Photographing the down and out

[Sirius Glass]

Not being American, can someone enlighten me as to the relevance of Austin in this discussion?

I don't see a there there. Nothing happening. I am moving on and you may wish to also.

 

[KerrKid]

Not being American, can someone enlighten me as to the relevance of Austin in this discussion?

Austin, the capital of Texas, has the slogan "Keep Austin Weird".

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Austin, the capital of Texas, has the slogan "Keep Austin Weird".

Just for the Cathedral of Junk they deserve it plenty.

Visiting the Cathedral of Junk Austin Texas

Don't be misled by the name — the Cathedral of Junk is not just a pile of rubbish. It is a true cathedral that is still keeping Austin weird!

austin.com

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Copyright is solely about commercial interests - it is a legal concept intended to create and protect a monetary interest.
No more, and no less.

The argument made by the defendant Warhol estate that even though his work was commercial, because of its transformative nature as delineated in copyright law, copyright protection did not apply. The Supreme Court diasgreed 9 to 2 and ruled in favor of the original photographer.

Since judges might find it hard to determine what exactly is transformative since even art experts disagree, they seem to have fallen back on whether it had commercial value as the standard to determine if it violated copyright law. You don't need to be an art expert to determine if the work is being sold and if so it violated copyright law. They'll leave the transformative interpretation to art experts. There seems to be a lot of commercial value in their votes.

This is a note of caution to those who think their new work based on another's original work is transformative. They're leaving too much open to interpretation, a hazardous enterprise it seems by this case. Better pay the original photographer to use their work or shoot your own pictures.

 

[awty]

Nothing is hidden. Everybody knows there is immense poverty, everywhere. Everybody at every level of government knows it. The public knows it. There's no conspiracy to hide poverty. The problem is not knowledge. The problem is nobody wants to do anything about it. Especially the people who could do something about it.

The solution is not to have people see poverty. The solution is to have people care about the poor. Not you, not me, not anybody on Instagram. The people who can actually do something about it. Those who don't give a damn about whether or not you take a picture of a beggar on a street corner.

Will stop here. Getting close to being political—unavoidable if talking about poverty.

Politics is just the right blaming the immigrant, the left blaming the wealthy and the middle not wanting to upset anyone by doing nothing.
People live in a bubble and only see what they want to see.

 

[KerrKid]

I'll tell you what. I've been up. I've been down. Down can come unexpectedly. It isn't easy to go from being a bigshot to getting food at the food bank and having former clients wait on you. I've been the guy too ashamed to look people in the eye. If I was homeless and living on the street or out of my car, I wouldn't want people photographing me because I was interesting.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The argument made by the defendant Warhol estate that even though his work was commercial, because of its transformative nature as delineated in copyright law, copyright protection did not apply. The Supreme Court diasgreed 9 to 2 and ruled in favor of the original photographer.

Since judges might find it hard to determine what exactly is transformative since even art experts disagree, they seem to have fallen back on whether it had commercial value as the standard to determine if it violated copyright law. You don't need to be an art expert to determine if the work is being sold and if so it violated copyright law. They'll leave the transformative interpretation to art experts. There seems to be a lot of commercial value in their votes.

This is a note of caution to those who think their new work based on another's original work is transformative. They're leaving too much open to interpretation, a hazardous enterprise it seems by this case. Better pay the original photographer to use their work or shoot your own pictures.

9 to 2
7 to 2
For now it adds to 9

 

[MattKing]

The argument made by the defendant Warhol estate that even though his work was commercial, because of its transformative nature as delineated in copyright law, copyright protection did not apply. The Supreme Court diasgreed 9 to 2 and ruled in favor of the original photographer.

Since judges might find it hard to determine what exactly is transformative since even art experts disagree, they seem to have fallen back on whether it had commercial value as the standard to determine if it violated copyright law. You don't need to be an art expert to determine if the work is being sold and if so it violated copyright law. They'll leave the transformative interpretation to art experts. There seems to be a lot of commercial value in their votes.

This is a note of caution to those who think their new work based on another's original work is transformative. They're leaving too much open to interpretation, a hazardous enterprise it seems by this case. Better pay the original photographer to use their work or shoot your own pictures.

You misunderstand.
If a work is transformative, it is sufficiently different from the original work, as to not infringe on on the copyright of the original work.
In other words, it has its own commercially protectable interest, which is different from and not an infringement of the commercial copyright interest of the original work.
And I repeat: "Copyright is solely about commercial interests - it is a legal concept intended to create and protect a monetary interest.
No more, and no less."

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

9 to 2
7 to 2
For now it adds to 9

I was packing the court.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

You misunderstand.
If a work is transformative, it is sufficiently different from the original work, as to not infringe on on the copyright of the original work.
In other words, it has its own commercially protectable interest, which is different from and not an infringement of the commercial copyright interest of the original work.
And I repeat: "Copyright is solely about commercial interests - it is a legal concept intended to create and protect a monetary interest.
No more, and no less."

That's what i said. The problem is the court couldn't determined if it was really transformative and relied mainly that it had commercial value and was therefore a violation of copyright law.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I was packing the court.

Two is not enough. Six is needed to balance the court and make it so large it would be harder to add any more plus adding any more would not cause any shift.

 

[VinceInMT]

I have thought about this issue quite a bit over the past year. I started working on a series of drawings last fall on the theme of “abandonment.” While I can certainly draw from the mind’s eye, in this series I wanted to continue merging my drawings with my photography so each drawing is based on one of my own photographs, not that it matters to the viewer who will only see the drawing. I am showing things abandoned with the last drawing making a statement by showing people who are homeless. For this last piece I did photograph some local homeless to use as a reference but, in keeping with the statement I am making, I have rendered them faceless. The building behind them is an actual local building but I modified it to look abandoned. I don’t see that I have exploited them as I am hoping that the series makes a statement regarding the issue in our community.

 

[CMoore]

It is a HUGE Topic.
I can only speak to my experience in the usa.
Many homeless people work a part-time job and some full-time.
Many of the homeless are not technically "homeless".
Some are living with friends or family because they can no longer afford rent.
I know a few people in this situation.
One has worked at Homedepot (full-time) for 10 years. He lives at his sisters house. He lived in a tent for almost 3 years before his sister gave him refuge.
Another works full-time at Walmart, lived in her car for two years, and now lives with her brother.
Both would be back on the street otherwise.

As far as photographing................ i have no problem with it at all. It is part of life.
All i do is street photography. I rarely shoot the homeless, only because it is not "my thing".
I see nothing wrong with it, unless there is some mean-spirited intent involved.

 

[takilmaboxer]

A recent study found that two-thirds of homeless folks have a job and mostly live in their cars or RVs. They're functional but just plain poor. The other third of the homeless, who are visibly decrepit on the street, are more likely to have mental illness/addiction problems. These are the folks who I have moral qualms about photographing. I've done it, but only after asking first and verifying that they can coherently answer.
The last time I encountered this situation it was five Native Americans, only one of whom was awake. He asked for spare change and I offered him five bucks for one photograph. He replied "f##k your camera just gimme five bucks." I gave him the fiver and walked away.
Personally I don't like being photographed in public. Last time I noticed a photographer pointing his (Leica digi cam) my way I flipped him off and followed him around getting in his shots until he stomped off. We are humans, we have a natural right to demand permission to be photographed, regardless of our economic status.

 

[Pieter12]

A recent study found that two-thirds of homeless folks have a job and mostly live in their cars or RVs. They're functional but just plain poor. The other third of the homeless, who are visibly decrepit on the street, are more likely to have mental illness/addiction problems. These are the folks who I have moral qualms about photographing. I've done it, but only after asking first and verifying that they can coherently answer.
The last time I encountered this situation it was five Native Americans, only one of whom was awake. He asked for spare change and I offered him five bucks for one photograph. He replied "f##k your camera just gimme five bucks." I gave him the fiver and walked away.
Personally I don't like being photographed in public. Last time I noticed a photographer pointing his (Leica digi cam) my way I flipped him off and followed him around getting in his shots until he stomped off. We are humans, we have a natural right to demand permission to be photographed, regardless of our economic status.

The act of unexpectedly or unwantedly pointing a camera at someone can be taken as offensive if that person is sensitive about their situation. For me, when it involves the homeless or destitute, it certainly shows a lack of respect and empathy.

 

[Larryc001]

I was homeless quite a few years ago. No, I was not an addict. I was not mentally ill (crazy maybe.) I was not destitute, in fact I was employed, actually a middle manager at BC Tel. I lived on the street even while my wife lived in a cute house with my 5 and 7 year old kids. I was only alive to pay the rent as far as she was concerned. Getting to my point. As far as photographing people on the street, i have to consider this. Maybe they are afraid of being found. A picture that could be seen by an ex wife, an abusive husband, the law, a debt collector, an enemy, etc. etc. could result in disaster for that person. Or they might not want former family, friends etc seeing them living in a tent on a sidewalk in skid row. I really can’t blame them. I certainly didn’t want anyone to know that’s where I was living. I try to reassure them if they are worried about that and commit to not revealing the photos generally. This usually works.

 

[VinceInMT]

Living in South Dakota I just don't see much of that sort of thing….

You do have reservations in South Dakota like we do in Montana, right?

 

[Alex Benjamin]

You do have reservations in South Dakota like we do in Montana, right?

South Dakota has a poverty rate of 12.3%, ranked 23rd in the U.S.

12 percent of 885,000 is a lot of people. Most certainly goes beyond reservations. There's 17,500 people living below the poverty line is Sioux Falls alone.

That said, as others mentioned above, doesn't mean all are living in the streets. You can have a job, but still live in your car, or in a tent. And sometimes have a family member beg in the street to make sure you have enough to eat between paychecks.

This is way the argument that photographing a beggar in the street is somehow "documenting" poverty. That's only the visible part of what it means to be poor. And it's a minority. Truly documenting poverty means finding these people who are poor despite seemingly having what they should need not to be poor—finding them, spending time with them, trying to understand why, for them, the system doesn't work.

 

[eli griggs]

No but photographing the poor is morally insensitive unless you are taking the photos with the intention to somehow help raise awareness of their situation. The are out in the open and don’t necessarily have the privacy afforded to those who are better off. Taking their pictures like some sort of deviant or animal on display is offensive.

I'll disagree and believe that instead of a moral insensitive dilemma, today's pressure is Entirely Social Pressure and Political Correctness.

There are laws to consider, can you photograph people without informing them or getting their pre-exposure permission, it varied by Nation and as a documentary photographer, no doing a commercial job, hired by others for some other purposes, including "joke" slogens like " Winner of the Year!", Then, yes, take the shot(s) and move on to your next subject, dropping some money in the homeless person's cup, plate, hand or whatever, without comment beyond something like "Godspeed" or "Good luck".

Public space can no be 'private' and the condition of the person you are photographing is none of your business, unless you are dedicated to becoming a humanity rescue worker, no a photographer first.

Take the shot discreetly and move on, if that is what you are there for.

Otherwise, call mental health, homeless shelters and bring him/her some food, drink, socks, jacket and cash and forget photography of the street people you find, on the street and a room at your home.

IMO.

 

[summicron1]

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.

i used to do this because was a newspaper reporter and i felt documenting the passing scene was ok. But, i was young and stupid back then about a lot of things and I have come to feel this was one of them.

I no longer photograph the homeless. When I was in Costa Rica last summer i did a lot of street photography and it was normal to have folks in the frame for scale, composition, etc., but those were people pushing carts, or buying stuff, or walking along, or whatever. People sleeping on the sidewalk I very intentionally avoided. Ditto people begging and so on -- it's invasive, it's rude.

The only exception would be to first approach the person -- someone begging -- give them money, THEN ask if it is ok.
And if they say no, fine. People have rights and dignity and I'm not exactly LIFE magazine.

 

[juan]

I might consider doing some work like this book.

It tells the stories of the individuals photographed.

A former player for the Jacksonville Jaguars football team started out sleeping in his car at the stadium. He was an updrafted free agent, meaning he only had a per diem, not a salary. He made the team, got his contract, and eventually went to the Tampa Bay team and won a Super Bowl ring.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

In related issues, if you happened upon an accident, would you shoot pictures or help the victims, both, neither? What about some guy getting beat up? A robbery? A cop beating a civilian?

 

[VinceInMT]

In related issues, if you happened upon an accident, would you shoot pictures or help the victims, both, neither? What about some guy getting beat up? A robbery? A cop beating a civilian?

The 1969 film, “Medium Cool,” addressed this issue.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

I'll disagree and believe that instead of a moral insensitive dilemma, today's pressure is Entirely Social Pressure and Political Correctness.

Eli, I don't know you, even though we both live in North Carolina, and this is aimed at your words, not at you.

The dictionary definition (or at least one of them) for morality is an expectation to conform to social mores -- social pressure. The juxtaposition you propose does not exist as a matter of syntax.

And "political correctness" is similarly misbegotten. The alternative is ... what? Political wrongheadedness?

Debate in the United States has devolved into slinging code words that make no sense unless you happen to live in the bubble of the social media you consume. It replaces meaningful discussion with insults and we are all the poorer for it.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The 1969 film, “Medium Cool,” addressed this issue.

I'd like to know what people here think about the issues I raised?