You are acting as if the original question of a thread creates a cattle chute down which all comment must travel. Talking about the related issues of legality is simply thread drift and does nothing to interfere with the further discussion strictly related to his issue.
Photographing protests from within
-
- Thread starter Timo Schön
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale PENTAX SPOTMATIC SPII
- Started by Peter Schrager
-
For Trade For Trade, Nikon D750 DSLR for Leica lllf
- Started by dankapsner
Forum statistics
You are acting as if the original question of a thread creates a cattle chute down which all comment must travel. Talking about the related issues of legality is simply thread drift and does nothing to interfere with the further discussion strictly related to his issue.
Interesting. Thank you for the correction.
Making copies for one classroom's worth of instruction is one thing. But does that include using a picture in a teaching book that has 100,000 sales distribution?
My god. It seems endless. I have been in classes where the teaching was from a copy of the book with 100,00 sales.
I am not suggesting you are making up situations.
I am asking why people are so worried about something that is not their responsibility and is beyond their control.
You MIGHT take a picture of somebody that experiences fallout from the photo.?
I have never shot a protest where i was the only camera.
If you do not take the photo, i guarantee others will.
If people are worried about being recognized while participating in a public protest they should not protest. That is on them, not the photographers.
I have asked "what rules" and what protest or any other details.
All i have seen so far is some people are worried about what Might/Could happen.
Of all the hundreds of protests and thousands of pictures taken, how many times has somebody been singled out for "punishment" because of a photo.
Not talking about Gladio stuff, or CoIntelPro photos....... talking about Photos from amateur cameras like the OP
It's not "people" who are worried. It's the OP. Reddesert and I, as well as others, were commenting on the post by @Timo Schön that started this thread, in which he stated his double dilemma very clearly:
OP is not just "the photographer". He is part of the community, and is worried precisely because he feels responsibility towards the safety of people he cares about. His fear of "what might happen" may be irrational or unfounded, the fear itself, in these circumstances, is understandable.
Were the pioctures paid for by the publisher? Or does this fall into fair use?
This should help you more fully understand the extent of Fair Use:
No idea. It has surprised me every time it happened.
It's too much to read the entire text plus I'm not a lawyer. But the intent for copying seems to do with teachers making copies from textbooks for classroom use and does not cover the original publisher using copyrighted photos in a textbook the publisher sells to the school in the first place unless the copyrighted owner is renumerated. At least that's my understanding but what do others think?
A mind is a terrible thing to waste…
But your current understanding is basically correct regarding copying of copyrighted materials. “Remuneration” is a bit limiting, though. Permission (license) to use is what’s really needed in non-Fair-Use situations.
But your current understanding is basically correct regarding copying of copyrighted materials. “Remuneration” is a bit limiting, though. Permission (license) to use is what’s really needed in non-Fair-Use situations.
MattKing
Moderator
The government doesn't enforce personal rights.
Individuals do - on their dime, using whatever mechanisms might have been made available for that.
MattKing
Moderator
There is a fundamental dichotomy here - or perhaps it's a trichotomy? Or is there a 4 headed version of same?
In most cases, in common law jurisdictions like the USA and Canada, there is nothing legal stopping you from taking photographs in a public place.
There are some - very few - legal restrictions about what you can do with those photographs. Those legal restrictions relate to public rights, enforceable by public interests - aka the government.
In addition there are also distinct private rights attached to some of the subjects that might be found in those photographs. Things like images of individuals, signs, art work or commercial items that form part of the image depicted in those photographs.
Some of those private rights were originally recognized as part of historic common law. Others were/are purely creations of statute law.
All of those private interests aren't enforced by the government - it's up to you, and your dime, if you want to do so. In some cases that means the incredibly expensive, time consuming and complex civil courts. In other cases, governments have created other specialized mechanisms for enforcement, but it still will be up to you, and your dime, to make use of them. And in virtually every case, recognition and enforcement of those rights has been modified through statutory provisions.
In each case though, it isn't illegal to breach a private right - there is merely an available personal remedy for the breach.
Just as there is no legal right to free speech in the USA - just a prohibition stopping the government from legislating against free speech.
It's Canadian Thanksgiving Monday here today. There is nothing in the law here that prevents the hosts at Thanksgiving dinner from shutting down talk about politics, religion, or for that matter the joys of Hasselblads or camera repairs at the Thanksgiving dinner table - none of the family have any rights to say anything about those or any other topics, if the hosts say no. And it will be exactly the same situation and rules when American Thanksgiving comes around, both on this side, and on the other side of that Canada-USA border which is just 13 blocks south of where I'm sitting. As long as no laws are passed, you folks to the south of here have no grounds to complain of illegality if your hosts tell you and your quarrelsome relatives to stop arguing about something.
In other jurisdictions - particularly in civil law jurisdictions where Napoleonic Codes or other similar provisions are employed, the legal rules take different forms. As a result, there are legal rights, responsibilities and remedies - both public and private - that take different form. Where you are is critical to the question.
But all of that is different from what was asked by the OP - they didn't ask about legalities, or personal or public rights - they asked about ethics and values and how to deal with people's interests and feelings. Some of that is complicated by overlaps with legal rights, responsibilities and remedies. Or even worse, complicated by misunderstandings about legal rights, responsibilities and remedies. In any event, the answer is highly dependent on expectations of the people in the groups involved - a sort of cultural expectation reality.
There are members here on Photrio who have experience navigating the waters of associating photographically with protests and the people who participate in them. That includes experience with the people who respond to or have to react to such protests. Ding so effectively involves techniques, knowledge and, most importantly skill interacting with people in challenging circumstances.
In my case, any experience I've had in dealing with such things is both relatively small, and quite dated, so I'm unlikely to be much help. But there are others here who are much better equipped to assist or to make appropriate referrals.
In most cases, in common law jurisdictions like the USA and Canada, there is nothing legal stopping you from taking photographs in a public place.
There are some - very few - legal restrictions about what you can do with those photographs. Those legal restrictions relate to public rights, enforceable by public interests - aka the government.
In addition there are also distinct private rights attached to some of the subjects that might be found in those photographs. Things like images of individuals, signs, art work or commercial items that form part of the image depicted in those photographs.
Some of those private rights were originally recognized as part of historic common law. Others were/are purely creations of statute law.
All of those private interests aren't enforced by the government - it's up to you, and your dime, if you want to do so. In some cases that means the incredibly expensive, time consuming and complex civil courts. In other cases, governments have created other specialized mechanisms for enforcement, but it still will be up to you, and your dime, to make use of them. And in virtually every case, recognition and enforcement of those rights has been modified through statutory provisions.
In each case though, it isn't illegal to breach a private right - there is merely an available personal remedy for the breach.
Just as there is no legal right to free speech in the USA - just a prohibition stopping the government from legislating against free speech.
It's Canadian Thanksgiving Monday here today. There is nothing in the law here that prevents the hosts at Thanksgiving dinner from shutting down talk about politics, religion, or for that matter the joys of Hasselblads or camera repairs at the Thanksgiving dinner table - none of the family have any rights to say anything about those or any other topics, if the hosts say no. And it will be exactly the same situation and rules when American Thanksgiving comes around, both on this side, and on the other side of that Canada-USA border which is just 13 blocks south of where I'm sitting. As long as no laws are passed, you folks to the south of here have no grounds to complain of illegality if your hosts tell you and your quarrelsome relatives to stop arguing about something.
In other jurisdictions - particularly in civil law jurisdictions where Napoleonic Codes or other similar provisions are employed, the legal rules take different forms. As a result, there are legal rights, responsibilities and remedies - both public and private - that take different form. Where you are is critical to the question.
But all of that is different from what was asked by the OP - they didn't ask about legalities, or personal or public rights - they asked about ethics and values and how to deal with people's interests and feelings. Some of that is complicated by overlaps with legal rights, responsibilities and remedies. Or even worse, complicated by misunderstandings about legal rights, responsibilities and remedies. In any event, the answer is highly dependent on expectations of the people in the groups involved - a sort of cultural expectation reality.
There are members here on Photrio who have experience navigating the waters of associating photographically with protests and the people who participate in them. That includes experience with the people who respond to or have to react to such protests. Ding so effectively involves techniques, knowledge and, most importantly skill interacting with people in challenging circumstances.
In my case, any experience I've had in dealing with such things is both relatively small, and quite dated, so I'm unlikely to be much help. But there are others here who are much better equipped to assist or to make appropriate referrals.
If I were a member of an organization and didn’t feel I understood their predilections or how I would/could be symbiotic with their cause, I’d work on improving the relationship to address any gaps rather than wonder about legality or ethics…
The legality conversation started because a highly respected (at least by me) long-term member posted a very erroneous version of the legality of public photography. I very quickly (maybe too quickly) reacted to it because we, as photographers, are constantly subject to widespread public misunderstanding of what we are allowed to do in public.
In the Unites States, anyway.
On the one time I attempted "street" photography, I had a woman go nuts on me and make 3 calls to 911 because they weren't complete fools and took their sweet time to show up to her dire emergency. She actually called men with guns to respond to an old fart with a dangerous, long-obsolete film camera. I stuck around because it would look like I was running away, and I wanted to make sure that her pack of lies (yes, lots of lies) was not all they heard. Fortunately, I was well aware that my local police are solidly trained on the legalities of public photography, and I wanted to watch them shoot her down. It was glorious.
Matt, thank you for an excellent, informative post. I tried my best but I ain't a lawyer. And I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express.
They shot her down? Rather drastic. Good for them.
I said the followng in Post 8:
"Decide if you are a journalist or a protestor. Don't take photographs at events you are part of that your community doesn;t want you to photograph. Become a journalist at other protests you; 're not involved in."
And I disagreed, and explained why. At this point, we'll just have to wait to see what the OP decided from the different advice he got.
MattKing
Moderator
Which is one option.
I have a friend who spent years as a photographer for the Sierra Club, which probably meant he photographed some protests from the perspective of that group, and as a recognized supporter.
At the same time he was doing commercial work for others, was working as a news stringer, and did his own creative work.
Photography is a mode of communication. There is nothing that says we have to restrict our communication efforts to just photography, nor is there any reason to limit our engagement with the world to just our photography. What I believe the OP is asking about is how to combine the elements of his/her world.
Aaaaaacckk!?!?!?! How did the word "shot" get in my post? Autocorrect? I meant "shut"!
Last edited:
Some are some are not, depends on the jurisdiction. I have had a situation when in the late 90s I was freelancing for a local paper . I was shooting an abandoned harness track for the Sunday insert. The track was about 3 miles from a state prison. I was shooting off a public road and had a letter giving the paper permission to shot on the site. A correctional officer going to work pulled in behind me demanding my film. I refused, I had a cell phone and called 911 to ask for sheriff office who did show up but he did not know if I had the legal right to photograph from a public road or if the Dept of Corrections had the right to confiscate my film. By that time I had called the paper I was working for who got their in house attorney to call the Sheriff Office to inform them of the law. The sheriff office in turn told the deputy to send the Correction Officer on his way. The corrections officer refused and parked behind me while I finished my shots from the road and parked out the parking lot while to shot the track from the old broken up parking lot. I had his name and badge number, I sent him a copy of the paper with the story and shots I took.
The OP's concern is that he would offend the group he supports. Re-read his OP post. That's why I suggested he limit his photography to other issues.
Quote: "I guess the question is: If you are open about and willing to accept the fact that your way of documenting is biased by your opinions, how do you document the issues you care for without alienation from the community you care for. Especially when the consequences of people taking pictures is a valid concern that I share myself."
His question is how to document the community without alienating it. Telling him to document something else seems to me like avoiding the question alltogether rather than answering it. What needs to be avoided is the alienation, not the documenting. There are many possible paths to the "how," which he will find through imagination and creativity.
My 2 cents:
Photography in the service of event documentation is journalism.
Photography in the service of commerce is advertising.
Photography in the service of titillation is pornography.
Photography in the service of socio-political cause is propaganda.
If you and your fellow travelers do not mind your work being seen that of a propagandist, by all means, do it. Just be well aware that this will absolutely undermine your credibility as a reliable and dispassionate source of information. This bothers some people, but not others. YMMV.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |