Don't leave home without it!

Domenico Foschi said:

So, I have been shooting the streets of Los angeles for a while now and today for the first time I had my first confrontation with two young men who didn't like the fact that I took a picture of them.

I purposefully made myself visible before shooting because I wanted to see some kind of reaction which actually happened by having both of them protruding their arms and hands toward me in some kind of defensive/offensive mode.
It was a great picture and I clicked the shutter.
The aftermath was that one of the fellas grasped my Nikon F by the lens and tried to yank it out of my hand unsuccessfully.
It was then that I raised my voice and I let him know that there would be consequences if he didn't release my dear camera.
So he asked me if I took a picture of him and I said "yes".
He flipped the phone and told me he was going to call the cops and that he was going to gloat seeing me in the police car.
I told him "go ahead, but this piece of paper is going to save us time to me and troubles to you since you have tried to yank my camera off my hands"
I handed him a copy of "the photogrpaher's rights guidelines that I always carry with me. http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

It was a thing of beauty. He closed the phone, read the first lines, dropped the paper on the pavement with anger and left with his calmer friend.
Moral of the story, I recommend you to make a couple of copies and leave them permanently in your camera bag because if you shoot outside one time or another it is bound to be useful.

Good luck to all of us and let's keep having fun in what we love to do.

Click to expand...

I have the same document, and the U.S. Constitution, summaries of important court decisions when I am out shooting (and a copy of CA Penal Code Sec. 409.5, which allows accredited members of the press to go behind police lines). This is more to show the police if they are not up to snuff on such things...but to date, they always have been in cases of a dispute over my photographing in public. While they have been up to snuff in this regard, they generally need to hear me recite 409.5, even after showing a press I.D., to photograph news.

Good ideas, but don't count on a piece of paper protecting you from actual harm, or on any such papers routinely making the difference that they did for you on this occasion. People are STUPID, violent, and ruled wholly by their emotions. You need to be able to escape harm one way or another if you are going to be shooting on the street. No matter how right or respectful you are, there *will* be a situation sooner or later if you shoot on the street; a situation with a person that no amount of calmness or reason will affect. The best thing to do is have a friend as a deterrent; preferably someone large, yet calm, though anyone along with you can make a big difference. Then next best thing to do is to be a good and fast runner. Next, know some basic self defense. Another thing I do is to have direct lines to the police in my phone. Calling 9-1-1 on a cell phone takes forever. It is generally an issue with property owners about 50% of the times I shoot; very frequent that someone does not want their house, business, etc. in a picture. Most of the time, simply making a "let's call the police, then" comment and walking away down the street works fine. As for people getting abusive and violent, it has happened only a handful of times to me; always drunks. Having friends on hand helped in three of those situations. Running worked twice. Only once have I ever had to actually "defend myself", and it was a relatively minor incident. I luckily came out of it with just some stinky spit in my face. Also: always make a police report, IMO. People like that need to be on record in some way, and it can help in the rare chance that there are any future altercations with the same individual.

2F/2F said:

I have the same document, and the U.S. Constitution, summaries of important court decisions when I am out shooting (and a copy of CA Penal Code Sec. 409.5, which allows accredited members of the press to go behind police lines). This is more to show the police if they are not up to snuff on such things...but to date, they always have been in cases of a dispute over my photographing in public. While they have been up to snuff in this regard, they generally need to her me recite 409.5, even after showing a press I.D., to photograph news.

Good ideas, but don't count on a piece of paper protecting you from actual harm, or on any such papers routinely making the difference that they did for you on this occasion.

Click to expand...

Please, read my post # 73 of this same thread.

2F/2F these are very good suggestions that can and probably will be helpful Thank you.

Domenico Foschi said:

2F/2F these are very good suggestions that can and probably will be helpful Thank you.

Click to expand...

Sure thing...but I forgot one big thing: a sound recorder. Tape, digital, whatever. Very important! Turn it on the second any exchange is about to begin. They are so small now that they fit in a pocket easily and weigh pretty much only as much as the batteries. It seriously works wonders with the police having that hard evidence of the conversation, so they don't have to decide who to believe. It also lets you know how YOU come off in these situations...extremely important.

Additionally, you can make sound notes to yourself about times, locations, exposures, etc.

Where in this lovely city have you been shooting? Where were the punks?

SOunds recorder, great idea, it reminds me of "Femme Fatal" by Brian de Palma. I was on Broadway and 5th. But I have no animosity toward them.

I have been shooting in the fashion district, Broadway is a street that has a lot of flavor. Hollywood it's a must especially with the Michael Jackson big deal and the tourists season.
Tomorrow I will go to The Grove, and Rodeo Drive will be a great juxtaposition to the Broadway atmosphere.

Andy K said:

You think it unreasonable for someone to be taking photographs at a birthday celebration?

Click to expand...

I find it unreasonable for someone to behave like an entitled dickweed at a private birthday celebration. I find it problematic when anyone reaches beyond the bounds of etiquette at a social gathering of friends in a private place and also advances into one's personal space without prior or in situ consent, only to behave like a petulant little man when asked to hold off or take a time-out. I understand this is not what you would do in my shoes, Andy K, and that's fine. You and I are different people with different senses of communal suitability.

Had we celebrated her birthday at a picnic in a public park (her original plan before weather became a factor), my reaction would have been different: because we would have been in a public place, I would not have asked him to stop. Instead, I probably would have gone up to him to strike up a conversation about cameras and shooting and sharing with him my 645 "relic", followed by a gentle discussion about minding consideration of others when amongst friends as a way to earn their respect, rather than to alienate them. Honey, not vinegar. One way to do that is ask before you shoot — a simple "You okay with this?" would be sufficient — since these were not random strangers he was dealing with. The municipal park would have been a public place, but our grouping within that park (of which he would have been a part) would not have been a public space in the sense that our gathering wasn't open to just anyone who wanted to plop down on their bum and join us. Place and space, incidentally, are distinct concepts in geography (my birthday friend and I happen to share the same background in geography and urban planning, and this is why she understood my concerns at the restaurant without my having to say much more than, "Uhm wtf, mate?").


Separately, were he making photographs at the restaurant, I'd have still told him to chill out, but then I'd have walked over to his end to geek out over what film he might have been using. He was aiming and shooting with a digital camera, and as such was shooting digital images, not photographs.

accozzaglia said:

I find it unreasonable for someone to behave like an entitled dickweed at a private birthday celebration. I find it problematic when anyone reaches beyond the bounds of etiquette at a social gathering of friends in a private place and also advances into one's personal space without prior or in situ consent, only to behave like a petulant little man when asked to hold off or take a time-out. I understand this is not what you would do in my shoes, Andy K, and that's fine. You and I are different people with different senses of communal suitability.

Had we celebrated her birthday at a picnic in a public park (her original plan before weather became a factor), my reaction would have been different: because we would have been in a public place, I would not have asked him to stop. Instead, I probably would have gone up to him to strike up a conversation about cameras and shooting and sharing with him my 645 "relic", followed by a gentle discussion about minding consideration of others when amongst friends as a way to earn their respect, rather than to alienate them. Honey, not vinegar. One way to do that is ask before you shoot — a simple "You okay with this?" would be sufficient — since these were not random strangers he was dealing with. The municipal park would have been a public place, but our grouping within that park (of which he would have been a part) would not have been a public space in the sense that our gathering wasn't open to just anyone who wanted to plop down on their bum and join us. Place and space, incidentally, are distinct concepts in geography (my birthday friend and I happen to share the same background in geography and urban planning, and this is why she understood my concerns at the restaurant without my having to say much more than, "Uhm wtf, mate?").


Separately, were he making photographs at the restaurant, I'd have still told him to chill out, but then I'd have walked over to his end to geek out over what film he might have been using. He was aiming and shooting with a digital camera, and as such was shooting digital images, not photographs.

Click to expand...

At any celebration, birthday/wedding/anniversary/whatever, no matter where it was held, I would be surprised if people were not taking photographs. To be quite frank I would be embarrassed to kick up a stink over it and embarrassing both the person shooting photos and the host, and ruining the atmosphere of the event. If it were my celebration it would have guaranteed you weren't on the invite list for next time.

2F/2F said:

Sure thing...but I forgot one big thing: a sound recorder. Tape, digital, whatever. Very important! Turn it on the second any exchange is about to begin. They are so small now that they fit in a pocket easily and weigh pretty much only as much as the batteries. It seriously works wonders with the police having that hard evidence of the conversation, so they don't have to decide who to believe. It also lets you know how YOU come off in these situations...extremely important.

Additionally, you can make sound notes to yourself about times, locations, exposures, etc.

Where in this lovely city have you been shooting? Where were the punks?

Click to expand...

The making notes for your self or even the ability to record the ambient sounds are reason enough to carry a recorder. My understanding is that not only are they available small but that the small ones can be very good. Finding a good recorder is on my short list of things to get.

Andy K said:

At any celebration, birthday/wedding/anniversary/whatever, no matter where it was held, I would be surprised if people were not taking photographs. To be quite frank I would be embarrassed to kick up a stink over it and embarrassing both the person shooting photos and the host, and ruining the atmosphere of the event. If it were my celebration it would have guaranteed you weren't on the invite list for next time.

Click to expand...

No offence taken. Like I said before, you and I are very different people — at least on this area of concern.

It wasn't the act of imaging that was at issue here. It was the manner by which he used his equipment in an aggressive posture and then threw a hissy fit when someone actually confronted him on that behaviour. Had the person next to me pulled out their iPhone and, without warning, started shoving the camera within a few centimetres of my face, my reaction would have more or less remained the same. Both situations demonstrate an ineptitude to acknowledge others and their personal spacing, and in his case, an ineptitude to behave apropos for this particular event. We weren't performers on stage at a concert, and that was his forte and (ostensibly) why he owned a monster AF telephoto lens.

Incidentally, there were several camera phones present, but they weren't a problem in the slightest. How come? The owners were only pointing them at people who wanted their picture taken and were usually about a metre or two from the subjects who clearly gave their consent (either with, "Take a shot of us!" or simply mugging for the camera). Homeboy, meanwhile, was aiming a device at people he'd not spoken to, had no interest in speaking to, and was pointing it at people from up to 10m away and not getting that verbal "OK" in the way all the phone-cam owners were.

He was, in other words, being a lout. And cowardly.

[Edited to append: The atmosphere of the lunch party was not impeded in the slightest by this confrontation, and the host was anything but offended. If anything, she was apologetic for his behaviour and had to explain that his behaviour comes from his being a professional concert photographer, which was how she met him years before. Also, he had not RSVP'd and just showed up, taking her somewhat by surprise, whereas most everyone else present had verified they were to be there. Indeed, two people next to me I'd just met asked me why that guy was taking shots of us after I had confronted him across the table. Once I said, "Because he thinks he has a right to, as if this was a paparazzi event," the woman across from me said, "At least he could have asked first." My response: "Precisely!" I even apologized to them in the event that my confronting him had been offensive, which apparently it had not — not to them, at least. After the guy left, the lunch party continued as an impromptu, after-lunch party in that very park across the way, replete with ice cream cones and lazing under a tree as the anticipated cloudburst missed us and the sun came out.]

accozzaglia said:

No offence taken. Like I said before, you and I are very different people — at least on this area of concern.

It wasn't the act of imaging that was at issue here. It was the manner by which he used his equipment in an aggressive posture and then threw a hissy fit when someone actually confronted him on that behaviour. Had the person next to me pulled out their iPhone and, without warning, started shoving the camera within a few centimetres of my face, my reaction would have more or less remained the same. Both situations demonstrate an ineptitude to acknowledge others and their personal spacing, and in his case, an ineptitude to behave apropos for this particular event. We weren't performers on stage at a concert, and that was his forte and (ostensibly) why he owned a monster AF telephoto lens.

Incidentally, there were several camera phones present, but they weren't a problem in the slightest. How come? The owners were only pointing them at people who wanted their picture taken and were usually about a metre or two from the subjects who clearly gave their consent (either with, "Take a shot of us!" or simply mugging for the camera). Homeboy, meanwhile, was aiming a device at people he'd not spoken to, had no interest in speaking to, and was pointing it at people from up to 10m away and not getting that verbal "OK" in the way all the phone-cam owners were.

He was, in other words, being a lout. And cowardly.

[Edited to append: The atmosphere of the lunch party was not impeded in the slightest by this confrontation, and the host was anything but offended. If anything, she was apologetic for his behaviour and had to explain that his behaviour comes from his being a professional concert photographer, which was how she met him years before. Indeed, two people next to me I'd just met asked me why that guy was taking shots of us after I had confronted him across the table. Once I said, "Because he thinks he has a right to, as if this was a paparazzi event," the woman across from me said, "At least he could have asked first." My response: "Precisely!" I even apologized to them in the event that my confronting him had been offensive, which apparently it had not — not to them, at least. After the guy left, the lunch party continued as an impromptu, after-lunch party in that very park across the way, replete with ice cream cones and lazing under a tree as the anticipated cloudburst missed us and the sun came out.]

Click to expand...

So your opposition is really to candid photography, you believe any and all photographs of people must be posed and unnatural looking?

Andy K said:

So your opposition is really to candid photography, you believe any and all photographs of people must be posed and unnatural looking?

Click to expand...

I operate by nuance and fail to acknowledge life in either/or extremes. I don't tend to believe anything.

accozzaglia said:

I operate by nuance and fail to acknowledge life in either/or extremes. I don't tend to believe anything.

Click to expand...

Well, you have expressed your objection to photographs of people being taken without prior consent. Therefore any photograph of a person, by your rules would have to be prearranged, even if only with a nod, and that would remove any spontaneity from the result. Therefore the objection is to candid photography.

Andy K said:

Well, you have expressed your objection to photographs of people being taken without prior consent. Therefore any photograph of a person, by your rules would have to be prearranged, even if only with a nod, and that would remove any spontaneity from the result. Therefore the objection is to candid photography.

Click to expand...

According to you.

Next time, try to refrain from stripping out the qualifiers to avoid hedging an argument. Be a surgeon, not a butcher.

Accozzaglia. two questions, if you care to answer them of course.

DO you view the photography of Robert Frank, Garry Winogrand, Bresson of social relevance having a definite place and being instrumental to the betterment of humanity?
If the answer is yes, how do you reconcile your answer with your position against street photography?

accozzaglia said:

According to you.

<edited to remove irrelevant snide comment>

Click to expand...

No, that was according to you:

accozzaglia said:

I find it problematic when anyone reaches beyond the bounds of etiquette at a social gathering of friends in a private place and also advances into one's personal space without prior or in situ consent...

Click to expand...

accozzaglia said:

I find it problematic when anyone reaches beyond the bounds of etiquette at a social gathering of friends in a private place and also advances into one's personal space without prior or in situ consent...

Click to expand...

Being that the issue or potential for issue is when photography is done in a "private place" pretty much takes it off topic.

Domenico Foschi said:

Accozzaglia. two questions, if you care to answer them of course.

DO you view the photography of Robert Frank, Garry Winogrand, Bresson of social relevance having a definite place and being instrumental to the betterment of humanity?
If the answer is yes, how do you reconcile your answer with your position against street photography?

Click to expand...

I'll answer as honestly as I can: I have not looked at the works of these people, so I am not qualified yet to speak on this.

I recommend you to view their work not to convince you of my position but to widen your photographic gamut. These people's work is the foundation for many photographers and it truly is revelatory of the potential of a camera when in the right hands.

Andy K said:

No, that was according to you:

Click to expand...

As jd callow followed you on saying this, the event in question was held in a private space. The trouble here for some is in the ability to identify and recognize the difference between public space and private space. A shopping mall, privately owned, is a private space even as it might feel "public" to some. This being an indoor eating establishment, it was a private space, even if to that guy he read it as a public space (and since I didn't ask him, I don't know what he was thinking on that point).

I will, though part with you on the ability of capturing candids of people after securing permission. In fact, in photoethnography, one's ability to shoot very good candids is relative to how well she or he blends in with the environment and can make people around them feel comfortable and safe. In one example, a burly, "guy's guy" photographer would likely find it easier to shoot candidly inside the locker room of a footie team after the team lost an important match — provided the team know who the guy is. The same burly photographer might find it a lot harder, say, to shoot inside the changing room of an all-women ballet troupe in the time before and after a major stage performance, unless the women around him all find themselves completely at ease with his presence in their space. This is the kind of nuance to which I spoke earlier, and it was a nuance the guy in question at the birthday lunch clearly lacked. I'm sure he has the ability to learn it, but whether he's arsed or not is another matter entirely.

Domenico Foschi said:

I recommend you to view their work not to convince you of my position but to widen your photographic gamut. These people's work is the foundation for many photographers and it truly is revelatory of the potential of a camera when in the right hands.

Click to expand...

Of course. Thanks for the tip. I will certainly have a look.

accozzaglia said:

As jd callow followed you on saying this, the event in question was held in a private space. The trouble here for some is in the ability to identify and recognize the difference between public space and private space. A shopping mall, privately owned, is a private space even as it might feel "public" to some. This being an indoor eating establishment, it was a private space, even if to that guy he read it as a public space (and since I didn't ask him, I don't know what he was thinking on that point).

I will, though part with you on the ability of capturing candids of people after securing permission. In fact, in photoethnography, one's ability to shoot very good candids is relative to how well she or he blends in with the environment and can make people around them feel comfortable and safe. In one example, a burly, "guy's guy" photographer would likely find it easier to shoot candidly inside the locker room of a footie team after the team lost an important match — provided the team know who the guy is. The same burly photographer might find it a lot harder, say, to shoot inside the changing room of an all-women ballet troupe in the time before and after a major stage performance, unless the women around him all find themselves completely at ease with his presence in their space. This is the kind of nuance to which I spoke earlier, and it was a nuance the guy in question at the birthday lunch clearly lacked. I'm sure he has the ability to learn it, but whether he's arsed or not is another matter entirely.

Click to expand...

Whether it was a public or private space was irrelevant. This was a birthday celebration, for you to object to being photographed and go out of your way to make a big deal of it and embarrass others, was, in my opinion, the unreasonable behaviour. Would you also object to being photographed at a wedding breakfast?

accozzaglia said:

...I was pretty much ready to use my 645 body to destroy his adorable long telephoto, which seriously looked like overcompensation for something he lacked on his person.

Click to expand...

What happened to make you such a misandrist?

Further, I do question the veracity of your story.

Wow, "misandrist" that is a big word for someone in shorts.

accozzaglia said:

.. The trouble here for some is in the ability to identify and recognize the difference between public space and private space. A shopping mall, privately owned, is a private space even as it might feel "public" to some...

Click to expand...

Sorry to parse, but there is a clarification that needs to be pointed out here. In the USA at least, private space that is accessible to the public, such as a mall, is termed "qausi-public" meaning that in such a place you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. That is precisely why the property owner has the right to surveillance of your activities on the premise with security cameras. While the owner or management of the mall may set policy regarding actions such as photography, or any other activity for that matter, within its private space, an individual person who is in the quasi-public area can not. If the property owner allows photography, there is nothing that legally prevents someone from engaging in the activity, and there is no reasonable expectation of privacy to be had for others who choose to be in that area. The same goes for a parking lot, amusement park, or any other area that is accessible to the public in general.

OTO, it hasn't been pointed out that one right someone does carry with them at all times in a public place is the right not to be harassed. If someone is impeding your ability to move about freely, generally being a nuisance, and continues to do so after being asked to desist, then you have a case for harassment, which is really the issue being discussed here, and is undefinable outside specific incidence.

Most malls I have worked in as a photographer have restrictions regarding commercial/for-hire photography, but do not ban private individuals from using their cameras. I'm sure there are exceptions both ways.