Any personal restrictions on public photography?

[removed account4]

Honestly John, I am not trying to prove anything. I am just interested in people's attitudes. In fact, I find the poll results already pretty interesting. I am not hoping for or relying upon any particular outcome - I am just curious.
Sometimes you need to consider extreme situations to find out how far people are prepared to follow their views.
Ian

ian

after reading all the responses this far in the thread,
it doesn't really seem to reveal much.
it is not out of the ordinary that some people have no problem
photographing whoever and whatever they want ( kids, strangers, homeless, whatever ... ) and others find it morally wrong to photograph someone or something without
permission and believe it is in poor taste, rude or in some extreme cases like stealing something ... it is just a photograph.

granted some images may be in "poor taste" but there are all sorts of people
out there.

your poll might have made more sense, by just asking if people feel outside
their "comfort zone" photographing strangers on the street ( with or without permission ).

 

[AutumnJazz]

Flea, do you really trust CCTV operators that much? My problems with CCTV are many...it amounts to the government stalking you, I think it is asinine to think that CCTV operators will never leak any footage or anything when the CIA can't even keep their secret agents or assassination programs under wraps, and it assumes crime is going to occur. Of course crime will occur, but how do we know it will be under the view of CCTV? They also don't act as a deterrent. They're too low res to produce any usable video. And it can even be next to impossible to get footage legally released!

I have minimal problems with private CCTV used on private property, even if it overlooks public areas.

 

[removed account4]

http://www.notbored.org/

 

[Early Riser]

Courts have also occasionally decided that "artistic" use of a person's likeness is not necessarily the same as a "commercial" use of the likeness to sell an unrelated product. Of course, getting multiple people (even here) to agree on what is artistic would probably be as easy as heading up the proverbial creek without a paddle.

I am fascinated by some of the responses here that people think it's acceptable so long as it's done by a journalist, or someone with "talent" or "taste", ie. it was okay for HCB to do it because he was talented, regardless of how many non-keepers he took that we've never seeen. I bet if we picked any one photo in the world, and any ten people on this site, we would get ten different opinions as to whether it was done with talent or taste.

The distinction between being a professional journalist and a hobbyist is made because the journalist is supposedly serving the greater good, that is keeping the public informed of what is happening and most specifically how the government and it's agents are acting. Remember that at the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution the concern was about abuse of power by the government, not about the personal use of photographs produced by the public. It is the prevention of the abuse of power that a free press is mostly justified by. The application of these rights are coat tailed by the hobbyist photographer.

Another distinction is that a professional journalist supposedly acts in a professional manner, is aware of the laws and restrictions regarding photography, is aware of what is considered "news" and when their actions invade the rights of private citizens. In addition their work was also edited and examined by other professional journalists and editors so there was a vetting process attached to the use of the images.

Today an argument can be made that even a non professional photographer can be in the right place at the right time and record important news. But on the other hand for every truly news worthy image recorded by a non journalist, there's probably a million or more that are not news worthy and may have invaded the right to privacy of others.

Personally from a professional's point of view, and I have worked on assignment for newspapers and magazines, if someone does not wish to be photographed, and especially if they are not in a news worthy situation, I would not photograph them. I will still be able to produce a great number of images in my life with out having to act like a jerk to people. And to me, photographers and especially amateur photographers (to whom their living and quality of life is not dependent on capturing that image and therefore do not suffer a tangible loss by not capturing a given image) who photograph people without their consent are jerks.

They may have the legal right to do so, but that doesn't make it the right thing to do. There's no law that says I can't take 2 parking spots, or that I can't cut ahead of people in line, so therefore I am within my legal rights to do so. But how many people would consider such actions appropriate? Sometimes we have to act like responsible citizens and NOT do whatever we want, for the consideration of the rights and feelings of others.

 

[JBrunner]

In my opinion, the poll is completely and utterly flawed. The affirmative answer encompasses vast dispositions and circumstances of every nature imaginable, while the negative answer is absolute. There is no useful information that can be gleaned from such a built in bias. The result is a textbook perfect straw man.

A critical thought process will have difficulty supporting a position that is so vague as to sympathize with a subtext one does not agree with, or conversely, rendering support for an absolute.

Many vile things campaign in this way, and many persons incapable of recognizing deception fall for it.

 

[Flea77]

Flea, do you really trust CCTV operators that much? My problems with CCTV are many...it amounts to the government stalking you, I think it is asinine to think that CCTV operators will never leak any footage or anything when the CIA can't even keep their secret agents or assassination programs under wraps, and it assumes crime is going to occur. Of course crime will occur, but how do we know it will be under the view of CCTV? They also don't act as a deterrent. They're too low res to produce any usable video. And it can even be next to impossible to get footage legally released!

I have minimal problems with private CCTV used on private property, even if it overlooks public areas.

I don't trust anyone that much. The point I was making was that the INTENT of the CCTV and security cameras is not to showcase and or distribute the pictures of people. The INTENT of a private photographer is to showcase and/or distribute their work. This may only be to friends and family, but it is show none the less. Just look at all the references in this thread to photographers such as Bresson, he sure distributed his work!

They also don't act as a deterrent. They're too low res to produce any usable video. And it can even be next to impossible to get footage legally released!

Actually I just finished some footage a week ago for a DA in a case where the footage will be used in court, as it has been before, to prosecute someone.

Allan

 

[Flea77]

Allan, the NYC Dept of Transportation cameras can be viewed online. Would this be an issue for you?

Also, such cameras are routinely used in divorce lawsuits, and other civil cases, etc. where no crime has taken place.

So to say government cameras are only used for government purposes is not quite true.

Actually I never once mentioned "government". I said "solving a crime or maintaining security". Security is maintained by the government, yes, but also private entities. Personally, I would include all lawsuits, thanks for pointing that out.

I really would not mind the low res video being viewable online. But that is just me. Doing a quick search found only the "traffic" cameras available online, could you point me to the ones showing people walking down the street as more than a blob in the distance?

Allan

 

[thisismyname09]

I'm very on the fence for this. While I certainly believe there are times when, out of courtesy, you shouldn't shoot, doing so anyway will probably produce an excellent photo. I voted yes, since I don't have the guts to take photos when I feel I shouldn't.

 

[JBrunner]

I don't trust anyone that much. The point I was making was that the INTENT of the CCTV and security cameras is not to showcase and or distribute the pictures of people. The INTENT of a private photographer is to showcase and/or distribute their work. This may only be to friends and family, but it is show none the less. Just look at all the references in this thread to photographers such as Bresson, he sure distributed his work!



Actually I just finished some footage a week ago for a DA in a case where the footage will be used in court, as it has been before, to prosecute someone.

Allan

I don't see where the intent of a photograph should have any bearing on restriction. Indeed, the intent of a street photographer is self evident. The nature of self-restriction within what is legal is personal, and set by the individual. Right or wrong is a personal concept. Some people may be offended by my INFIDEL t-shirt. Am I wrong to wear it? Some would say so, and I say, so what? I have every right to wear it. If they care, society or individuals may censure me as a result of their convictions as they will, but they can not censor me.

The biggest irritation for me in this series of threads have been the constant stream of straw men that have been trotted out and puppeted to make support for a basic foundational freedom seem unsavory. I don't have to like or agree on a personal level with Dominco's actions in the least to fully support his freedom to do what he does. Debating whether or not he was right or wrong is simply a giant circle jerk. The KKK is allowed to operate within the law in the US. Unsavory? Yeah, you bet, vile even.

The alternative is pure evil of the highest order.

 

[Thomas Wilson]

I don't see where the intent of a photograph should have any bearing on restriction. Indeed, the intent of a street photographer is self evident. The nature of self-restriction within what is legal is personal, and set by the individual. Right or wrong is a personal concept. Some people may be offended by my INFIDEL t-shirt. Am I wrong to wear it? Some would say so, and I say, so what? I have every right to wear it. If they care, society or individuals may censure me as a result of their convictions as they will, but they can not censor me.

The biggest irritation for me in this series of threads have been the constant stream of straw men that have been trotted out and puppeted to make support for a basic foundational freedom seem unsavory. I don't have to like or agree on a personal level with Dominco's actions in the least to fully support his freedom to do what he does. Debating whether or not he was right or wrong is simply a giant circle jerk. The KKK is allowed to operate within the law in the US. Unsavory? Yeah, you bet, vile even.

The alternative is pure evil of the highest order.

At this point in this multi-threaded and passionate debate, I wont attempt to quote or paraphrase anyone, but I have to agree that the pole question of this thread was poorly phrased, and the results, therefore, skewed.

I also have to agree with JB's summation.

I believe the largest area of contention has not been whether offensive behavior is legal, it most certainly is, but rather, should it be tolerated? The short answer is yes.

There is little recourse for the offended, short of assault, or returning the favor, in hopes of embarrassing the offender into submission. There is no hope of a criminal indictment, for no crime has been committed.

A civil suite would almost certainly be dismissed with prejudice because the photograph(s) would fall under the realm of art, and therefore would not be subject to the same restrictions and liabilities found in commercial photography.


Flag burning is legal and I support a creepy protester's right to burn one. But I would rather enjoy seeing him get his ass kicked for doing so.

ASMP has some FAQ's on their web site which touch on the Art vs. Commercial aspect of this discussion. Another more lengthy explanation may be viewed below.

http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html

 

[removed account4]

Doing a quick search found only the "traffic" cameras available online, could you point me to the ones showing people walking down the street as more than a blob in the distance?

Allan

there is software available to turn that low rez blob into
something that rivals 6" aerial film.
you obviously haven't been watching enough police proceedurals

 

[AutumnJazz]

there is software available to turn that low rez blob into
something that rivals 6" aerial film.
you obviously haven't been watching enough police proceedurals

Hah!

 

[JBrunner]

The crappy res security camera is on it's way to being a relic. The LE system proposed for the downtown salt lake area has enough resolution to make facial recognition software part of the package.

 

[Ian David]

In my opinion, the poll is completely and utterly flawed. The affirmative answer encompasses vast dispositions and circumstances of every nature imaginable, while the negative answer is absolute. There is no useful information that can be gleaned from such a built in bias. The result is a textbook perfect straw man.

A critical thought process will have difficulty supporting a position that is so vague as to sympathize with a subtext one does not agree with, or conversely, rendering support for an absolute.

Many vile things campaign in this way, and many persons incapable of recognizing deception fall for it.

Jason

Having followed this thread, and fully appreciated the strength of people's reactions to this general topic and all its tangents, I agree that I could have phrased the question better. In hindsight, I would not have started the thread at all. (I will also concede that a couple of my testy early posts in this thread resulted from posting while feeling slightly annoyed in relation to the other two related threads that were still going on at the time... mea culpa)

But in the end it is just a question; a question on an internet forum. There is no element of campaigning here, and as I have said before I am not proposing to somehow rely on the poll. I don't know or care about the identities of those who are answering one way or the other. Nothing turns on the numbers, and nobody will have any freedoms taken away.

I have obviously failed to appreciate something about the etiquette of posting a poll on APUG. People start threads on all sorts of matters that they are curious about. Believe it or not, I was curious about how many people really feel that they have no limits in their public photography, so I started a poll. In that sense, I was only really interested in whether any/many people responded "no". Twenty or so people have. Maybe those people are deluding themselves, but it is still interesting to me that at some level they feel they have no restrictions.

Anyway, I do genuinely apologise for the angst this seems to have caused.

Ian

 

[Jeremy]

I've been up long enough without sleep that I'm in quite a slap-happy mood and just can't help, but point out that I do

Remember that at the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution the concern was about abuse of power by the government

And of course it was

not about the personal use of photographs produced by the public

but I wonder if that may have more to do with the Constitution being adopted in 1787, the Bill of Rights added in 1791, and Daguerre not announcing the Daguerreotype to the public until 1839.

 

[jd callow]

I've been up long enough without sleep that I'm in quite a slap-happy mood and just can't help, but point out that I do

And of course it was but I wonder if that may have more to do with the Constitution being adopted in 1787, the Bill of Rights added in 1791, and Daguerre not announcing the Daguerreotype to the public until 1839.

The concern was also for the power of the people to act without fear of their gov't, the importance of free speech and of course a free press. I see a very clear line from these concepts and how they would apply to photography in the same manner as the written word which was the main form of expression 200 plus years ago.

 

[jaimeb82]

I voted yes because I censor myself even though I really don't like such black and white questions. I didn't attempt to address the "should I", "would I" question. I have certain standards which I apply to myself which I would not insist everyone else follows and it's sometimes difficult to separate personal from universal "beliefs".

Would I wear capri pants? - no
Should others wear capri pants? - no
May others wear capri pants? - yes
Has Nadal played better tennis since he stopped wearing capri pants? - no

Isn't Nadal number one?
I get it, Nadal hasn't played better tennis since he stopped wearing capri pants, but he is still number one? Yes

 

[Early Riser]

I've been up long enough without sleep that I'm in quite a slap-happy mood and just can't help, but point out that I do

And of course it was but I wonder if that may have more to do with the Constitution being adopted in 1787, the Bill of Rights added in 1791, and Daguerre not announcing the Daguerreotype to the public until 1839.

I thought about pointing out that photography did not exist during the writing of the US Constitution and therefore was obviously not a consideration on the part of the authors but I thought that no one would actually need to point that out.

 

[jaimeb82]

I thought about pointing out that photography did not exist during the writing of the US Constitution and therefore was obviously not a consideration on the part of the authors but I thought that no one would actually need to point that out.

I guess that's one of the problems with history, you can not change what just happened a second ago. But who knows if we can fix that, when NASA presents a time/travel machine of protons particles and we can travel to the past to take those pictures, re-do the Constitution to include photography laws on it and see how the public will take it? if a portrait of Hamilton after his duel can retire me and my predecessors for life, why shouldn't I do click? Isn't that what most photogs would want, making a living from a hobby?

 

[Jeremy]

I thought about pointing out that photography did not exist during the writing of the US Constitution and therefore was obviously not a consideration on the part of the authors but I thought that no one would actually need to point that out.

If that's true then there was no need to write this statement:

Remember that at the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution the concern was about abuse of power by the government, not about the personal use of photographs produced by the public.

because it makes a link between the writing of the Constitution/Bill of Rights and to the personal use of photographs produced by the public. Your sentence alludes to a conclusion that the framers of the Constitution were concerned about abuse of power by the government and not by personal use of photographs created by the public and places these two topics on an equal and anachronistic footing.

This would be similar to saying "Miles Davis made an analog recording of Kind of Blue, not a digital recording". Never mind the fact that Kind of Blue was recorded in 1957 and the first commercial digital recording didn't take place until 1976. By linking the two ideas in the same sentence you're alluding to a connection between the two that there was a choice when it's logically impossible for one to be made--regardless of what you mean, I can only go by what you actually type.

I'm not saying that you don't understand this, but there has been a big rash of fallacious and misleading statements bandied about on Apug lately and I wanted to point out why I brought up your post.