Don't leave home without it!

[jd callow]

Wow QC I think you need to relax a bit.

The document Domenico posted is a useful guideline and something that may be helpful when people try to keep you from shooting. A fact of life is that when you are out in public you may photograph people or be photographed. You may find this to be obnoxious and try to make your point seem more valid and important by raising the temperature of your post and by using phrases such as "putting a camera in people's faces", "whimpering" and "Grow up already." Few photographers put their camera in people's faces, no one is whimpering and the other bit I'll leave alone as I don't think I need to state the obvious.

I guess if we lived in a perfectly civilized (numb?) world we'd just let the CCTV record the events of the day, but we don't so we have laws that try to strike a balance. In this instance I guess you are further from the fulcrum than some.

 

[Q.G.]

See how easy it is to be indignant about photographers thinking they may treat people as 'camera fodder', and still have a point?

I have already pointed out that we live in the 'middle ground', yet some persists in a it's-entirely-their-fault attitude, and keep pointing towards the fact that it is not forbidden to annoy other people.

And i do stand to the point about "growing up", etc., yet perhaps would rather phrase it differently.
The OP did "purposefully made myself visible before shooting because I wanted to see some kind of reaction".
And when that reaction wasn't one he liked, the paper should absolve him of any responsibility.
He "purposfully" provoked the reaction. He was artistically driven to provoke a reaction. So it is indeed a rather weak position he moves himself in complaining about it.

And the "It is not forbidden, so there!" argument is still a very poor one.
Why do people think that because they can show a paper on which it says it is not necessarily forbidden, that anything that they do would be quite o.k.?

 

[Moopheus]

And the "It is not forbidden, so there!" argument is still a very poor one.

Actually, in many instances, it is exactly the point. Often, the photographer is faced with someone who says "you can't do that" and they mean in a legal sense; hence the threats to call the cops, to sue, etc. I have been told, for instance that my photographs were not allowed for "security" or because there was a copyright on the building I was photographing. All of these people believe the photographer is doing something that is against the law, and they are frequently wrong. It may be the photographer is breaking the law--for example, they may be trespassing. Therefore, it is in the photographer's interest to be knowledgeable about the law.

 

[removed account4]

I'm amazed a confrontational bozo would stop and take time to read, but it's good to see it worked out.

DaveT

i was thinking the same thing ...

 

[Q.G.]

Actually, in many instances, it is exactly the point. Often, the photographer is faced with someone who says "you can't do that" and they mean in a legal sense; hence the threats to call the cops, to sue, etc.

Nope. They object to it personally.

They may try the same ploy, and resort to legalities to support their view. That's true.
But have no occassion to do so, unless they feel provoked.

But the reall issue is not whether the law permits or forbids.
The real issue is whether you can understand why people do not like to be provoked.
The secondary issue is whether, if someone doesn't understand that that is the issue, it would be unfair of us to expect that he would understand anyway that hiding behind legalities is silly. Perhaps not?

I have been told, for instance that my photographs were not allowed for "security" or because there was a copyright on the building I was photographing. All of these people believe the photographer is doing something that is against the law, and they are frequently wrong. It may be the photographer is breaking the law--for example, they may be trespassing. Therefore, it is in the photographer's interest to be knowledgeable about the law.

That's a different matter. There you are dealing with people who think that they should tell other people what to do, perhaps because they just are like that, perhaps because they feel that is their duty.
They indeed are frequently wrong, and there it might help to know the law (it often will not though. Only make matters worse.)

 

[Domenico Foschi]

I want to inform you guys that I have included QG in the ignore list so I won't be able to read his remarks, hence to reply to them.
My intention with this thread was to be useful to the community with this bit of info, if the all thing gets hijacked by a bellicose member of APUG,...well there is little I can do.
Let's keep the fun in what we do.

 

[Q.G.]

A pitty that you rather go into hiding than stand up for what you did.

Life is extremely simple: if you do not want to be confronted with opposing views, make sure that you do things such that nobody can think you are not doing the right thing. Or not tell anybody about it.
As long as we don't manage that, there is no escaping discussion and debate. Especially if you 'go public' with what you do in a part of a discussion forum devoted to ethics.
And that is how it should be.

Anyway, i would have loved to hear why, for instance, artistic intent might make any difference. Why you would think that purposfully provoking a reaction gives you the moral high ground when that reaction turns out to be one you do not like.
Why you would believe that because, and as long as, the law does not prohibit what you do, it is quite o.k. what you do, no matter what it is.

So there is a lot you can do.

Pitty you choose not to.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thank you, Domenico, for posting a very useful document.

As for QG - it's impossible to win against you, brother/sister. The rest of us will just have to give up and succumb to the fact that your opinion is superior.

I relish the reality and good thing that this isn't a competition or anything, but a thread recognizing the kind gesture of a fellow photographer who brought forth a document that might help the rest of us in a pinch.

 

[jd callow]

Anyway, i would have loved to hear why, for instance, artistic intent might make any difference. Why you would think that purposfully provoking a reaction gives you the moral high ground when that reaction turns out to be one you do not like.
Why you would believe that because, and as long as, the law does not prohibit what you do, it is quite o.k. what you do, no matter what it is.

QC
Why don't you start another thread?

As it is there is no debate here. You stamp all photography where an anonymous subject knows they are being shot as "sticking your camera in thier face" and obnoxious -- when infact it is not necessarily the case (have you ever shot on the street, at a festival, parade, social event etc?). You ignore the opinions of others, set up straw men and throw out insults in an effort to elevate a minor aspect of the original post to a personal crusade.

It is tiresome, annoying, arrogant and obnoxious.

I have stated my opinion twice (which is one more time than is needed), you have continued to highjack the thread and drone on like a broken record. Feel free to have the last word with me and I'm sure you will repeat yourself as many times as others offer a differing view.

In the end (and for the 3rd time from me) the point of the post was to offer an excellent document to help guide others and that might also have use while shooting.

 

[Thomas Wilson]

QC
Why don't you start another thread?



It is tiresome, annoying, arrogant and obnoxious.

.

A pretty fair description of the post which Domenico wisely deleted.

I suspect it was more illustrative of his true demeanor than either he or you would care to admit.

 

[Q.G.]

So let's get belligerent.

I have (repeatedly) stated that there is a large middleground.
So you can only think that i "stamp all photography [etc.]" if you do not bother to read at all. You will have your reasons.

What i do not ignore is that the OP stated (clearly, for all to read) that he purposely provoked an reaction.

Tiresome, yes. I grant you that.
As tiresome as hearing "the point of the post was to offer an excellent document", ignoring the point that it is questionable whether it is excellent, and all that.

You say there is no debate here. And yes, i do agree.
You say that it is obnoxious. And i could indeed agree to that too. Look at post #51, and you see that that is purposefully so.

I do find this whole thread rather dissatisfactory too, mainly because i still do not know why, if i had a paper that said that it is not against the law to be obnoxious, tiresome, arrogant, annoying like this in a thread on a discussion forum, it would be o.k.

Could i have made the point any more clear?

 

[WarEaglemtn]

One KnappKnucklehead wrote..."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."

The ACLU has one client: The Constitution of the United States. They only take cases that raise Costitutional issues. I can see how some are offended by an Organization that supports the Constitution just as I can see how some are offended by people who don't look like them. I don't agree with this type of individual which includes Hitler... but you do have a right to your view... the ACLU has fought for that right in the courts.

 

[Mike Kennedy]

Law & Photog rights in The Great White North.

I couldn't post the article but here's the link
(Ambientlight.ca) look for subsection (Law).Just my 2 Loonies worth.

JMK

 

[jd callow]

Here is Mike's link:
http://ambientlight.ca/laws.php

 

[Sirius Glass]

My father would ask for permission to take a portrait. [That is after he almost got horse whipped for photographing Amish man, but that is another story.] And then proceeded to take his Mamiyaflex C330 and practically shove the two lenses up one or both of their nostrils!

I always considered that what he did was so intrusive that I rarely take portraits of strangers even though I have the long lenses and close-up tubes so that I would not be intrusive.

But that's just me.

Steve

 

[Ian David]

I do find this whole thread rather dissatisfactory too, mainly because i still do not know why, if i had a paper that said that it is not against the law to be obnoxious, tiresome, arrogant, annoying like this in a thread on a discussion forum, it would be o.k.

That is actually pretty funny!

C'mon guys. Can't we all play nicely? QG clearly has a strong and persistent style of questioning (I suspect that JD's references to 'QC' are no accident!), and maybe winks more often than I would be comfortable with if we were drinking together in a bar, but he generally does not get personal without provocation. In my experience, QG will even occasionally concede a point or two...

There are actually a couple of interesting points buried in all this. And it's true, this is an 'ethics and philosophy' forum.

As stated earlier, I agree that it is useful to have an idea of what you can be legally restricted from photographing. Knowledge is power, as they say. So these sorts of summary documents, when accurate, can be very worthwhile. But Domenico's original post also presented a fuller story that raises some interesting questions.

I have mixed feelings about street shooting myself. I accept that some great photos that I admire must have been taken in a pretty intrusive way, but I can also understand why many people would (and do) feel uncomfortable about strangers making a point of photographing them. I have in the past felt compelled to take certain photos that I have later regretted taking. And I have certainly often avoided taking photos that I thought would be good, out of respect for the subject. So I am a bit conflicted. Does this just mean that I cannot be a really good street shooter? Or does it mean that good street shooters deserve the occasional punch in the face, as the price of their art?

Surely plenty of other photographers have wrestled with these issues, no?

 

[AutumnJazz]

As with everything, you have to use discretion. There are times when I ask permission, because of what someone is doing or how they look, and there are times I don't, eg. when I want to get a candid shot.

 

[firecracker]

But the reall issue is not whether the law permits or forbids.
The real issue is whether you can understand why people do not like to be provoked.
The secondary issue is whether, if someone doesn't understand that that is the issue, it would be unfair of us to expect that he would understand anyway that hiding behind legalities is silly. Perhaps not?

I understand what you are saying, but if you keep pushing those feelings you have, what you will see is the society with a lot of self-censorship. Japan is one, for example, and to be honest, it is not a comfortable one to live in...

 

[Andy K]

Good grief. Every day this site gets more like Pnut.
It is simple.
Some photographers photograph regardless of what others think. They are the ones whose work makes us think, makes us respond.
Other photographers are afraid to do anything for fear they might offend or upset others. They make pictures of puppies and kittens in baskets.

 

[Ian David]

Good grief. Every day this site gets more like Pnut.
It is simple.
Some photographers photograph regardless of what others think. They are the ones whose work makes us think, makes us respond.
Other photographers are afraid to do anything for fear they might offend or upset others. They make pictures of puppies and kittens in baskets.

I presume you are one of the former, Andy. So are you prepared to accept the occasional punch in the face from someone bigger than you as the price of being a fearless artist?

 

[Andy K]

I presume you are one of the former, Andy. So are you prepared to accept the occasional punch in the face from someone bigger than you as the price of being a fearless artist?

I am a lifelong non-conformist. I do not blindly follow rules, I question them. If, when I am carrying out a perfectly legal activity someone wants to break the law and assault me, they are welcome to try. They'll simply end up giving me a lot of money.

But don't let me stop you from living your live in timidity Ian.

 

[Ian David]

Gosh Andy. Bad day? I just asked you a question because I am interested in your answer. Not because I wanted a fight. I am not primarily a street shooter, so what makes you think I am living my life in timidity?

I could have responded to your previous post by saying "Bullshit Andy. Your ridiculous views are as black and white as your profile picture." Would that have made you happier? What's the problem?

 

[Andy K]

Go bait someone else Ian. I've made my point, my opinion will not change. Get used to it.

 

[Ian David]

Go bait someone else Ian. I've made my point, my opinion will not change. Get used to it.

I don't want you to change your opinion Andy. I was just interested in whether there was much thought behind it.

 

[Domenico Foschi]

Going out in the streets and shooting people is a continuous testing of your limits.
When you are out there you are in a "awareness mode" and your senses are heightened and you start seeing more great images than usual.
There are times when fear won't allow you to do the necessary steps to shoot, but then eventually this "frozen reaction" will get to you and you start to react and be more daring.
It is like a muscle that needs to be exercised. If you don't use it continuously eventually will go back to the original state and you will need to do the necessary workout even though it will be an easier job.


I have always thought that if I don't do something I want to do, because of fear, and I find myself rationalizing the reasons why it is right not to do it, then I know I need to do them.
I have always wanted to shoot the crowd, I have always admired the work of Bresson, Kline, Frank as one of the purest form of photography capable to unveil Beauty underneath the blanket of coldness and cruelty that we see in the streets. What has always kept me from doing it, was the inability to shake that fear of using a 35 mm lens and get close to the subject-s to catch what I was looking for.
Now I am doing it and to answer to Ian David, yes I am willing to catch a punch in the face, if that will happen, because a good image is more important than that, moreover, if I silence my voice, if I ignore my calling because of fear of getting hit, what does that say about me ?

About the issue of privacy.

When you see a great image like for instance this one do you think Bresson made a terrible thing by taking this picture? After all he took a picture of a vulnerable child without parents consent!
The answer is no. This is a great picture that takes the apparent subject as a pretext and transforms it into a glimpse in the wonderful realm of childhood, where reality and make believe are one.
I absolutely agree with Firecracker's assessment, the only thing is that it is not society that censors us but it is us that do so to ourselves, by imposing limitations based on rationalizations.
If there is a law that allows us to take picture of people in public places is because many people have been involved in pushing that law after many discussions and philosophical scrutiny.

It always is puzzling to me how photographers can be against creativity. I take photography extremely seriously because not only I love it but it teaches me about Life, about myself, the world around me and the wonderful Humanity I am part of.