I pointed out that i\photojournalists are needed, not that they alone solved the problem. What I posted still stands on its own.
Pictures taken by one side or the other in a conflict are questionable. You need independent corroboration.
I pointed out that i\photojournalists are needed, not that they alone solved the problem. What I posted still stands on its own.
If by i/photojournalist you mean independent, unaffiliated with either side of the conflict, then yes that would help. Does anyone believe half the claims made with the crop of photos in the current war?
There is of course two questions involved - is it legal to take the photograph and, after you have done so, what can you legally do with it?
What do people here think about (now Sir) Don McCullin’s photos of the homeless of London in the 1960s?
If by i/photojournalist you mean independent, unaffiliated with either side of the conflict, then yes that would help. Does anyone believe half the claims made with the crop of photos in the current war?
Exactly. If I can see my neighbor taking a shower, am I doing something illegal? Of course not. That's what curtains are for. If I take a picture of him, am I breaking any law? Of course not. Is there anything I can do with the picture? Sure. I can hang it on my wall -- but I'm not nuts. I can give it to his boss, I suppose, if I want to cause some trouble, but unless I'm trying to blackmail him, I'm still in the clear. I could try to sell it to the local newspaper, but that would be a waste of time. A museum? OK, then I would need a release.
In short, you can take all the pictures you want -- even of people on private property, as long as you are not on the property. But that doesn't mean you can do anything you want with the image of someone else.
And that is completely different from TAKING the picture. That is not against the last -- just as looking at the subject is not illegal.
100% of "peeping Tom's" are nailed for trespassing. Without trespassing, there is no case.
100% of "peeping Tom's" are nailed for trespassing. Without trespassing, there is no case.
Agreed. The Human Condition has been a subject forever. Grace and class by the artist
The story isn't that there is poverty. The story is why there is poverty. The story is not that there is a poor man on the street corner, the story is why is this man poor. What got him there? Did he have a job? Does he have family? Do they know he's there? What was his childhood like? What makes it so that he can't get out of poverty? Is he from Paris? Is he from France? Does he still have hope?
Yes there is poverty all around, and just taking photographs of beggars is actually ignoring it — hope you don't mind me disagreeing with you on this, awty, just that I feel very strongly about it.
Like any of us I've been tempted. The other day, I saw a blind beggar — hello ghost of Paul Strand! — in the subway. Was obviously a bit distressed. Had my camera, and a pretty good photograph. Put the camera back in the bag, went to him, asked him if I could help. I let him grab my arm, led him out to the street. Chatted a bit—turns out he's Haitian like me. I promised myself that I would check next time to see if he hung out at the same station, and pursue the conversation. I want to take a photo of him, but I want to ask him first if I can, if it's OK with him, and after I get to learn a bit more about him.
Same with this lady that begs once a week near the liquor store. I've started chatting with her. I know I missed a great opportunity to photograph her the other day—the light was just perfect, falling on that pink coat of hers, but now that I know her a bit, now that I've seen how unbelievable grateful she is that someone just takes the time to say hello to her and ask her how she's doing—treating her as a normal human being, defining her as a human being, not as a "beggar"—I can't. I might some day. But if I don't nothing will be lost. The world does not need another photograph of a beggar, no matter how nice the composition is. And neither do I.
BTW, for situations like this, when I'm not sure, I take out my "Gordon Parks moral compass" to find an answer.
View attachment 339531
In Canada, "trespassing" is a civil wrong, not a criminal offence, except for some very special situations like the rules for "posted" ranch land.
There is a rarely charged, summary conviction only offence called "prowling by night" which requires both trespassing and an intent to commit an indictable offence.
I doubt that keeping your eyes open when you look across at your neighbour's undraped window will cause you any problem with the Canadian law either.
Heck, the new "dress code" for public swimming pools in Vancouver now says this:
"Staff clarified that exposed breasts would be permitted for all people, but that swimwear must fully cover the genitals."
The horror, the horror!
(there is clear case law that it is not a criminal offence to go bare breasted in Canada).
And yes, I was a lawyer - retired for years now.
Like I said, if anyone can see it -- even if it's on private property -- it's not illegal to photograph it.
But that doesn't mean that you can do anything you want with it.
Not necessarily independent, also ones that work for real news networks like ABC,CBC, BBC ,CBS, NBC, CNN and MSNBC and not fake news which is really political propaganda.
If a tree falls in the forest, but there's no one to hear it, does it make a sound?
If I photograph my neighbor with a 1,000mm lens between the cracks in the curtains, and no one sees it, is it illegal?
I have a moral dilemma with this. I was once in the Opera district of Paris where a beggar in the pouring rain was making gestures for money. She/he was under a black cloth making signs of complete desperation. From an artistic point of view, it made a wonderful photograph in terms of tone and composition. However, I thought it morally wrong to photograph. What do other photographers think about such a situation.
Can you substantiate that? Or is did you just pull it out of thin air?Like I said, if anyone can see it -- even if it's on private property -- it's not illegal to photograph it.
But that doesn't mean that you can do anything you want with it.
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?