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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 25, 2009, 3:14 PM   #81
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bynx View Post
Here is where we differ. Youre of the opinion that having a camera and a computer and a link to the internet you can do whatever you want no matter what. Im saying that you should have some discretion in who you post. Use some brains and have some consideration for someone other than your own egotistical being. While you might have a moment of glory posting that photo of a frumpy housewife walking down the street. Getting some people on the internet to say "Great photo". Nice job, great this, wonderful that. Maybe that housewife doesnt want her picture there. But then she doesnt have any rights, no say. You want a guideline. How about common sense? Those particular pics posted by Chato are unimportant, uninteresting and boring at best (to me), but not so to the people in the pictures. If they all said ok post my pic, I dont have a problem with that. But there were pics taken from behind bushes and from the interior of cars. People who, while minding their own business are being secretly photographed and posted on the internet. The more I think of the arrogance of that act makes me need to take another couple blood pressure pills.
Pre-Internet, I used to write for a small upstate weekly. The owner would print any picture he damn well pleased to. These weeklies focus on local activities, schools programs, park activities, etc. He never bothered with a release. Can we assume that you would have beaten his reporters and photographers to a pulp?

True, he only had a circulation of less than fifty thousand. But that is far more people then will see any of the images I take.

As far as I know, all the parents were Thrilled to see their kids in the paper. Certainly I never heard on One complaint.

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Sep 25, 2009, 3:18 PM   #82
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,870
Default

“You have made a number of mistaken statements.”

Are you going to tell me which ones, or do I have to guess?

“If you aggresivelly follow me around, with or without a camera, you are guilty of the crime of "Harrasment." Every State in the Union has such laws.”

Again I will ask you for a link to that law. I would love to read it. You keep on referring to this law - why won’t you post the link for all of us to see? Because you can’t find it? Because it doesn’t exist? What’s the matter, don’t you like the idea of someone taking your picture and posting it on the internet without your permission? How does one aggressively follow another? And by the way - I thought I was innocent until proven guilty.

“If you're NOT claiming it, than what are you complaining about? The press has the right to include bystanders, but the average person does not?”

Once again, I have no idea what you’re referring to. I’m not claiming anything, and I’m not complaining - you are.

“You once again bring up the question of the mini-skirted lady. Please. I've already answered that question. “

I never asked a question about a mini-skirted lady. I asked why you thought the photographer, in this case, should beware. Please, I’m still waiting for an answer.

“You are have now reached the point where every photograph of a person can potentially result in kidnapping, death or rape. The newspapers, televisions stations have now become defacto serial killers, and abettors of pedophiles. Henri Cartier-Bresson was one of the most evil men who ever lived.”

“Essentially, you are raising statistical issues that tell people to hide in basements during a thunderstorm. You never know when lighting will strike. Cars are all defacto death traps. Life's only goal is to survive as long as possible, photographers are all potential demons, and criminals, who live only to abet crimes. Children should be allowed out of doors, only on Sunday trips to church, and even then surrounded by belligerent adults.”

Wow - you are one sick individual - you need to seek professional help immediately. Talk about blowing things out of proportion!

“All of this, and I doubt if you have even examined the photographs I've posted.”

Would it hurt your feelings if I said I didn’t like them?


the Hun
rinniethehun is offline  
Old Sep 25, 2009, 3:20 PM   #83
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bynx View Post
...How arrogant is that?....
To repeat myself, yet again:

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimC View Post
Come on guys. I'm getting really tired of pointing this out. Please keep personal comments, innuendo, etc. out of the discussions here.

Debating an issue is fine. Making personal comments towards other posters because you disagree with their opinion on a subject is not fine here.
JimC is offline  
Old Sep 25, 2009, 3:29 PM   #84
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rinniethehun View Post
“You have made a number of mistaken statements.”

Are you going to tell me which ones, or do I have to guess?

“If you aggresivelly follow me around, with or without a camera, you are guilty of the crime of "Harrasment." Every State in the Union has such laws.”

Again I will ask you for a link to that law. I would love to read it. You keep on referring to this law - why won’t you post the link for all of us to see? Because you can’t find it? Because it doesn’t exist? What’s the matter, don’t you like the idea of someone taking your picture and posting it on the internet without your permission? How does one aggressively follow another? And by the way - I thought I was innocent until proven guilty.

“If you're NOT claiming it, than what are you complaining about? The press has the right to include bystanders, but the average person does not?”

Once again, I have no idea what you’re referring to. I’m not claiming anything, and I’m not complaining - you are.

“You once again bring up the question of the mini-skirted lady. Please. I've already answered that question. “

I never asked a question about a mini-skirted lady. I asked why you thought the photographer, in this case, should beware. Please, I’m still waiting for an answer.

“You are have now reached the point where every photograph of a person can potentially result in kidnapping, death or rape. The newspapers, televisions stations have now become defacto serial killers, and abettors of pedophiles. Henri Cartier-Bresson was one of the most evil men who ever lived.”

“Essentially, you are raising statistical issues that tell people to hide in basements during a thunderstorm. You never know when lighting will strike. Cars are all defacto death traps. Life's only goal is to survive as long as possible, photographers are all potential demons, and criminals, who live only to abet crimes. Children should be allowed out of doors, only on Sunday trips to church, and even then surrounded by belligerent adults.”

Wow - you are one sick individual - you need to seek professional help immediately. Talk about blowing things out of proportion!

“All of this, and I doubt if you have even examined the photographs I've posted.”

Would it hurt your feelings if I said I didn’t like them?


the Hun
I have tried to have a civil discussion with you. Apparently this is not possible. You are proud of your ignorance of the law.

Federal definition:

Harassment: General
Under the United States Code Title 18 Subsection 1514(c)1. Harassment is defined as "a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such a person and serves no legitimate purpose".

Simply go to Google and punch in:
"Harassment" +"legal definition"

I have no intention of answering the questions of someone whose only reponse is to dress up their ignorance by citing their morality as proof.

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Sep 25, 2009, 3:36 PM   #85
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Guys, either think about what you're posting (leaving wording like "ignorance' when directed towards other members out of the discussions), or I will close this thread.

I can understand the passion on both sides of this debate. But, please, let's keep the discussions here civil, debating the issues, not throwing insults at each other.

Thanks.
JimC is offline  
Old Sep 25, 2009, 3:53 PM   #86
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,646
Default

Thanks for your patience Jim. You wont be getting any more flac from me.
Bynx is offline  
Old Sep 25, 2009, 4:40 PM   #87
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

You may be interested in the results of a poll on the rangefinder forum:

To the question:
Quote:
Is your street shooting style:

a. Expressionistic In-Your-Face Gonzo—I'm the Photographer; I'm Taking Your Picture!
b. Humanistic—I'd like to take your picture, and with your permission I press the shutter release.
c. Unobtrusive and Stealthy—Ah, there's a moment, and I'd Like to capture the essence of that moment, unseen and unbeknownst to you. You will never know I was here.
d. I'm way too shy for this stuff. Real photographers shoot landscapes anyway.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...threadid=53275

Approximately 350 responses:
a) 7.6%
b) 6.7%
c) 78%
d) 7.6%

So most street photographers are stealthy, don't ask permission and post or publish wherever they like. But they are well aware that some people (particularly in the USA it seems) really don't like it and have some "moral" objection that they cannot explain where the morality comes in. The way that street photographers respond to aggressive and illegal behaviour by those who threaten them varies from non-confrontational to extremely confrontational.

So just a warning to Bynx and others, lest you do decide to attack a photographer going about his or her lawful pastime or occupation, not all of them will back off. And if you do initiate an assault the law will be on the side of the photographer.

My personal strategy is to scream for help, run away and call the police. Actually usually just a smile suffices, and after all those people don't know that I'm about to dash off and post their picture on the internet where 7 whole people will see it, most of whom live in another country. :-)
__________________
My gallery
My X100 blog
peripatetic is offline  
Old Sep 25, 2009, 4:59 PM   #88
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,646
Default

Hey Im not going to attack anyone. Live and let live is my policy. Just as long as YOUR plans dont include ME or mine without at least asking. I cant honestly see any reason for refusing, especially if they had the courage and respect to ask. But thats not everyone's decision and it shouldnt be up to the photographer to decide.
Bynx is offline  
Old Sep 25, 2009, 8:18 PM   #89
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

What is a photographic image? Is it not a reproduction of some part of reality?

Because the photographer taking the image; is in control of the process, they can manipulate reality simply by their decision as to what they include, and what they exclude from the image. (Mind you, I am leaving out the extreme possibilities of image processing).

While the above is certainly incomplete, (an understatement if ever there was one) it is a brief summation of what a photograph does, and what a photographer can do.

In this discussion the images under question are pretty straight forward. In this case the photographer is hoping to capture the day to day activities of average people, and making them interesting.

But in the larger sense of what COULD be done. The average person can be depicted as a fool, a hero, a criminal, a saint, and anything in between. However, the average person is protected against this kind of manipulation by the law. Once again, on this thread we are not talking about such cases. How then does the reality captured by the image differ from reality itself? How then can an image of reality, taken in a public place, where the subject is seen by the public, be harmed by the image itself?

In some societies, there is the belief that the image captures the soul of the person. If true, that is certainly a legitimate reason to feel that the mere image itself cause harm. But I doubt if anyone on this thread believes that, so again the question is, in what manner does the image differ from the reality to cause harm?

Almost certainly, if the way a person acts is harmful, who then is most likely to draw that conclusion? A stranger who may casually glance at it on the internet? Or the neighbors and friends, whom the subject sees everyday, who draw their own conclusions as to what kind of person the subject is? And for that matter probably don't need a photograph to come up with their opinion about someone.

About seventy years ago the Supreme Court examined this question and came to the conclusion that photography IS speech. That any limitation on the right to photograph whatever you wished to, was in fact a danger to everyones basic freedoms. That no law could be written, which banned one form of photography, and would not be used to ban any form of photography. Human nature being what it is, the result is inevitable. Moreover the Court ruled that while the subject of a photograph, if they were harmed, or slandered, had legal recourse in the courts, had NO legal recourse to prevent publication in advance. Once again, such a ban on publishing, could be used to prevent speech.

If a photo was harmful or slanderous, the remedy would be the Courts, AFTER publication. If such was not the case, then the public would be deprived of the knowledge of what powerful individuals, institutions or government were doing. With their resources they could easily stop the publishing of a photograph, which damaged their interests. This is a basic fact of life.

All of these questions have been examined by the finest legal minds in the country, and the above are inevitable conclusions. They knew that an image of reality, in an of itself, is not what causes harm, but rather reality itself is what causes the harm.

All of us are seen by many people on each and every day. Sometimes thousands of people see the individual every day. Does this bother anyone? There are some people who cannot leave their homes because of a fear of being seen. Should society cater to their neurosis? Should there be times when no one except them are allowed into public places?

Yet here we have people saying that their image is sacred, that it is immoral to show it. That the mere showing of the image in some undefined manner, harms the person. As if to say, that the image has a life of it's own, and must not be seen, as if their being actually seen, is somehow a separate question from their photographic image. That in some manner, the publishing of their image, going about their day to day lives, is in and of itself harmful, while what they were doing is not.

We live in free societies because these rights were fought for. Men and woman died so that we live in free societies. Photography is part and parcel of these rights, and the quantitative changes in technology have not altered this in any way.

On the question of basic human rights and freedom, the morality of those who regard their image as sacred has no value to a Free Society. Nor do they have the right to demand that their morality should be the law. They may have a right to legislate their morality and make it the law - But that is a separate question from violating the law in the name of what they believe the law should be. I may choose to exercise the courtesy of deleting the image of someone who objects. That's nice, and so what? Many times what one person regards as courtesy, another regards as none of your business. And the truth of the matter, for the last seventy years, is that it's none of your business if someone took your photograph. No offense, but live with it. Those who threaten to break the law are threatening everyones basic civil rights. If they are successful, they will one day wake up in a Police State in which none of us have any rights at all.

Dave

Last edited by Chato; Sep 25, 2009 at 8:23 PM. Reason: typo
Chato is offline  
Old Sep 25, 2009, 10:33 PM   #90
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,234
Default

The way I see this debate is that the parties are talking past each other. On one side is the issue of 'rights' and 'harm', while on the other is the issue of respect for the persons who are the subject of the photographs.
Statistics and polls do not create the right or wrong on this issue. Not relevant.
Laws, in the U.S. get changed or created in response to situations. Usually some very emotional public issue. This is one. Current law could very well be changed unless people with cameras show some restraint. Case in point is the issue of 'sexting' among high school age and younger people. Current law defines this, in most cases, as child pornography, possesion of which gets one registered as a sex offender, for life. A number of states are attempting to amend their laws to reflect a more reasonable attitude, or at least what the lawmakers can manage to agree on as reasonable.
Dave. I understand your arguments thoroughly, but also know that it is the adamant insistence on 'rights', as opposed to a responsible attitude, which will more quickly get the laws changed to be less favorable.

brian
VTphotog 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 2:27 AM.