Photography in Public Places

SuzanneR · Dec 15, 2009

I agree that he should have treated the cops more politely, but honestly, what would happen to those kids and their picture? We've become so paranoid at the thought of photographs, and yet people are willing to lay bear their souls for reality TV, and the internet. Then the whole issue becomes obscured by private property... oy... it's maddening!! And to what end?

Larry Bullis · Dec 15, 2009

SuzanneR said:
I agree that he should have treated the cops more politely, but honestly, what would happen to those kids and their picture? We've become so paranoid at the thought of photographs, and yet people are willing to lay bear their souls for reality TV, and the internet. Then the whole issue becomes obscured by private property... oy... it's maddening!! And to what end?

It really sucks. There is nothing about it at all that makes sense.

One could become cynical.

Domenico Foschi · Dec 15, 2009

SuzanneR said:
I suppose they are, but I'm not convinced that a place open to the public 18 to 20 hours a day should be above the first amendment, and never allow patrons to make photographs. In many places, they've become something akin to Main Street, no? And apparently this mall had the local police presence, and not the rent-a-cop variety, so they were able to enjoy the resources of their local tax base? So again, in a place where patrons can expect little privacy, why should the photographer be harassed for making pictures of seasonal shopping?

In a mall that doesn't have posted anywhere that photography is not allowed, anybody can take pictures of everybody he/she wants. In private properties like malls whose function is to invite foot traffic, photography can be allowed at the owner's discretion.
What bothers me is the fact that we as photographers have give in to the fact that even if the law protects us, our rights get infringed frequently in many different ways.

I am surprised that this photographer actually accommodated those two fathers by erasing the images. In the US The law clearly states that nobody can ask you to see or erase the pictures legally taken without a court order, I wonder if in the UK the law is different.

I was talking with an ex cop sometime ago and he told me that there is a law that allows prosecution to anyone that may cause disturbance to children. Even if a photographer doesn't do anything to disturb a child by taking pictures, there are still grounds for the police officer to stop the "offender" and do background checks and so on, like it happened to me.

It is a sad thing that children cannot be photographed as freely anymore as they have been the inspiration for many masterful images.

But this is not the worst damage caused by public opinion's and police enforcement disdain for photographers.

As photographers won't have the freedom to document our children, in the future there won't be sufficient documents to honestly portray todays society. It will be a sanitized view that won't allow photographers to show negative conditions either economical or social, or the magical world that children live in. Tragically, the instinct that moves photographers to take pictures of children is the same as the one of the parent trying to protect the child from the preying lenses. It will take a lot of protesting and finally a high profile case to set things straight again for photographers.
And yes, the problem is "fear', the most destructive one: adults' fear.

Larry Bullis · Dec 15, 2009

Domenico Foschi said:
...It will take a lot of protesting and finally a high profile case to set things straight again for photographers...

And IF that were to happen, it would be a blessed miracle. Not likely anytime soon.

Yes I am cynical. Anyone who isn't is probably not quite really living in the real world.

I wish I could be more optimistic. I have seen too much over a long life to have much hope for that. I have seen progressively greater fear and greater repression. Not just here in the US, either - I'm watching Iran right now. It is the most intense drama of our time in this particular dimension and makes what we are discussing here seem utterly, pathetically trivial. I'm totally in awe of the courage of the young people in the streets. That's what it takes. Are you willing to die for your freedom? Will you put your life on the line for photographers' rights? I don't think so. I might risk my life for my grandchildrens' future, but I will draw the line somewhere short of that.

Tell me, what have you seen that has been moving toward greater openness and freedom of expression - since, say, 1968? I think we are moving inexorably toward much greater restriction. It is becoming harder and harder to do meaningful work.

Sorry to spoil the party. I'm heading for the desert...

DLawson · Dec 16, 2009

SuzanneR said:
I suppose they are, but I'm not convinced that a place open to the public 18 to 20 hours a day should be above the first amendment, and never allow patrons to make photographs.

Remember that the limits in the Amendments to the US Constitution are limitations on the State, not on anyone else. For example, there are things that I could say about my employer that are grounds for dismissal, but they can't throw me in jail for it.

In many places, they've become something akin to Main Street, no?

That is a growing concern for me, and my general discomfort with pseudo-public spaces.

And apparently this mall had the local police presence, and not the rent-a-cop variety, so they were able to enjoy the resources of their local tax base? So again, in a place where patrons can expect little privacy, why should the photographer be harassed for making pictures of seasonal shopping?

Certainly the police shouldn't be enforcing mall policy, other than ensuring that those who have been told to leave do so. It is my far removed impression that malls in general get really touchy about private photography when any of these "sell a picture of the kid" events are going on, since the gig makes its money on the souvignier pictures. Again, that is at most grounds for expulsion.

Steve Smith · Dec 16, 2009

Domenico Foschi said:
I am surprised that this photographer actually accommodated those two fathers by erasing the images. In the US The law clearly states that nobody can ask you to see or erase the pictures legally taken without a court order, I wonder if in the UK the law is different.

It's the same. A police officer may ask to see the images but cannot demand it without a court order. It would be illegal for an officer to delete images for two reasons: 1. If they were taken illegally, it would be destroying evidence and 2. If they were not taken illegally, it would be destruction of property.

Security guards (mall cops/rent-a-cops?) have no legal rights. They can only ask you to leave if you are doing something they don't want you to do. They cannot forcibly eject you from the premises. **

If you are asked to leave and refuse, you are then comitting trespass and the police may be called to deal with it.

Whilst the police also cannot force you to leave under the trespass laws, they will usually use a public order offence to remove you from the property.

** Security guards can only use 'reasonable force' if they think you are a threat to other people or property.

Steve.

Ian David · Dec 16, 2009

What people can legally do, and what they might actually do, are two very different things. And, after the fact, the law is often slow to back you up on the distinction. Lamentable though it may be, it is not hard to imagine a scenario where two men asking you to delete photos from your camera could be quite persuasive...

Ian

Domenico Foschi · Dec 16, 2009

This is the age of revolutionized communication: you can call the cops in a jiffy.

Rudeofus · Dec 17, 2009

iandavid said:
What people can legally do, and what they might actually do, are two very different things. And, after the fact, the law is often slow to back you up on the distinction.

Not just slow, but it easily made to work against you. Insisting on your rights to photograph quickly turns into a "disturbing the peace" charge. Not offering your arms for immediate handcuffing turns into a "resisting arrest" or whatever charge. Refusing to hand over your camera turns into an "resisting/assaulting an officer" charge etc. You may have done nothing extraordinary and suddenly face felony charges, which are conveniently dropped if you promise not to pursue your charges against the cops (who unlawfully arrested you and humiliated you in public). Just look at the articles and postings of such incidents, it's always the same pattern.

There used to be a time when police officers were trained to deescalate such situations so such trivia wouldn't get out of hand. Now their policy seems to be "make sure it escalates so you can arrest folks on the spot and threaten them with felony charges afterwards, this will shut them up for good".

removed-user-1 · Dec 17, 2009

Instead of the legal disclaimer about using a camera in public places, maybe camera stores should offer prepaid legal services as an option when selling cameras (similar sales pitch as the extended warranty one). It could go like this: "Do you plan on using the camera in public?" "Yes." "We'd like to tell you about our prepaid legal services, customized for photographers!"

df cardwell · Dec 17, 2009

Grandpa used to say that self restraint was the foundation of liberty.

The right of a photographer to photograph me eating lunch in the park vs
My right to be left alone. Conflict.

An e-mail from James Madison this morning seems to indicate the Founders thought we'd be smart enough to sort it out without their help. I tried to get an explanation, but it just bounced back.

tkamiya · Dec 17, 2009

I usually think law as the last line of defense. Before legality of something becomes the deciding factor, a whole bunch of morale and inter-personal decision has to be made as to something is a good idea. These days, many people like to push the envelope regardless of any other factor and claim what they did were perfectly legal - so they had the right to do so.

I just think this is sad.

One thing I've noted though, when a child is involved in ANY WAY, hysterical reaction to any perceived threat is very possible. In some cases, the "child" factor was added as an after thought to gain support to some ideas. I wonder, if these people really have welfare of their child in their mind.

Domenico Foschi · Dec 17, 2009

df cardwell said:
Grandpa used to say that self restraint was the foundation of liberty.

The right of a photographer to photograph me eating lunch in the park vs
My right to be left alone. Conflict.

An e-mail from James Madison this morning seems to indicate the Founders thought we'd be smart enough to sort it out without their help. I tried to get an explanation, but it just bounced back.

If you admire the work of Bresson, Kertesz, and countless others, then the point you make doesn't hold water. How would you like a society where people are prohibited to take pictures? When we allow this to happen hoping that it will be restricted to people only it's an unrealistic expectation.
Recently I took a picture of a property from a public street and the owner of the property protested. Be careful what you are praying for because you might just get it.

As I have said before I agree with the fact that ethics should be followed regardless whether the law allows something unethical, and I find absolutely nothing unethical in taking a picture of someone eating lunch in the park. There are many things in society that bother us, but since the majority are being done by powerful entities or the government , most of us don't protest. It is the same things happening with undocumented workers. People who want, will make them targets of their own repressed feeling of powerlessness, because they are vulnerable and almost nobody will speak for them and surely they will not be able to defend themselves. I remember when it was said that they were mainly responsible for the poor economy in California. What a laugh and what a poor service by the media.
Also, how do you explain the fact that this has become a pressing issue starting from the Patriot Act? Why wasn't before such a big deal as it is now? Have we blown things out of proportions? SHould photographers take it in the back side because of a fear of which people have been inoculated?

Domenico Foschi · Dec 17, 2009

tkamiya said:
I usually think law as the last line of defense.

I just think this is sad.

One thing I've noted though, when a child is involved in ANY WAY, hysterical reaction to any perceived threat is very possible. In some cases, the "child" factor was added as an after thought to gain support to some ideas. I wonder, if these people really have welfare of their child in their mind.

Have you tried to take pictures of the crowd? If the answer is no, I will tell you that when you do, you will have many people asking you what you are taking pictures for (or of), someone will tell you that it is illegal to take pictures of people (not knowing the law). This means that you are being engaged in conversations when all you want to do is to take pictures. Talking to people when you are in the flow takes you out of that focus. Sometime the thing that settles it when being challenged is saying : "I am not doing anything illegal, the law allows me to do what I am doing." Or if you have a person who is good natured in front of you, you just say :"It was a great picture!"
Sometime I do engage in a conversation if I see some other good opportunity for good pictures and at times I just ignore people who display a certain amount of aggression in order not to let the situation escalate to something more.
SO, no. For me , at least, is not the last line of defense but a way to keep working and try to be a contribution in small part to our society.

tkamiya · Dec 17, 2009

Obviously, it goes both ways. I was talking about photographer as well as people in crowd when I said, the law is the last defense.

For the record, I usually do not take photo of a crowd. When I do, people are usually far enough away that details aren't available. I usually purposely avoid taking photos if the scene included children in a distance that details can be seen. Occasionally, if people are needed in my photo, I ask. When I have a photo with recognizable faces in them, I do not post them online without explicit permission from people in the photos. Those are rules I use for my own photos.

This is easy as I do not like picture of myself taken. I just follow the same rule for everyone else. I certainly don't want someone's hysteria about perceived child safety - legal or otherwise - directed toward me.

You are of course, welcome to disagree with me and I have no problem with that. I apply my own rules to my own photos. Of course, this is my hobby - that makes it easier to use my own rules.

df cardwell · Dec 17, 2009

If you admire the work of Bresson, Kertesz, and countless others, then the point you make doesn't hold water

Domenico

I spoke nothing about 'prohibiting' photography, I spoke of self restraint.

Thomas Bertilsson · Dec 17, 2009

My take on street shooting, and it fails miserably, because you can't draw boundaries, and each person has their own set of scruples.

"Just because you can, doesn't mean you should".

Empathy. If you were them, would you want someone else to take a picture of you?

So, consider your reasons. Are they selfish? Is it because you WANT that particular picture? Or could it perhaps have a grander purpose, like education, or like showing a bad example?

Domenico Foschi · Dec 17, 2009

df cardwell said:
If you admire the work of Bresson, Kertesz, and countless others, then the point you make doesn't hold water

Domenico

I spoke nothing about 'prohibiting' photography, I spoke of self restraint.

Domenico Foschi · Dec 17, 2009

Thomas, as long as you have a 4x5 light box I won't speak to you.

Thomas Bertilsson · Dec 17, 2009

Ha! You did your home work. It took me a while, that one.

Domenico Foschi said:
Thomas, as long as you have a 4x5 light box I won't speak to you.

df cardwell · Dec 17, 2009

Domenico

We are assuming he had her consent to be photographing her ?

Domenico Foschi · Dec 17, 2009

Not sure. Are you sure?

Domenico Foschi · Dec 17, 2009

The thing is that not only that there is nothing unethical about the picture, but it is also of an uplifting value as it celebrates the sexuality of the human race.
If there is nothing unethical in the picture, how can the action be unethical?

Thomas Bertilsson · Dec 17, 2009

Domenico, I don't disagree with you. But who is to say what is ethical and what is not? What one person finds perfectly natural, somebody else might find offensive. That, of course, is the root of the problem.

Sirius Glass · Dec 17, 2009

:munch::munch::munch:

Photography in Public Places

Moderator

removed-user-1

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency