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).
others at the table were using phone cams and I was not experiencing any issues with them
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?
"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.
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.
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 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.
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
"Quasi-public" is not a distinction made in public/private discourse."
Remember that?
JBrunner said: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.
accozzaglia said: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.
accozzaglia said: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.
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.
____________________________________________________________________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.
____________________________________________________________________
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.
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.
___________________________________________________________________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.
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.
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.
Good luck getting away with panhandling (or any other constitutionally protected activity in a public space) inside a shopping mall.
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.
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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?