Don't leave home without it!

[jgcull]

Sheesh... I'm glad I live in little Stony Point, NC. I can't see that happening here. BUt who knows?

 

[cknapp1961]

Just because the ACLU supports it does not make it a bad thing. Mind you, the ACLU could come to the defense of someone like Domenico when it comes to his "freedom of the press".

It already saved Domenico from unfair treatment (threats) by a member of the public, so I say it was worth having.

I doubt that the ACLU will ever come to the rescue of a Fair Minded individual.

 

[cknapp1961]

What the hell is ACLU?

ACLU is the American Civil Liberties Union.

They provide free attorneys to any liberal who can get them on TV. These are the guys who will come to the aid of a "poor teenage girl" who attends a private school in America, which has traditionally had girls wear dresses for gradation for nearly 100 years in North Carolina, but does not want to wear a dress, thus the ruling that she could attend graduation in slacks instead of simply telling her to wear a dress or do not attend the graduation.

These are the guys who come to the aid of a "lone individual" who is "offended" by displaying the Manger Scene at a public airport. The ACLU's position is that if one person is offended then we have to remove the Manger scene and not allow anyone to see it.

The ACLU never acknowledges that you do not have the right to never be offended in life, but that it is how you deal with such issues that count. You are living in a fantasy world if you think you can go through life and never run across dolts who will offend you. It is simply up to you to accept other religion's displays or other issues with which you may disagree (tolerate and be tolerated), and ignore ignorant comments by ignorant people.

I was merely making the point that would never carry a document in my pocket which is distributed by the ACLU, as this would justify their existence.

Craig Knapp
craig dot knapp1 at us dot army dot mil

 

[AutumnJazz]

Craig, um, do you have any proof at all? Your first case, the girl wearing pants, sounds like a classic case of discrimination based on sex. Boys are allowed to wear pants, but not girls?

Your second argument, the "manger" scene, do you have a source? What were the details of the case? If it was a publically funded airport, it cannot endorse any religion.

The ACLU strives for equality and upholding the US Constitution. It has NOTHING to do with "feeling offended."

Craig, please, post some sources and legal analysis or kindly stop posting. You're the one who sounds like an ignorant person.

 

[David Brown]

Craig, please, post some sources ...

No, please do not. Rants against the ACLU (or any other such entity) have nothing to do with the original post. Good grief!

 

[Domenico Foschi]

No, please do not. Rants against the ACLU (or any other such entity) have nothing to do with the original post. Good grief!

Agree.

 

[Andy K]

Andy, I used to live in Sutton Road, S.O.S. I have some great pics (for me) of people on the seafront. Why didn't you just tell her that she made a great picture. ( I would be flattered) Why cheat her that it was for a newspaper? Do you want trouble?

I would have but she was at least fifty feet away when I took the shot. The photograph was not of her but of the general scene of Old Leigh. When I said it was for the papers, it was very obvious I was joking. I was minding my own business, making photographs and she approached me with an attitude. She was just being an idiot, and I don't have time for idiots.
There are enough restrictions on photography in this country without having to put up with someone who went out of their way to be obnoxious.

 

[Q.G.]

Time, perhaps, for a different view?

All legalities aside, we do have to acknowledge that having someone you never seen before, and will never see again, take you picture does feel like an intrusion of your 'personal space'.
People do worry about what happens to something they perceive as belonging to them (their likeness), especially when we do know we cannot know what the likeness is used for.

That's not being an idiot. It's just how people, we mere mortals, are.

Keeping that in mind, and dealing with it respectfully is not a restriction of your freedom, but common decency. Acknowledging that you are part of a community, someone who would appreciate the same common decency when the roles are reversed.

"Freedom" is all too often used as a pretext for doing things you know you really shouldn't, when the more appropriate terms would be "being obnoxious" and "egotistical".
Both of which, by the way, are not forbidden by law. Having a paper that says you are allowed, by law, to be obnoxious doesn't make it any better.

 

[Daniel Larsen]

I'm sorry, but I am with Q.C. I do not understand the need to take a picture of anyone who is already in a "defensive/offensive mode," rights advisory card or not. Those two young men will probably be even more hostile to photographers from now on, whether the cameras are pointed at them or not.

 

[cknapp1961]

Craig, um, do you have any proof at all? Your first case, the girl wearing pants, sounds like a classic case of discrimination based on sex. Boys are allowed to wear pants, but not girls?

Your second argument, the "manger" scene, do you have a source? What were the details of the case? If it was a publically funded airport, it cannot endorse any religion.

The ACLU strives for equality and upholding the US Constitution. It has NOTHING to do with "feeling offended."

Craig, please, post some sources and legal analysis or kindly stop posting. You're the one who sounds like an ignorant person.

OK I was mistaken about the pants, the girl contacted the ACLU "after" being denied access to the graduation (Boo Hoo). This is a minor issue that you would think attorneys are too busy to be bothered with. It is not like someone is getting lynched or anything. Here is a link.
http://www.interstateq.com/archives/1019/

As for Christmas displays, it appears the ACLU would rather take down all religious displays rather than follow a policy of "tolerate and be tolerated", but of course it is OK to display commercialism such as Santa Claus. Link:
http://www.jenningsosbornefamily.com/news/itn0998.html

I am NOT a religious zealot by any means, but a Conservative who wishes the ACLU would just "go away" and quit forcing the majority to comply with the will of a single person....again, major Civil Rights issues aside.

If you take the time to Google terms like ACLU male wearing pants, and other such phrases you can get the jist of why I would not carry nor recommend that someone else carry documents supported by the ACLU, it assists with justifying their existence.

 

[Ian David]

There is some truth in what you say QG, although whether someone can reasonably think you are taking a recognizable photo of them will depend upon the circumstances. If it is likely that they will be no more than an anonymous shape in your shot, there may not be much good reason for them to get upset.
But in any case, being aware of the actual scope of the legal restrictions upon your photography is useful in various situations going beyond photos of people.

 

[Q.G.]

You're right, Ian.

Things never are clear cut, either black or white. And we will have to use our common sense to determine whether common decency is on our, or the other side every single time we find (or put - we usually do put ourselves into such a situation) ourselves in such a situation.

I just put forward a view (which i support) opposing the we-can-do-anything-we-like-and-here's-a-paper-that-says-we-can vein that runs through this thread.
To that i say: Yes, you can. But that doesn't make you right in anything but, perhaps, a legal sense.

The 'truth', as always, lies somewhere in the middle.

 

[Domenico Foschi]

Time, perhaps, for a different view?

All legalities aside, we do have to acknowledge that having someone you never seen before, and will never see again, take you picture does feel like an intrusion of your 'personal space'.
People do worry about what happens to something they perceive as belonging to them (their likeness), especially when we do know we cannot know what the likeness is used for.

That's not being an idiot. It's just how people, we mere mortals, are.

Keeping that in mind, and dealing with it respectfully is not a restriction of your freedom, but common decency. Acknowledging that you are part of a community, someone who would appreciate the same common decency when the roles are reversed.

"Freedom" is all too often used as a pretext for doing things you know you really shouldn't, when the more appropriate terms would be "being obnoxious" and "egotistical".
Both of which, by the way, are not forbidden by law. Having a paper that says you are allowed, by law, to be obnoxious doesn't make it any better.

First and foremost, QG (What is your full name, anyway?) it is not that piece of paper that makes me feel entitled to take pictures of strangers.
It is not an entitlement but a deep seeded need if you understand the depth of creative needs.
It is not with disrespect that I approach the subject but with a definetly more respectful and awe inspired feeling.
Listening to your creatively restricting positions, then, photographers like Bresson, Winogrand, Friedlander, Doisneau and Frank shouldn't not have done the wonderful body of work they did.
The problem with you is that you see the action of shooting pictures of people like prying in one's person's privacy, when most of the times (as it should be), the picture is never about the subjects but what the subject has inspired in the photgrapher's mind.
As Winogrand said: Regarding my photography, I am stuck with my own psychology".
The subject is a pretext, a trigger for the expression of a psychological need that wants to be expressed.

There is nothing private in two people walking down Broadway Ave. in Downtown Los ANgeles, I'll tell you that, when thousands of people are bound to see you, and that's what the camera does: it sees.
Even further, the statement that taking a picture of a person might be an intrusion of someone's personal space is very debatable.
You are talking in extremely abstract terms.
To invade someone's space means to get so close to them as to touch them or almost without their consent.
If we really want to split hair and talk of what really happens when you take a picture, then I will tell you that my camera at the moment of the shutter opening, through a well syncronized network of mechanisms gathers the light reflected by the subject.
No soul gets stolen, no pieces of flesh or even clothes will be missing by the subjects. The buildings in the background will remain intact and even the people in the background will keep walking as nothing had happened.
Some people love the fact of having their picture taken, some are puzzled, some don't like it.
In Antonioni's movie "Blow Out" when Vanessa Redgrave's character notices the photogrpaher impersonated by David Hemmings taking pictures of a scene with her and her lover in it, she follows him demanding the roll of film saying :"A person has the right to be left in peace"to which Hemmings character's replies: "It's not my fault if there is no peace".

The act of taking picture is not an aggressive one, what is aggressive is the reaction of one of the people I photographed, who grabbed my camera.
For some reason you neglected to contemplate that very reaction and decided to put your aggression on the person who actually got assaulted: me.
This very behavior of yours should give you some hints for some self-exhamination, but that's your problem.

The piece of paper.
You know, I don't go around with the piece of paper plastered on my shirt and backside, I only use it in extreme cases like this one.
When the person said he was going to call the cops (likely a bluff) I was hoping that him reading the paper would cause him to desist from the action hence saving time to both of us.
I repeat that the only person to have grounds for a legal action it was me since he grabbed my camera. I would never had pursued it because I don't care about that sort of things if no real harm is done to me or the camera.

Lastly, I also am a defender of your same position that just because one action is legal doesn't mean it is ethical.
If I take pictures of people(and sometime it happens that they are against me doing it) I feel I am not going against my ethical values.
I know this might be a controversial position, but this very dilemma has been one of mine as well and I have concluded that when my creativity pushes me to action, it cannot be stopped, provided you feel in your very being you are not exploiting the subject by putting it in a demeaning light.

I am sure I have neglected some points which I will probably write after your next reply provided you do so in a civil manner.

 

[jd callow]

The piece of paper offers good guidance first and foremost, having it on your person might offer some help as demonstrated by the OP.

Viewing pictures taken of people reacting to having their picture taken is something that can be interesting. It represents a significant portion, if not the majourity of images taken of people, including some of the most famous or highly regarded. Taking pictures in a public place: ditto. I'm not too sympathetic to people who over react when they suspect they have been photographed. It is probably not a good idea to try and provoke people into angry reactions.

FWIW if "being obnoxious" and or appearing "egotistical" are things that you wish to avoid then shooting in public places probably is not for you.

 

[Thomas Wilson]

Domenico,

Technically, it's perfectly legal to:
Fart in Church
chew with one's mouth wide open
chew & spit tobacco
use the "F" bomb as casual punctuation
wear one's drawers down around one's knees
hurl venomous verbal insults at strangers
fly, without showering or a any attempt at personal hygiene
use one's cell phone at the opera

I could ramble on for days.

I was raised to respect the rules of common courtesy, which by my standards, would include affording to strangers the right to privacy, whether actual or perceived.

 

[Andy K]

Thomas, do you disagree with any and all photography in a public place?

 

[Thomas Wilson]

Thomas, do you disagree with any and all photography in a public place?

No.

 

[Andy K]

No.

So how do you avoid photographing people in a public place, if you are going to 'respect their privacy'?

 

[Thomas Wilson]

It's not easy.

One example that comes to mind was a recent shoot I did of the Monocacy Aqueduct. While viewing the negatives at the lab, a fellow customer asked how in the world I was able to get that early evening shot with no one standing on the aqueduct? I replied, "That one was easy, the high that day was 12 degrees."

 

[Domenico Foschi]

The piece of paper offers good guidance first and foremost, having it on your person might offer some help as demonstrated by the OP.

Viewing pictures taken of people reacting to having their picture taken is something that can be interesting. It represents a significant portion, if not the majourity of images taken of people, including some of the most famous or highly regarded. Taking pictures in a public place: ditto. I'm not too sympathetic to people who over react when they suspect they have been photographed. It is probably not a good idea to try and provoke people into angry reactions.

FWIW if "being obnoxious" and or appearing "egotistical" are things that you wish to avoid then shooting in public places probably is not for you.

JD, I appreciate your post.
It really wasn't my intention to provoke a negative reaction.
All I did was to move slightly to the right at the point of being in front of them, justa few feet away.
It was their choice to react negatively, which actually looked great in the viewfinder.
Someone could have reacted by laughing, some by shying away some with an expression of surprise.....
When you do street scene you have to put your ego and fears aside and allow Life to happen in front of you.
It is actually exhilarating.

 

[canuhead]

...allow Life to happen in front of you...

This is exactly what shooting street is about.

Couldn't have said it better Domenico.

 

[Q.G.]

The argument has been taken to extremes again.

Photographing people in a public place is not necessarily, or automatically, an invasion of their privacy.
Sticking a camera in someone's face, to record their reaction, most certainly is.

There is entire world separating the two. Use you discretion.

And you cannot defend doing the latter of the two by pointing out that doing the first is quite o.k.
All that would do, perhaps, is show that your discretion is not to be relied upon, and perhaps there indeed is a need for legislation prohibiting photographic loutism.

The very worst point, by far, that has been put forward has been that of the "artistic need".
Yes, some people may have an artistic urge to be an obnoxious so and so.
Doesn't make them less of an obnoxious so and so.

 

[jd callow]

People give up a portion of their privacy when they leave their home -- including the right not to be looked at, talked to, photographed, and on and on. If you wish to extend them more privacy than they are rightfully owed it is your business. Shooting people in public to record their reaction to being photographed is not inherently obnoxious nor does cross some imaginary threshold. I've pointed my camera at people to get and have received great reactions. I've also had people turn away. I don't do it often, but having done it I know where I see it standing in the grand realm of things -- pretty insignificant to all concerned. In the OP case he chose individuals who could have 'played' to the camera as most do, but instead they tried to take his camera. No question in my mind who was being obnoxious.

 

[Q.G.]

Yet again a claim to do what is "rightfully" yours to do.
Yes, as mentioned before, you do have a right to be that obnoxious so and so i mentioned.

People "played to the camera" the OP put in their face. He didn't like the game they chose to play.
Well boohoo.

But no: hell and damnation to them if they don't like to play the game you and the OP want to force upon them. And you have a piece of paper saying so, so there!

Again, use your discretion. Be a civilised member of society.

And that begins by acknowledging that the reaction you and the OP object to is a reaction, something consciously provoked by putting a camera in people's faces.

It continues by putting away as good as you give out, and not running to seek succor, whimpering about how the bad people treated you.
To that perhaps a short and simple "grow up already!" would be the best answer. If you cannot stand how the game is played, don't play the game. If you are looking for someone to complain to, look no further than yourself.
Hiding behind a piece of paper saying that it is not actually illegal to be a pain in the backside is as childish as claiming that an artistic intent will dissolve you of all blame.

And that simplistic "people give up [etc.]"?
People do not give up being part of a civilised community. They rightfully expect to be treated as one expects people in civilised communities to treat one another. The reactions that are complained about here show that people in fact were not. What's more, the express intent of the OP was not to treat them as such, so he could provoke and capture their reactions to that.
And now he says he didn't, but that it was their choice...

He says he "allows life to happen".
But he didn't. He wanted to create his own bit of life. And succeeded too.
And then he comes complaining, because he didn't like 'the life that happened'.

Have i already said something like "Grow up!"?
Good...

 

[Louis Nargi]

thanks for the post.