View Single Post
Old Sep 23, 2009, 6:15 PM   #7
Chato
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bynx View Post
Laws are usually enacted as a backlash to some event which pisses off a lot of people. Digital photography and the speed by which the pictures reach the computers of millions of people simultaneously is mind boggling and there are no laws to protect average people from being photographed by individuals with ulterior motives for their picture taking. I agree we are being photographed constantly in large cities but those photos are never seen by anyone for the most part. Only if you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and those photos are scrutinized by law enforcement do they get seen. Its individuals with a camera that feel they have the right to take pictures of anyone they want with or without permission and post those pictures on the internet as quick as they can just doesnt seem right to me. Pictures of the city buildings, streets etc where people are more an annoyance being in the picture rather than being the focus of the photo is ok because they interrupted your right to photograph some object be it a building, sculpture etc. Its just when people become the focus for the photographers amusement that it doesnt seem right. In the past photographs were taken and stored in a box for years until they come to light and show a vibrant city and its people and become historical records. People probably long dead or too old for it to matter. The problem I see is that the now those same photos are instantaneously shown to millions of people without any input from those being displayed.
Legally, sneaking into a bathroom is a criminal offense. Using a telephoto lens to shoot someone through a window is a criminal offense. I could post a list. In other words, invading someones privacy, i.e. where you believe you have "A reasonable expectation of privacy," is the law of the land (US of course). I fully support these laws.

Is your privacy violated when the Daily News (or any other newspaper) posts photographs of people walking in the street?

I don't see ANY problem.

You are making a distinction between being seen by ten people or a million. While I wont post photographs on this thread, I can indeed post photographs of people who are being seen by thousands. Do they care?

Then why should they care if it's on the net?

In my case, none of the images I take are meant to highlight anything illicit, immoral, silly, or even personally revealing - The law as it stands now protects anyone from either posting on the net, or publishing in a book, if such a photograph is judged to be causing harm to the subject.

You've seen about twenty five of my images. Is there ONE that causes harm to the reputation of the subject? One?

Is there One that is demeaning? One?

When I was a kid, very few cared about being photographed. True, we now have the net - True and so what? Do you scan the net for such images? Who scans the net for such images - And if you DID see such an image, would it even occur to you to study it from the point of view of rediculing the subject?

And once again, the majority of harmful shots released in the net are done so anonymously, and MANY are in fact from one of these ubiquitous government or public sources.

What then about someone who is quite happy to publicly say, "I took this shot?"

You have said it would anger you to see yourself in an innocent moment, posted on the net. I would like you to pause and answer WHY?

Why would a picture of you, let us say, crossing the street, cause such anger? You who are perused and examined by some hack employee, are suddenly upset over someone who shoots without the intent of causing harm.

I must say, I am photographed by people a dozen times a day (because of my "attractive nuisance dog"). Most of whom do ask permission. "Why bother," I always tell them.

Dave
Chato is offline