else at my table may want to do so. Snce I paid for the meal, I can say no, it is my right, but to do so would be pointless and, I would say, hoardish (I know that is not actually a word). It is my meal to do with as I please, but I might end up a lonely diner.

You can't BE serious? Now  even left over is not the property of the owner but must be given to whom ever wants it at the table? Wow.  Frankly if I have no rights to my own property I would be happier and less resentful without friends like that.   but if my friends are going to think less of me because I want to keep my property rather than give it anyone who feels entitled to it - they are not my friends, really.

Nobody said any of these things.  The hyperbole is not helping the argument. 

You can say no.  It's your property.  No one has said otherwise.  In fact, see the bolded.

[CakeEater]

If I buy a meal and don't finish it, someone else at my table may want to do so. Snce I paid for the meal, I can say no, it is my right, but to do so would be pointless and, I would say, hoardish (I know that is not actually a word). It is my meal to do with as I please, but I might end up a lonely diner.

I would suggest that there might be reasons that someone mightn't want to share the remains of their meals. Perhaps they have a cold sore coming on they don't want to discuss at the dinner table. Perhaps they spat something back onto the plate and mixed it in, but don't want to tell you they did that. Perhaps they have OCD and must leave their plate with three bites of food left on it.

People have reasons for wanting things the way they are that might seem weird to us, but they have a right to do them, and in the absence of other hoardish* or selfish tendencies, it's best to assume that this is a difference of perspective, and not a reflection on how your friends feel about you.

*Does three people using it help with making it a real word?

[snowdragon]

miranova - the idea of entitlement comes in when you ( general) thinks less of someone because they don't hand over what ever it is you've (general) decided you want. Be it food, pictures, water, or whatever - just because someone wants it does not mean the owner is stingy, hoarding or any other nasty label the asker wants to attach to here.
  And no one is owned an explanation either

[bloo]

In fact, the only thing being stated in this thread on this side of it is that certain people would find the refusal odd.  Nothing more.  Yet words like "not obligated, not entitled, my property, my rights, my art" etc keep getting thrown around as if anyone is even remotely debating a photographer's right to keep their photos.  We all agree that it is your property and you can keep it. 

I think the only thing the travel companion did wrong was to expect the photos without asking nicely first.  I think anytime someone asks for something they do so with an expectation of at least possibly getting a yes, otherwise we would never ask anyone for anything!  So I don't think an expectation of probably getting a yes is wrong or "entitled", but I do think asking nicely is required.  Of course, he should take no for an answer and not push.  But I can understand why this didn't go down well, since the OP herself admits that she had a hard time giving a straight answer.  When someone won't give a straight yes or no answer, it is frustrating for everyone involved.

No we don't all agree.  Here several posters said they'd let the friendship cool if they couldn't have the pictures. I think I can extrapolate from that they feel entitled to them.

[miranova]

If I buy a meal and don't finish it, someone else at my table may want to do so. Snce I paid for the meal, I can say no, it is my right, but to do so would be pointless and, I would say, hoardish (I know that is not actually a word). It is my meal to do with as I please, but I might end up a lonely diner.

People have reasons for wanting things the way they are that might seem weird to us, but they have a right to do them, and in the absence of other hoardish* or selfish tendencies, it's best to assume that this is a difference of perspective, and not a reflection on how your friends feel about you.

This is certainly true, but within the context of a friendship I think it's easier and more kind to actually give a friend some kind of explanation (talking about the photos, not the food) to avoid hurting feelings.

[miranova]

miranova - the idea of entitlement comes in when you ( general) thinks less of someone because they don't hand over what ever it is you've (general) decided you want. Be it food, pictures, water, or whatever - just because someone wants it does not mean the owner is stingy, hoarding or any other nasty label the asker wants to attach to here.
  And no one is owned an explanation either

Your choice of wording is not exactly accurate, but we will have to agree to disagree that thinking less of someone due to their behavior makes someone "entitled".  I think the specific circumstances matter.

[snowdragon]

If I buy a meal and don't finish it, someone else at my table may want to do so. Snce I paid for the meal, I can say no, it is my right, but to do so would be pointless and, I would say, hoardish (I know that is not actually a word). It is my meal to do with as I please, but I might end up a lonely diner.

You can't BE serious? Now  even left over is not the property of the owner but must be given to whom ever wants it at the table? Wow.  Frankly if I have no rights to my own property I would be happier and less resentful without friends like that.   but if my friends are going to think less of me because I want to keep my property rather than give it anyone who feels entitled to it - they are not my friends, really.

Nobody said any of these things.  The hyperbole is not helping the argument. 

You can say no.  It's your property.  No one has said otherwise.  In fact, see the bolded.

The whole idea that it's "pointless" and "hoardish" tells me that you really don't think the owner actually has that right. If they had the right, it would not be "pointless" or "hoardish", it be completely natural for them to do so.both for the food and for the photos.

[bloo]

If I buy a meal and don't finish it, someone else at my table may want to do so. Snce I paid for the meal, I can say no, it is my right, but to do so would be pointless and, I would say, hoardish (I know that is not actually a word). It is my meal to do with as I please, but I might end up a lonely diner.

People have reasons for wanting things the way they are that might seem weird to us, but they have a right to do them, and in the absence of other hoardish* or selfish tendencies, it's best to assume that this is a difference of perspective, and not a reflection on how your friends feel about you.

This is certainly true, but within the context of a friendship I think it's easier and more kind to actually give a friend some kind of explanation (talking about the photos, not the food) to avoid hurting feelings.

I can certainly agree with that Miranova!

[miranova]

In fact, the only thing being stated in this thread on this side of it is that certain people would find the refusal odd.  Nothing more.  Yet words like "not obligated, not entitled, my property, my rights, my art" etc keep getting thrown around as if anyone is even remotely debating a photographer's right to keep their photos.  We all agree that it is your property and you can keep it. 

I think the only thing the travel companion did wrong was to expect the photos without asking nicely first.  I think anytime someone asks for something they do so with an expectation of at least possibly getting a yes, otherwise we would never ask anyone for anything!  So I don't think an expectation of probably getting a yes is wrong or "entitled", but I do think asking nicely is required.  Of course, he should take no for an answer and not push.  But I can understand why this didn't go down well, since the OP herself admits that she had a hard time giving a straight answer.  When someone won't give a straight yes or no answer, it is frustrating for everyone involved.

No we don't all agree.  Here several posters said they'd let the friendship cool if they couldn't have the pictures. I think I can extrapolate from that they feel entitled to them.

We are talking about how someone would FEEL if their friend refused to share travel photos with them, not whether they actually think that they have a legal right to them. The two are not even remotely the same thing and I have not seen one person argue that the photographer literally MUST hand them over.  If I have missed that, please point it out.  I don't think the exrapolating you are doing is accurate.

[miranova]

If I buy a meal and don't finish it, someone else at my table may want to do so. Snce I paid for the meal, I can say no, it is my right, but to do so would be pointless and, I would say, hoardish (I know that is not actually a word). It is my meal to do with as I please, but I might end up a lonely diner.

You can't BE serious? Now  even left over is not the property of the owner but must be given to whom ever wants it at the table? Wow.  Frankly if I have no rights to my own property I would be happier and less resentful without friends like that.   but if my friends are going to think less of me because I want to keep my property rather than give it anyone who feels entitled to it - they are not my friends, really.

Nobody said any of these things.  The hyperbole is not helping the argument. 

You can say no.  It's your property.  No one has said otherwise.  In fact, see the bolded.

The whole idea that it's "pointless" and "hoardish" tells me that you really don't think the owner actually has that right. If they had the right, it would not be "pointless" or "hoardish", it be completely natural for them to do so.both for the food and for the photos.

Well first of all I wasn't the one who used those words.  Secondly I find your conclustion illogical.  I can have an opinion about someone's behavior without thinking that I own their photos.

[CakeEater]

The explanations keep changing and are getting confusing.

First, we just don't understand because we don't know the difference between regular travel photos and art. 
(pretty interesting assumption).
Then, it doesn't matter whether or not it's art because anyone has the right to keep their own property.

Both of which still miss the fact that no one is suggesting that the photos be taken by force.  The photographer is always allowed to say no.  And the travel companion is allowed to think that that is a bit odd. 

In fact, the only thing being stated in this thread on this side of it is that certain people would find the refusal odd.  Nothing more.  Yet words like "not obligated, not entitled, my property, my rights, my art" etc keep getting thrown around as if anyone is even remotely debating a photographer's right to keep their photos.  We all agree that it is your property and you can keep it. 

I think the only thing the travel companion did wrong was to expect the photos without asking nicely first.  I think anytime someone asks for something they do so with an expectation of at least possibly getting a yes, otherwise we would never ask anyone for anything!  So I don't think an expectation of probably getting a yes is wrong or "entitled", but I do think asking nicely is required.Of course, he should take no for an answer and not push.  But I can understand why this didn't go down well, since the OP herself admits that she had a hard time giving a straight answer.  When someone won't give a straight yes or no answer, it is frustrating for everyone involved.

No-one's changing their arguments. Both arguments listed at the beginning of your post are valid.

As to your last paragraph: Asking nicely does not mean that it's OK to ask for anything. I could ask very nicely for all kinds of things that I have no right to have. In fact, I think that's rude. It puts the askee on the spot having to refuse your friend a favour and seem like the bad guy, when they shouldn't have asked in the first place.

[bloo]

In fact, the only thing being stated in this thread on this side of it is that certain people would find the refusal odd.  Nothing more.  Yet words like "not obligated, not entitled, my property, my rights, my art" etc keep getting thrown around as if anyone is even remotely debating a photographer's right to keep their photos.  We all agree that it is your property and you can keep it. 

I think the only thing the travel companion did wrong was to expect the photos without asking nicely first.  I think anytime someone asks for something they do so with an expectation of at least possibly getting a yes, otherwise we would never ask anyone for anything!  So I don't think an expectation of probably getting a yes is wrong or "entitled", but I do think asking nicely is required.  Of course, he should take no for an answer and not push.  But I can understand why this didn't go down well, since the OP herself admits that she had a hard time giving a straight answer.  When someone won't give a straight yes or no answer, it is frustrating for everyone involved.

No we don't all agree.  Here several posters said they'd let the friendship cool if they couldn't have the pictures. I think I can extrapolate from that they feel entitled to them.

We are talking about how someone would FEEL if their friend refused to share travel photos with them, not whether they actually think that they have a legal right to them. The two are not even remotely the same thing and I have not seen one person argue that the photographer literally MUST hand them over.  If I have missed that, please point it out.  I don't think the exrapolating you are doing is accurate.

If we are talking about FEELINGS, I'm saying that some people FEEL entitled to other people's property - in this case - pictures. And if someone FEELS like letting the friendship cool because of the refusal, that - to me - is entitlement (legalities notwithstanding).