Photographing the down and out

[Sirius Glass]

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.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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?

 

[Pieter12]

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?

It depends on the source of the photos you are referring to. I certainly believe the ones I have seen.

 

[Pieter12]

Over the decades, art has depicted the less fortunate and to what avail? When Millet painted fieldworkers, the establishment was quite critical. Van Gogh's The Potato Eaters shows gaunt, hungry peasants with the only food they could obtain. Dorothea Lange's Migrant Mother, Paul Strand's Blind Man, etc. Now today's homeless, mentally ill, drug addicted. It does open one's eyes to a segment of society that one may be ignorant of. On the other side of the coin, there is work like Larry Sultan's Pictures From Home or Lauren Greenfield Sanders' Generation Wealth that might make some nauseous.

 

[KerrKid]

The horrors of war are soon forgotten, especially by those who never went through them.

Many of these people are sitting at home in their underpants right now playing combat video games and feeling absolutely zero remorse for killing.

How much compassion do you think these folks have for the down and out? Actually, I'm kind of surprised their isn't a video game that awards points for killing the "undesirables", although maybe there is. Of course, you actually have to venture outside to see the homeless, so maybe they're unaware they exist.

 

[xkaes]

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?

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.

 

[Arthurwg]

What do people here think about (now Sir) Don McCullin’s photos of the homeless of London in the 1960s?

Don can do no wrong.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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?

Not necessarily independent, also ones that work for real news network {moderator's deletion of political comment}

 

[Pieter12]

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.

If you are observed watching your neighbor in the shower, you might be breaking any number of laws, local, state and federal. Same goes for taking a photograph. But, you do not need a release to show that photo in a museum or gallery, except maybe a release from jail.

The photographer Arne Swenson famously did a series of quite beautiful images taken from his studio in NYC of residents across the way. No one is recognizable but he still caught flak for the photos.

"Spying" Artist Wins Privacy Case - artnet News

A Supreme Court rule in favor of photographer Arne Svenson, who photographed his neighbors without consent, brings troubling news for privacy advocates.

news.artnet.com

The Neighbors

Arne Svenson is a fine art photgrapher living in New York City.

arnesvenson.com

 

[xkaes]

100% of "peeping Tom's" are nailed for trespassing. Without trespassing, there is no case.

 

[Pieter12]

100% of "peeping Tom's" are nailed for trespassing. Without trespassing, there is no case.

You a lawyer?

 

[MattKing]

100% of "peeping Tom's" are nailed for trespassing. Without trespassing, there is no case.

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.

 

[awty]

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

There is an importance to show the whole of society, not just cherry picking subject mater. Governments often will move on homeless people when there is an important global event happening because they do not want the world to see their trash.
We dont want to become a society cowering to the Morality Police. Freedom to document the world around you is important.
What you did is noble, if someone photographed your exchange it could have a greater bearing on the whole of society.
Perhaps the Haitians could move into the Eiffel Tower seeing how they paid for it.

 

[Pieter12]

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.

A bit of research comes up with this:

California’s Peeping Tom laws make it a misdemeanor offense to spy on (or to take pictures of) someone in a private place without that person’s consent. A conviction carries a potential sentence of up to 6 months in jail and fines of up to $1000.00.

Technically, these laws are known as:

• Penal Code 647(i) — “peeking while loitering” and
• Penal Code 647(j) — criminal “invasion of privacy.”

I believe there are similar federal laws, at least for video.

 

[faberryman]

Welcome to the internet.

 

[mshchem]

My loving wife hired a friend's 19 year old daughter to help her paint a wall in her studio. When young lady, who's aspiring to work in film/media said "she'd love to help me out in the darkroom" I just disappeared. No good way out of that.

Why didn't this kind of thing happen to me when I was 19!!

 

[MattKing]

We have anti-voyeur laws here as well.
But they require an element of subterfuge before an activity is deemed to be criminal - the "secretly" referenced in your second example.
And of course, your first example requires trespassing on private property as well.

 

[xkaes]

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.

 

[faberryman]

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.

Is their a limit on focal length you can use? I mean you can probably see a lot of stuff though the cracks in the curtains if you use a 1000mm lenses from the sidewalk or the house next door. Don't you sort of have to ask yourself why you are using a 1000mm lens to look at your neighbor through the cracks in the curtains?

I'd probably vote to limit focal length to 400mm. That's what Jimmy Stewart used in Rear Window. The thing I can't understand is why he wanted to look at Raymond Burr with a 400mm lens when he had Grace Kelly standing right next to him. I mean sure he was intrigued about whether Raymond Burr killed his wife, chopped her up, and buried her in the garden, but he had Grace Kelly standing right next to him. Priorities I guess, but he sure got into a lot of trouble over it. Let that be a lesson to you.

 

[xkaes]

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?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

Unfortunately all of these have agendas as well.

 

[faberryman]

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?

You probably hope no one sees you photographing your neighbor with a 1000mm lens through the cracks in the curtains.

 

[miha]

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.

Since you thought it morally wrong, you have no (moral) dilemma.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

In Europe, particularly in France, there is the so called 'Droit a l'image' meaning that everyone is the only person (solennellement) who can decide what happens with the representation in public HIS 'figure' (and propriety).

About 10 years ago, I was shooting in the street in Lille (North of France) for a business brochure on bakery supplies for an advertising agency.
As I had to shoot a shop window of a (well known) bakery with the belfry reflected in it, on that moment, just by accident, meters away there was a woman passing by on the sidewalk nobody saw in the heat of the fight.
When the photo was published she could be recognised reflected in the window, "the dolls started dancing"! She claimed € 20 000.- and got it...
So, when you take a photograph of a person on the street without his/her consent, and publish it, troubles will start.
In France all publishing is considered as commercial when any kind of 'carrier' incorporating that image/text is sold or used for business purpose.

 

[Pieter12]

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.

Can you substantiate that? Or is did you just pull it out of thin air?