A question about photography

[Aggie]

I have my photograph taken hundreds of times in a night. Right now i don't mind in the least. Hell I'm flattered they want a pic of me. In fact now that I only occupy one person space, I find it amusing that I'm being photographed. I did think about this for a while. Wouldn't it be novel if you had those same papparazi following you all of a sudden have you go up and start looking at their equipment with interest? Take your camera along and compare. Talk shop and look at some of their images. Become a buddy to them. Who know you might even take pictures of them as a gang of photogs or what I call pea of pappies. Pea meaning peabrained. What photographer doesn't like to talk about their equipment and shop? it might surprise the hell out of them and actually get them so they would respect you enough to acede to your wishes of non invasion of privacy. Either that or electrify the trees they climb in. So long as the trees are on your side of the property it is a torte and by breaking one blade of grass they are breaking the law, so you would have the right to electrify your trees. (mildly shocking)

 

[DBP]

If they are trespassing, take their pictures, with a very powerful flash, pointed directly at their lenses.

 

[Roger Hicks]

So long as the trees are on your side of the property it is a torte and by breaking one blade of grass they are breaking the law, so you would have the right to electrify your trees. (mildly shocking)

Mere trespass is seldom regarded as an actionable tort in the UK. The same is I believe true of at least some US jurisdictions. There are also some quite hard cases about proportionality of response. As you say, 'mildly shocking' ain't a problem but another rule of tort is that you take your victim as you find him.

Of course you could argue that the electric fences are to keep your peacocks in, and I don't think many judges would go behind that argument. But it must be a close-run thing whether peacocks or paparazzi are more irritating.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[anyte]

It is not unreasonable for someone to not appreciate having their picture taken. And regardless of the law, I insist that I have a right, as an individual living in a country of freedom, not to be photographed. When someone is willing to provide me with the means to remain indoors and out of the sight of photographic lenses then I will agree that I have no assumption of privacy when in public. Currently, I have no option but to leave my home for my own well-being and the well-being of my child and I should be able to care for myself and my family without being stalked, tracked, exposed, etc.

The point that some photographers know to take a hint has nothing to do with my comments, as my comments were directed to people who attach negative connotation to those who choose not to be photographed. A person doesn't have to be a criminal or have low self-esteem to choose not to be photographed. To think so it immature at best. And again, it's this kind of attitude that makes me less inclined to care about photographers being hassled by law enforcement in public. Perhaps it's this kind of arrogance that has caused the harrassment to escalate.

If you cannot respect me, my opinions, and my rights, then don't expect that I will respect you, your opinions, or your rights.

And lastly, you can tell me I'm wrong, but the law doesn't make me wrong, it just means the law is not in my favor.

 

[Dave Parker]

I always find it so funny, that those of us who choose to participate in the sport, profession or hobby of what is called photography seem to be some of the most ardent opponents of being photographed! Seems to be quite the oxymoron to me, heck I can't count the number of times, I have ended up in someones photograph, many of the events I have photographed over the years has been attended by hundreds of photographers at the same time, so if I were to worry about being photographed, I would have starved over the years!



Dave

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Anyte,

Call me legalistic, but if it's not enforceable, it's not a right.

And if you cannot respect the law, you cannot expect anyone to respect your wishes much. You may also care to reflect that calling those who disagree with you 'immature at best' and arrogant is unlikely either to raise their opinion of you or to make them care any more about your beliefs.

The point is, it doesn't matter whether we respect one another, or each other's opinion. I don't need your respect; you don't need mine. Clearly we have a similar (low) regard of one another's opinions.

Rights are another matter. You cannot stop me taking pictures of you (or anyone else) in a public place; at least, not without proving harrassment and obtaining an injunction, and then only with difficulty.

What puzzles me is why you react so strongly to this (I seem to recall you were similarly excited on another thread on similar topic). Many people don't like being photographed. I'm not wild about it myself. So? Why should I care that much? I don't think I'm so important that the law should be changed.

Finally, consider this. Suppose a law were passed making it a 'right' not to be photographed. All newspapers, all magazines, all news, any movie that is not shot on a movie lot; all are impossible. You may share my low regard for such media -- but would you actually be in favour of their complete disappearance, instead of just 90 per cent of them?

Cheers,

Roger

 

[anyte]

Dear Anyte,

Call me legalistic, but if it's not enforceable, it's not a right.

And if you cannot respect the law, you cannot expect anyone to respect your wishes much. You may also care to reflect that calling those who disagree with you 'immature at best' and arrogant is unlikely either to raise their opinion of you or to make them care any more about your beliefs.

The point is, it doesn't matter whether we respect one another, or each other's opinion. I don't need your respect; you don't need mine. Clearly we have a similar (low) regard of one another's opinions.

Rights are another matter. You cannot stop me taking pictures of you (or anyone else) in a public place; at least, not without proving harrassment and obtaining an injunction, and then only with difficulty.

What puzzles me is why you react so strongly to this (I seem to recall you were similarly excited on another thread on similar topic). Many people don't like being photographed. I'm not wild about it myself. So? Why should I care that much? I don't think I'm so important that the law should be changed.

Finally, consider this. Suppose a law were passed making it a 'right' not to be photographed. All newspapers, all magazines, all news, any movie that is not shot on a movie lot; all are impossible. You may share my low regard for such media -- but would you actually be in favour of their complete disappearance, instead of just 90 per cent of them?

Cheers,

Roger

It's the fact that you are insulting; that you attach negative connotation to someone not doing something the way you deem it should be done. If someone doesn't use their real name or doesn't want their photo taken you state that they must be ashamed, they must have something to hide, or must be a criminal.

American law may be your Bible on right and wrong, but it is not mine. Imperfect people make laws for an imperfect society, and for some things there are too many variables in order to making a working law in order to protect the rights of people on both sides of an issue.

My reasons for not wanting to be photographed are personal, but I am not a criminal, I have nothing that I am trying to hide, and I have nothing to be ashamed of. The fact that you can see no other reasons beyond those does not exclude the existence of other reasons.

I may have no legal recourse but that doesn't mean I have to fold and accept your insults or your arrogance. I don't have to lay down and submit to being photographed and I don't have to be silent on my objections.

I can promise that everytime someone brings this topic up and someone, like yourself, makes insulting comments about someone not wanting to be photographed, I will go on the defense.

 

[anyte]

I always find it so funny, that those of us who choose to participate in the sport, profession or hobby of what is called photography seem to be some of the most ardent opponents of being photographed! Seems to be quite the oxymoron to me, heck I can't count the number of times, I have ended up in someones photograph, many of the events I have photographed over the years has been attended by hundreds of photographers at the same time, so if I were to worry about being photographed, I would have starved over the years!



Dave

How can it be an oxymoron when I don't photograph people or attend the kinds of events where photography can be expected?

 

[Dave Parker]

How can it be an oxymoron when I don't photograph people or attend the kinds of events where photography can be expected?

Chill Anyte,

It was a general observation after about 30 years of doing it, it was not directed at you in particular...

Dave

 

[anyte]

Chill Anyte,

It was a general observation after about 30 years of doing it, it was not directed at you in particular...

Dave

I wish you hadn't changed your name, I liked you better when I had you on my ignore list.

 

[Dave Parker]

What the hell did I do to you now! I made a general observation, and NOTHING was directed at you at all, it is real easy to put me back on your bad list...geeze did you ever wonder that perhaps some of the antagonistic replys you get, may be from the way you post to others!

 

[Roger Hicks]

I may have no legal recourse but that doesn't mean I have to fold and accept your insults or your arrogance.

Dear Anyte,

Hold on! Where in this thread have I insulted you or been arrogant?

I said I find it hard to understand why anyone other than a criminal might object to being photographed. I did not say there were no reasons, nor did I call you personally a criminal. And I tried to answer the question, which you have not yet done.

The original poster provided one reason why someone who might not wish to be photographed, viz, that it becomes wearing when it happens all the time. You may suffer from the same problem. But as you refuse to tell us what your objection is, it is hard to see why you would expect anyone else to support your cause.

Nor do I see my remarks as arrogance. I stated the law; I stated that I believe the law to be reasonable. I'd add that because it is the law, most other people probably agree with me. If anyone is being arrogant, surely it is someone who claims a right to be above the law.

I have no doubt that you will continue this crusade, but I cannot quite see why you expect to be taken seriously.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Dave Parker]

Heck Roger!

I just made a generalized statment and I am now back on the ignore list!

LMFAO

Of course I think it is funny!

Dave

 

[Roger Hicks]

I just made a generalized statment and I am now back on the ignore list!

It might save her time and mine if she would ignore me too -- but as she is determined to carry on this crusade, she needs to know what 'the enemy' is saying.

Dilemma time!

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Ed Sukach]

I said I find it hard to understand why anyone other than a criminal might object to being photographed. I did not say there were no reasons, nor did I call you personally a criminal. And I tried to answer the question, which you have not yet done...
... But as you refuse to tell us what your objection is, it is hard to see why you would expect anyone else to support your cause.
... If anyone is being arrogant, surely it is someone who claims a right to be above the law.

I have no doubt that you will continue this crusade, but I cannot quite see why you expect to be taken seriously.

I, too do NOT like to be photographed. Possibly that is exactly why I am on the other side of the camera. Why? ... I don't really know, nor do I find any motive for expending the effort to figure it out.

Occasionally I find myself in severe disagreement with the "Law". Depending on my strength of disagreement, I may take any number of actions to change the "law'. That is not arrogance, it is Democracy.

Beyond all that...

What is allowed legally is not always the "best" course of action. Back in my "paparazzi" days, there were times when our "spot news" was NOT submitted, because to do so would cause harm to our subjects (bloodthirsty.. huh?). To this day, I will consider the feelings of those I photograph: I am not on this world to cause grief to ANYONE.

That is a prerequisite for the title of "Human Being".

If this is arrogance, then so be it!!

 

[removed account4]

hi keico

getting back to the original question ...

what ann said.

========
========

i think the best way not to be photographed is to just ignore the people with the cameras. make believe they are not there, don't look, don't acknowledge, and maybe they will someday go away.
unfortunate to those who don't want to have their picture taken, there isn't really much they can do about it ...

 

[Roger Hicks]

What is allowed legally is not always the "best" course of action. Back in my "paparazzi" days, there were times when our "spot news" was NOT submitted, because to do so would cause harm to our subjects (bloodthirsty.. huh?). To this day, I will consider the feelings of those I photograph: I am not on this world to cause grief to ANYONE.

That is a prerequisite for the title of "Human Being".

If this is arrogance, then so be it!!

Dear Ed,

Quite so. Did I say I disagree? Look at my earlier posts (where, as I say, I tried to answer the question, on the basis of 40 years' experience of photography) and you will see that I say that many photographers, including myself, will, as I put it, 'take a hint' about not taking pictures. I then point out that if they won't take a hint, i.e. will not behave in your terms as a "Human Being", there is very little you can legally do about it.

My disagreement is with someone who believes (wrongly) that she has a 'right' not to be photographed; who takes as a personal insult an observation of puzzlement about who (other than criminals) is so worried about not being photographed; and who calls any viewpoint other than her own 'immature at best' and arrogant.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Michael W]

I don't particularly like being photographed, mainly because i always come out looking dumb, worried, or in need of a good nights sleep.
In a nutshell, self consciousness, a dilemma of many adults.
On the other hand I really like photographing people, either posed or unposed. With permission, or just grabbing shots in public. I do this out of a deep interest in others & with no ill will.
Therefore I always submit to having my photo taken. I do believe it is an essential thing for any people photograher to agree to.
If I won't agree to having my photo taken, then how can I expect others to pose for me?

To the original poster - I have heard that if a celebrity dresses & looks exactly the same all the time then it reduces the value of any extra shots of them. The paparazzi are looking for fresh material, but if the celeb always wears the same clothes then there is nothing to distinguish one shot from the next.

 

[benjiboy]

Keico, I think "celebritys" would need to worry more if nobody was interested in photographing them, they in a way have made a pact with the Devil, they seek the fame adulation , notoriety, financiel rewards etc. but don't want to pay the price of fame they suddenly become coy.

 

[Ed Sukach]

Dear Ed,
My disagreement is with someone who believes (wrongly) that she has a 'right' not to be photographed; who takes as a personal insult an observation of puzzlement about who (other than criminals) is so worried about not being photographed; and who calls any viewpoint other than her own 'immature at best' and arrogant.

Dear Roger,

There is nothing quite like quoting out of context. I never said anything about "disagreement", My response was to the statement, "I can't see why anyone other than a criminal would object to having their picture taken."

I am offering my support for those who are not criminals and dislike having their picture taken - there are other reasons, some coherent, so not so. I don't know WHY - but I can understand that, and I do not claim intelligence above anyone else here.

P. S. Chill out a tad. I did not try, or intend to attack you, only to toss something into the pot for thought and, from there, possible enlightenment.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Ed,

Well, be fair, you're misquoting too. I said I was 'slightly puzzled'. That's not quite the same thing as 'can't see why'. I am still slightly puzzled, and Anyte's refusal to do anything except protest has left me no less puzzled. She (and you) are entitled to leave me puzzled -- biut I'm entitled to be puzzled too, and I still don't see that being puzzled at this is 'immature at best' or arrogant (Anyte's words, not yours).

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Roger Hicks]

I don't particularly like being photographed, mainly because i always come out looking dumb, worried, or in need of a good nights sleep.

I often look like that, possibly because when photographed I may well actually be dumb, worried or in need of a good night's sleep...

But as you say, if we photograph other people, we can hardly complain if they photograph us. For my money, even if we don't photograph other people, I still have some difficulty with the viewpoint that "My dislike of being photographed is more important than your desire to take a photograph."

At best the two are of equal importance, and legally, the photographer wins. I agree that it's common decency not to take a picture if someone has made it clear they don't want their picture taken, or if we are in a religious culture that objects to photography, but otherwise they're fair game in my book (and in the eyes of the law).

Cheers,

R.

 

[keico]

Sorry I have not been online for awhile

Myself and my employer have been in florida for a little R & R

I have read through the replies and am very greatful for all the responses

My employer has also read through the responses and has this to say

"thank you for your replies"

"I feel the need to expand my thoughts on why my original question was asked"

"In no way am I against photgraphers and what they do, personally i have enjoyed numerous photos taken by numerous photographers"

"many photos that i have seen show me great talent and allow me to view the world through another persons perspective"

"I feel photography is one or more persons gift to others to show for the most part a memory of an event place or person"

"I for one do like taking pictures and do not mind being photographed while in public places"

"It is expected that when you go somewhere public that there is a chance of being photographed, either by accident or in person"

"However there are those photgraphers out there, that I feel only have one agenda on mind, and that is to capture an image of someone with the intention of making public someone else's private life"

"I feel it is an invasion of privacy for this to occur"

"For the average person, they will probably never have to experience one's private life being broadcast throughout the world"

"But believe me it is not pleasant"

"Even though for that photgrapher it may enrich their bank account, they do not realize the effect it has the persons life who is being photgraphed"

"If you say take a photo of myself having a luncheon with someone, it can then be interperted in any way, and most times it can and will be interperted in a negative way to attract an audience."

"if you can not see how someone like myself at times would not like to have my private life made public, then I am sorry, but for me it is going to far"

"Thank you again for all your replies"

"I have always believed that nothing in life is impossible, and if you see how far technology has improven over the years you will understanf why I have said that"

"It may not be possible today, but I believe hopefully in the near future, technogoly will find the solution, and when it does arrive that it is not used for the wrong reasons"

"Thank you all again and take care"

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Keico,

Please thank your employer for taking the time to reply. His perspective is one that (for obvious reasons) differs from that of many of us.

An interesting point, though, is that while the technology one might call 'anti-photography' may indeed mature, especially for countering digital imaging, it will be hard to counter the essentially 19th century technology, reliant on mechanical devices and (relatively simple) chemistry that underpins film cameras 20th century photography.

Go through the process: light goes from A (your employer) to B (the photographer's lens). Hard to stop. There is the possibility of synchronizing a blast of light at the moment of exposure, but with a mechanical shutter, you cannot know when this will be. The same applies to science-fictional out-of-phase 'light eliminators'. Barring a 'cloak of invisibility', whatever is there, can be photographed.

Within the lens the light is refracted and then focused either on a screen (via the reflex mirror) or on the film (via the shutter). Both the mirror and the shutter are simple, mechanical devices. Barring physical interference (e.g. a pistol shot) or a not-yet-invented 'death ray' (which it would be hard to make film-specific) there is not a lot you can do.

On the film, the light knocks a few electrons out of their orbits. The only way to swamp this is via a massive energy discharge that would almost certainly kill people.

After that, the film is developed and printed, far from his control...

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Helen B]

Keico,

If someone can see you, they can take a picture of you. It's the same basic process. To prevent one you would also have to prevent the other. Advances in technology will never change that, in fact they will only make it easier and cheaper to take high quality photos without detection.

You and your employer would achieve more success if you put your efforts into understanding how some very well known people stay out of the media.

Best,
Helen