Don't leave home without it!

[JMC1969]

Seriously exhausting and I now no longer understand the point AT ALL!

I do not actually enjoy being photographed unless A) a basis of trust and mutual respect is already established; B) I am in a public space (this would exclude privately-owned spaces where the public may congregate, such as a shopping mall, or a restaurant); C) I express consent on the spot; or D) I am at the site of a news-making event (which has happened a couple of times).

Followed by this:

others at the table were using phone cams and I was not experiencing any issues with them

Why did you not have a problem with the camera phones if you had an equal chance of being in the photograph you apparently don't want to be in w/o your permission?

 

[accozzaglia]

Seriously exhausting and I now no longer understand the point AT ALL!

Followed by this:

Why did you not have a problem with the camera phones if you had an equal chance of being in the photograph you apparently don't want to be in w/o your permission?

Because the camera phones were not being pointed at me. C'est assez simple.

 

[Ian David]

It seemed to me that Accozzaglia was, albeit in a rather longwinded fashion, originally simply making the point that she recently found somebody's conduct with a camera to be oafish, notwithstanding that it was perfectly legal. In the context of this thread, that seemed like a pertinent personal observation. Others may respond differently in a similar situation, but that's OK. Jason seemed to agree that the guy may have been behaving like a bit of a jerk.
The interesting thing is that, as far as I can tell, Domenico, Andy K, JD Callow and no doubt some others, hold the view that it is impossible and offensive to construe a photographer's behaviour as oafish if he/she is acting lawfully. That seems strange to me, but I accept that that is their view.
Why must people keep stoking the fire? Clearly nothing will be gained at this point.
Ian

 

[jamusu]

Accozzaglia.

Maybe you should take a look at your FLICKR account. There are many candid shots of people taken by you. Let me guess, you asked their permission first?

Jamusu.

 

[accozzaglia]

"Quasi-public" is not a distinction made in public/private discourse."

Remember that?

Followed a few posts later by a wikipedia screed of word parsing citing actual legal cases and other verbose minutia concerning the very distinction you dismissed as non-existent, just prior.

You are full of crap, you are making it up as you go along, and I'm calling you on it.

You're a moderator? Good heavens.

The citation I made was not related to wikipedia, JBrunner. The citation was from a peer-reviewed essay, and one on which I've both read, discussed, and reviewed:

Cohen, Lizabeth. 1996. From town center to shopping center: The reconfiguration of community marketplaces in postwar America. The American Historical Review, October, 101(4): 1050–81. Resource link: Dead Link Removed

If you really want, I'll gladly break out a hefty bibliography of reading material on private-public spacing if you seriously want to carelessly throw the wikipedia stick.

Step back, stop to realize that by engaging your argument, I was not attacking you, and try to allow that, omg possibly, I might know a thing or two on what I'm talking about, even if you're not obligated to agree (and you're not). I wasn't asking you to agree, fwiw. This was, as I understood it, a debate, discourse. Maybe it's not.

 

[accozzaglia]

Accozzaglia.

Maybe you should take a look at your FLICKR account. There are many candid shots of people taken by you. Let me guess, you asked their permission first?

Jamusu.

I am aware of what's in my flickr account, Jamusu. Pick whatever photo you'd like, and I'll be happy to tell you where it was, whether it was on public or private space, and whether I received permission. Let's go.

 

[JBrunner]

You're a moderator? Good heavens.

The citation I made was not related to wikipedia, JBrunner. The citation was from a peer-reviewed essay, and one on which I've both read, discussed, and reviewed:

Cohen, Lizabeth. 1996. From town center to shopping center: The reconfiguration of community marketplaces in postwar America. The American Historical Review, October, 101(4): 1050–81. Resource link: Dead Link Removed

If you really want, I'll gladly break out a hefty bibliography of reading material on private-public spacing if you seriously want to carelessly throw the wikipedia stick.

Step back, stop to realize that by engaging your argument, I was not attacking you, and try to allow that, omg possibly, I might know a thing or two on what I'm talking about, even if you're not obligated to agree (and you're not). I wasn't asking you to agree, fwiw. This was, as I understood it, a debate, discourse. Maybe it's not.

I don't care if you read it off of Clarence Thomas's snuggie tag. Simply more diatribe and personal aggrandizement. You fail to address your blatant self-contradiction.

 

[jamusu]

I am aware of what's in my flickr account, Jamusu. Pick whatever photo you'd like, and I'll be happy to tell you where it was, whether it was on public or private space, and whether I received permission. Let's go.[/QUOTE

_____________________________________________________________________

You must not be too aware, because many of the photos in your
"Streetwise Set" are the total opposite of your argument over the invasion of privacy. It is clear that you did the very thing the guy at the party was attempting to do which is nothing more than record the things that were around him without asking permission.

BUSTED!

Jamusu.

 

[jd callow]

The interesting thing is that, as far as I can tell, Domenico, Andy K, JD Callow and no doubt some others, hold the view that it is impossible and offensive to construe a photographer's behaviour as oafish if he/she is acting lawfully.
Ian

Ian what is interesting is that you can't see anyone's point other than those that support your own or you throw them into a lump and label them as you please. FWIW I have avoided in all these debates the subjective definitions such as oafish, obnoxious, rude etc... I have clearly stated that each person operates under their own guidance and some will go further than me and some not so far with a camera in public. Public photography does not require more restrictions nor are you or I so great as to judge what is appropriate for all.

 

[accozzaglia]

"Quasi-public" is not a distinction made in public/private discourse."

Remember that?

Totally.

Followed a few posts later by a wikipedia screed of word parsing citing actual legal cases and other verbose minutia concerning the very distinction you dismissed as non-existent, just prior.

You are full of crap, you are making it up as you go along, and I'm calling you on it.

So I quote myself from earlier:

While these cases share the common denominator in determining the presence of a public authority (the American constitution) in private spacing, none explicitly addressed it in "quasi-public" terminology.

Those citations did not employ the term "quasi-public". And that is why I challenged your argument.

And I quote me again:

It's also easy to make a mental jump between "quasi-public" and "public" given the root word, when the former literally means "pseudo-public", "not really public", or "superficially public" — but in every instance, not public. This is why the American court (to say nothing of the Supreme Court of Canada) have found it so difficult to effect a cut-and-dry ruling on private spacing that mimics the public. To intone that "quasi-public" is like public is to chisel away at the meaning of public (and public spacing) and to operate as if not-public places truly are public — whether they seem public, feel public, look public, or even act public. But whatever the case, they are private, not public, full-stop.

And by my saying this to your argument — and in the minds of those who advocate against public space by creating private space to mimic, allude to, or emulate the visage of public space (Celebration, FL, USA, anyone?) — the concept of "quasi-public", parsed (intentionally or not) as "public", is an increasingly common way to rationalize the private as not really private at all, even though it is. Otherwise, it would be public, full-stop. By saying something like "quasi-public" without giving much thought about it, it basically does away with affirming a clear line between the "public" and the "private", eroding the foundations of both. And in scholarly and legal discourse, terms like "quasi-public" are frowned upon as weaselly, if not simply sloppy. And with them, I frown too.

 

[accozzaglia]

I am aware of what's in my flickr account, Jamusu. Pick whatever photo you'd like, and I'll be happy to tell you where it was, whether it was on public or private space, and whether I received permission. Let's go.[/QUOTE

_____________________________________________________________________

You must not be too aware, because many of the photos in your
"Streetwise Set" are the total opposite of your argument over the invasion of privacy. It is clear that you did the very thing the guy at the party was attempting to do which is nothing more than record the things that were around him without asking permission.

BUSTED!

Jamusu.

I beg your pardon? Name me a single shot in that group that was not taken in a public space! And I'll help you out here: none was shot within gated communities where the street was privately owned.

The original comment I made pertained to a restaurant in private space. Have a look at my original comment ((there was a url link here which no longer exists)) and feel free to re-read the four parameters I laid out there. Thanks.

 

[jamusu]

I beg your pardon? Name me a single shot in that group that was not taken in a public space! And I'll help you out here: none was shot within gated communities where the street was privately owned.

The original comment I made pertained to a restaurant in private space. Have a look at my original comment ((there was a url link here which no longer exists)) and feel free to re-read the four parameters I laid out there. Thanks.

____________________________________________________________________

Your portfolio speaks for itself. You did not ask permission before hand on many of the photos which was thesis of your argument; a thesis that you have failed to successfully defend based on pictures taken by yourself dong the very thing you are arguing against.

BUSTED!

Jamusu.

 

[accozzaglia]

____________________________________________________________________

Your portfolio speaks for itself. BUSTED!

Jamusu.

That's lazy of you, Jamusu. And petulant. Step up to pick out specific images on which you want the 411 or just withdraw yourself from this discussion.

 

[JBrunner]

Totally.



So I quote myself from earlier:


Those citations did not employ the term "quasi-public". And that is why I challenged your argument.

And I quote me again:


And by my saying this to your argument — and in the minds of those who advocate against public space by creating private space to mimic, allude to, or emulate the visage of public space (Celebration, FL, USA, anyone?) — the concept of "quasi-public", parsed (intentionally or not) as "public", is an increasingly common way to rationalize the private as not really private at all, even though it is. Otherwise, it would be public, full-stop. By saying something like "quasi-public" without giving much thought about it, it basically does away with affirming a clear line between the "public" and the "private", eroding the foundations of both. And in scholarly and legal discourse, terms like "quasi-public" are frowned upon as weaselly, if not simply sloppy. And with them, I frown too.

This is just simply parsing as well.

You do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a shopping mall.

You can call the area anything you like, or whatever makes the big brain happy, but the words don't change the result.

 

[jamusu]

That's lazy of you, Jamusu. And petulant. Step up to pick out specific images on which you want the 411 or just withdraw yourself from this discussion.

___________________________________________________________________

Lazy? Petulant? I think not.

Why must I name them when they are clearly there for all of to see. Maybe you should have taken your FLICKR page down as your homepage before making such an argument. Did you not think someone would check your statistics after reading how passionate you are about this matter? I was beginning to believe what you were/are saying until I viewed your pictures. Needless to say, you have been destroyed by them as a result.

BUSTED!

Jamusu.

 

[accozzaglia]

This is just simply parsing as well.

You do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a shopping mall.

You can call the area anything you like, or whatever makes the big brain happy, but the words don't change the result.

Good luck getting away with panhandling (or any other constitutionally protected activity in a public space) inside a shopping mall.

 

[jamusu]

Accozzaglia.

You have still failed to adequately address the photos you took without first asking permission. Why such a long wait. Why no answer. I tell you why; you do not have one because you have been BUSTED!

Jamusu.

 

[2F/2F]

What does panhandling have to do with the amount of expected privacy in a public place? Panhandling is not constitutionally protected on the basis that no one has privacy in a public place, and is not a hobby or means of expression or documentation (not to mention the "A" word).

The issue is not public or private property so much as public or private view. In the U.S.A., there are places that, while they are private property, are legally considered to be in the public view. Those are the facts.

Learn some facts before you go on with this, please. Otherwise, this is no better than a conversation we could have with the fools down on the corner.

The OP was about a situation in which informing someone of the law made a difference. I find that very interesting, and rare. I would prefer it if this conversation would wind back to discussing the original incident or similar incidents and experiences. It might be interesting and/or educational and/or helpful in some way if this happened.

 

[jd callow]

The OP was about a situation in which informing someone of the law made a difference. I find that very interesting, and rare. I would prefer it if this conversation would wind back to discussing the original incident or similar incidents and experiences. It might be interesting and/or educational and/or helpful in some way if this happened.

It is amazing how a post of an interesting event supplemented by a great/useful document has devolved into this.

 

[JBrunner]

Good luck getting away with panhandling (or any other constitutionally protected activity in a public space) inside a shopping mall.

You have flip flopped the onus and are being deliberately obtuse.

Panhandling in a mall is not illegal. Neither is photography. The property owner or a representative of such must enforce such a prohibition as part of their rights as the property owner. An individual such as you or I who is on the property has no right whatsoever concerning the activity. If the property owner does not object, I can panhandle my guts out. You know that. Poor effort.

 

[JMC1969]

Well, I do have a question about the OP and the "letter to be carried". I understand the right to take those pictures, but what happens then? Is it legal to post them on the internet, print them for a exhibit, print for sale, print for distribution of a story in a magazine? Is the person/people in the photo entitled to a percentage of any profits made from an image in which they are the subject? I know back when I used to do quite a bit of film/video production, while in a public place we had to post signs telling passersby that they were entering an area where they may be recorded. Any clear shots, interviews, etc.... needed a release signed.

 

[2F/2F]

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.

7th St. in the Fashion District:

7th St. downtown:

MacArthur Park/Westlake:

7th St. downtown:

7th St. downtown:

...and finally:

Not a good picture, but posted as an example. You shoot a lot of trash on the street...at least I do. This is one trash shot. The guy got totally upset at me, starting by saying, "As a photographer, I don't appreciate..." When I informed him that he was in public, he started yelling, "You can't use my likeness" over and over. At this point, I just said, "Call the police, please, " and started walking away briskly. He followed and said something along the lines of, "How do you like it?", and started clicking at me, then said, "These photos will go a lot farther than yours ever will!" I said, "Do you really think that I, doing what I am doing, am going to be bothered by someone taking pictures of me?" He left, eventually. The worst experience on this particular outing (shooting waist level with a 17mm and x-pro film) was with a photographer. Go figure.

 

[Dinesh]

I don't think personal attacks are a productive way to keep the discourse going.

"What happened to make you such a misandrist?"
I don't think this is any of your, my or anybody else's business if that is true at all.

Agreed, it is none of my business and I do apologize for taking your thread way off course. However, there isn't any place on APUG for maliciously sexist comments.

 

[accozzaglia]

What does panhandling have to do with the amount of expected privacy in a public place? Panhandling is not constitutionally protected on the basis that no one has privacy in a public place, and is not a hobby or means of expression or documentation (not to mention the "A" word).

Panhandling came to mind as an example of an act in public space that, in itself, is not illegal — not in Canada or (as far as I know) the U.S. [n.b., in Ontario, the provincial Safe Streets Act (1999) places limits on what acts are permissible in public space; going over that line, even in public space, may result in fines, citations, or even jail]. On the American situation, perhaps I'm off, but unless I'm visiting there, it doesn't concern me the way Canadian law does. Panhandling (which was the first thing to come to mind) is hardly inclusive of other acts in public spacing that would not be protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms [n.b., Canada's constitution] in private spaces. In private spacing, notwithstanding express consent by the property owner, the act cannot legally proceed under protection of law, no matter how "public" the space is perceived to be. I don't see why this is problematic or difficult to comprehend. I do see that we may be discussing incompatible conditions.

The issue is not public or private property so much as public or private view. In the U.S.A., there are places that, while they are private property, are legally considered to be in the public view. Those are the facts.

Please enlighten me, because I obviously don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to America. I would love to read (not now necessarily, but later) the jurisprudence supporting this point. Yes, I really do like reading this kind of stuff.

Learn some facts before you go on with this, please. Otherwise, this is no better than a conversation we could have with the fools down on the corner.

With all due respect, we either do not see eye-to-eye on this, or else we are debating two wholly different sets of circumstances that are incompatible with one another. For one, these are two different countries with different legal systems. Second, the situation Domenico described was in public space in the U.S., while what I brought into the mix was in private space in Canada. In retrospect, and upon re-reading the first couple of pages in this discussion, I realize that my initial entry into the foray would probably have been better suited as a separate topic not to be conflated with that of the carry-along PDF applicable to only an American jurisdiction. That said, the arguments I have been making concerned less that of Domenico's original situation and more*that of the situation I confronted a couple of weeks ago.

The OP was about a situation in which informing someone of the law made a difference. I find that very interesting, and rare. I would prefer it if this conversation would wind back to discussing the original incident or similar incidents and experiences. It might be interesting and/or educational and/or helpful in some way if this happened.

Agreed.

 

[accozzaglia]

Well, I do have a question about the OP and the "letter to be carried". I understand the right to take those pictures, but what happens then? Is it legal to post them on the internet, print them for a exhibit, print for sale, print for distribution of a story in a magazine? Is the person/people in the photo entitled to a percentage of any profits made from an image in which they are the subject? I know back when I used to do quite a bit of film/video production, while in a public place we had to post signs telling passersby that they were entering an area where they may be recorded. Any clear shots, interviews, etc.... needed a release signed.

In Canada, if the image can identify the person and will be used in marketing, advertising, or other commercial-related venture, a written release is still required. I have done these for a couple of organizations where we worked with local communities on stewardship events. If asked what the image may be used for, the photographer or videographer must indicate their intended purpose, as subjects have a right to know whether their image might be used in a commercial capacity. Evading the answer is liable to do more harm than good.