Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 26, 2009, 1:19 PM   #101
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
If I have a right to see something, I have a right to photograph it.

That said, I don't have a right to violate someone's privacy, whether I photograph them or not.

That said, if I happen to photograph someone where they shouldn't have been, or in a compromising situation, that is and should be inconsequential for me.

That said, any attempt to restrict my ability to photograph something or someone I have a right to see, is unjust. Likewise, any attempt to limit my ability to do with my photograph as I see fit, is equally unjust.

That said, I do, however, have a moral obligation to be courteous and respectful, which, I believe, supersedes my rights.

So, if I take a photograph of a stranger in a public place, I feel no obligation to self-censor my photograph unless they're chewing with their mouth open or picking their nose.
Good post!

Who can argue that it's nice to be nice? Let me expand a little on this.

Should I avoid photographing the police when they are acting legally? Or should I only avoid photographing the police when they are acting illegally?

If a person believes that a photograph robs their soul, should I defacto treat them in a different manner than one who doesn't? What if it's a Great Shot, in which they merely happen to be walking by? Should I destroy an important image, because this person is offended? Does their right to be irrational trump my right to live in a free society? No more then if I am the holder of an extreme policitical postion, which most find offensive - My right to speech, doesn't care if my message is offensive, and makes others sick. Yet, I may be a tiny minority, and 99 percent of the population is deeply offended.

I've been hunting around for the 1930's Supreme Court ruling, and so far have not found it, although I read the whole damn things years and years ago when I was using film.

Here's an interesting article, from which I excerpt the opening paragraphs. I recomend the entire thing, along with the pictures that were taken.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wired_NT FORUM View Post

IN 1999 Philip-Lorca diCorcia set up his camera on a tripod in Times Square, attached strobe lights to scaffolding across the street and, in the time-honored tradition of street photography, took a random series of pictures of strangers passing under his lights. The project continued for two years, culminating in an exhibition of photographs called "Heads" at Pace/MacGill Gallery in Chelsea. "Mr. diCorcia's pictures remind us, among other things, that we are each our own little universe of secrets, and vulnerable," Michael Kimmelman wrote, reviewing the show in The New York Times. "Good art makes you see the world differently, at least for a while, and after seeing Mr. diCorcia's new 'Heads,' for the next few hours you won't pass another person on the street in the same absent way." But not everyone was impressed.

When Erno Nussenzweig, an Orthodox Jew and retired diamond merchant from Union City, N.J., saw his picture last year in the exhibition catalog, he called his lawyer. And then he sued Mr. diCorcia and Pace for exhibiting and publishing the portrait without permission and profiting from it financially. The suit sought an injunction to halt sales and publication of the photograph, as well as $500,000 in compensatory damages and $1.5 million in punitive damages.

The suit was dismissed last month by a New York State Supreme Court judge who said that the photographer's right to artistic expression trumped the subject's privacy rights. But to many artists, the fact that the case went so far is significant.

The practice of street photography has a long tradition in the United States, with documentary and artistic strains, in big cities and small towns. Photographers usually must obtain permission to photograph on private property — including restaurants and hotel lobbies — but the freedom to photograph in public has long been taken for granted. And it has had a profound impact on the history of the medium. Without it, Lee Friedlander would not have roamed the streets of New York photographing strangers, and Walker Evans would never have produced his series of subway portraits in the 1940's.

Remarkably, this was the first case to directly challenge that right. Had it succeeded, "Subway Passenger, New York City," 1941, along with a vast number of other famous images taken on the sly, might no longer be able to be published or sold.

In his lawsuit, Mr. Nussenzweig argued that use of the photograph interfered with his constitutional right to practice his religion, which prohibits the use of graven images.

New York state right-to-privacy laws prohibit the unauthorized use of a person's likeness for commercial purposes, that is, for advertising or purposes of trade. But they do not apply if the likeness is considered art. So Mr. diCorcia's lawyer, Lawrence Barth, of Munger, Tolles & Olson in Los Angeles, focused on the context in which the photograph appeared. "What was at issue in this case was a type of use that hadn't been tested against First Amendment principles before — exhibition in a gallery; sale of limited edition prints; and publication in an artist's monograph," he said in an e-mail message. "We tried to sensitize the court to the broad sweep of important and now famous expression that would be chilled over the past century under the rule urged by Nussenzweig." Among others, he mentioned Alfred Eisenstaedt's famous image of a sailor kissing a nurse in Times Square on V-J Day in 1945, when Allied forces announced the surrender of Japan.

Street Photography's Legality Challenged - Wired New York Forum
Let me edit in another point. The article above talks about one subject saying that a photograph violated his religion. He is a member of one sect of orthodox Jews. There are some sects of Islam who believe an image of them violates their religion - Don't these people have rights? I believe they do. On the other hand, once again, their rights do not trump Our Rights. It would be legitimate for example for them to ask that their children not be photographed for a high school year book - But that kind of right Ends, when it interferes with societies rights to maintain our freedoms. While I concede that Muslims for example have a right to protest the printing of cartoons which they didn't like, or as Christians protested an art exhibition - Does that mean their right to protest should be extended to a right to Ban such a publication or exhibition?

Dave

Last edited by Chato; Sep 26, 2009 at 1:29 PM. Reason: added thought
Chato is offline  
Old Sep 26, 2009, 1:31 PM   #102
Senior Member
 
Ordo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: BsAs
Posts: 3,452
Default

There's an ethical issue here perfectly expressed by Brian, Bynx and many others, to which I adhere. Problem of our times is that more and more, the private 'res' is being pushed to public 'res' and many times the old laws permit the invation of our privacy. I think we must firmly defend our persons and our privacy. My image is my person and I should have all the 'rights' to it. The other way is the Big Brother way. Let the laws be adapted to our times.
Ordo is offline  
Old Sep 26, 2009, 1:50 PM   #103
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ordo View Post
There's an ethical issue here perfectly expressed by Brian, Bynx and many others, to which I adhere. Problem of our times is that more and more, the private 'res' is being pushed to public 'res' and many times the old laws permit the invation of our privacy. I think we must firmly defend our persons and our privacy. My image is my person and I should have all the 'rights' to it. The other way is the Big Brother way. Let the laws be adapted to our times.

"My image is my person and I should have all the 'rights' to it."

The Law and Society disagree with you. In my opinion, you have simply re-stated that you believe the image IS the person. If this is true, what is the difference between me photographing you as part of another scene, and my photographing you directly - Especially if you are just as recognisable in both shots?

Only the USE of your image Can violate the law - And the law provides you with many forms of legal redress. That you call for a ban on photography to Stop Big Brother is an interesting statement. Presumably, all the government and private cameras that photograph you a thousand times a day are included?

And as I've pointed out before, I, David Barkin, stand behind each of my images. If they cause you a problem you have legal redress against me personally - But if such a ban goes into effect, all such photographs will be anonymous, and you will have no redress at all. Thousands of institutional images have hit the net because those who review them couldn't resist.

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Sep 26, 2009, 2:18 PM   #104
Senior Member
 
Ordo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: BsAs
Posts: 3,452
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chato View Post
That you call for a ban on photography to Stop Big Brother is an interesting statement. Presumably, all the government and private cameras that photograph you a thousand times a day are included?

Dave
Of course. How is it possible you don't get it? We live in Big Brother's societies thanks to people that think and act like you.
Ordo is offline  
Old Sep 26, 2009, 2:24 PM   #105
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ordo View Post
Of course. How is it possible you don't get it? We live in Big Brother's societies thanks to people that think and act like you.
You have now accused me of advocating totalitarianism because I am speaking to defend all our rights. You do this by saying your image is you, and yet for the last 150 years newspapers have been displaying recognisable individuals with no permission at all. You cannot even differentiate between my taking a photo of you and the press taking a photo of you.

Banning speech is not protecting speech.

I would simply like to remind you that Orwells book, "1984" was a warning and not a field manual.

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Sep 26, 2009, 2:33 PM   #106
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ordo View Post
... My image is my person and I should have all the 'rights' to it. ...
Wrong!

Light reflects off of you into my eye or my lens. That is entirely passive on your part. That light does not belong to you. You are not the source of that light. The only control you have over it is along the lines of where you choose to part your hair.

If a person's image is their person, then wouldn't the existance of one identical twin violate the rights to the image of the other? If I take a photo of one identical twin, in your view, have I violated the rights of both?
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline  
Old Sep 26, 2009, 2:58 PM   #107
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
Wrong!

Light reflects off of you into my eye or my lens. That is entirely passive on your part. That light does not belong to you. You are not the source of that light. The only control you have over it is along the lines of where you choose to part your hair.

If a person's image is their person, then wouldn't the existance of one identical twin violate the rights to the image of the other? If I take a photo of one identical twin, in your view, have I violated the rights of both?
Good post!

If someone has a "right" to their image, then is that right absolute? If NOT absolute, what are the criteria for it's use? The State, Business, Institutions, Property owners all have a right to the image, but the average person does not?

The press has a right to this image, the television media has a right to this image, but the average person does not?

Various forms of media have a right to display the image, and display it to millions of people, but the average person does not?In fact no one has ANY rights to their image - We have rights as to HOW the image is used. Neither the Law, Science, indeed, even morality, can show in any manner how an image IS the person. The person is the person - period. Can I stick pins into your image and hurt the subject? If so, there is a point to all of this. If the display of an image can be shown to cause harm, people have legal redress - That redress in not to protect your image, but to protect the reality: i.e. The person themselves.

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Sep 26, 2009, 2:58 PM   #108
Senior Member
 
Ordo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: BsAs
Posts: 3,452
Default

OK. Let's be in peace. We think and act differently. Not a big deal. As Brian stated, hopefully the laws can be changed and ruled accordingly to our believes and ethical behaviour.
Ordo is offline  
Old Sep 26, 2009, 3:01 PM   #109
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ordo View Post
OK. Let's be in peace. We think and act differently. Not a big deal. As Brian stated, hopefully the laws can be changed and ruled accordingly to our believes and ethical behaviour.
No offense, but I (and others) have repeatidly asked for an example of such a law. Without demanding that it be perfectly worded, can you give us a rough example?

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Sep 26, 2009, 5:10 PM   #110
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chato View Post
No offense, but I (and others) have repeatidly asked for an example of such a law. Without demanding that it be perfectly worded, can you give us a rough example?
I would be pleased to read what someone might want the law to prohibit.

Laws need to be rational. Beliefs, by definition, are not rational. (Please note that I didn't say "irrational".) Laws that impose one person's beliefs on another are unjust. (If that doesn't stir up a can of worms, I don't know what will, though that was not my intent.)

Though this does not preclude that thing about being courteous and respectful that I mentioned earlier.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline  
 
Closed Thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:58 AM.