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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 15, 2009, 4:53 PM   #101
Senior Member
 
kazuya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
And, for the record - I'll state again. In the specific instance of this thread - I believe everything is as it should be. I don't think the OP should have been arrested. I don't think he should be prevented from taking photos of people. But I do suggest the parent behaved properly. I do suggest people have a rigt to question a photographer and learn their motives. That's it. We have a right to take photos and people, especially parents have a right to question motives for doing so. That's how a free society should work. In a perfect world there would be no need to question motive. But we don't have a perfect world. My preference would be the style of interactive - take the photos and then talk to the people. Especially when it involves children. But, as I say - exercise your right to take photos, but do so with common sense - don't try to hide what you're doing and don't violate social norms by taking photos of children looking out car our household windows.
very well said
kazuya is offline  
Old Oct 15, 2009, 6:21 PM   #102
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
Littlejohn,
Actually if you look at the original threads - I was quite in favor of street photography - and still am. What I am critical of - is people on BOTH sides of the argument - who seem to push the "street photography is good in every case" or "street photography is bad in any case". It's interesting to me that you feel I'm critical of Dave when the scenario I described is actually quite neutral. A person on the Bynx side of the argument could read that and say I'm being critical of them. I'm critical of the small-minded nature of multiple posters in this thread that suggest there is no grey area to this specific example or even the concept in general.

In the first couple of threads, Bynx was making the argument that if a person was clearly the subject and recognizable that publishing an image of that person was wrong - period. I disagreed because I felt that was narrow-minded - I felt there were times when it was good. In this thread we have Dave arguing that taking a photo of a child should never be considered as inappropriate. Craig and you have agreed and disregard any notion that the circumstances of the action should not matter. A parent should accept the taking and publication of a photo of their child as long as it doesn't break the law. I think that's just as close minded as Bynx was in the other threads. That it isn't just a matter of what's legal or not, that you're dealing with human beings in a social world. And in a social world, that society develops concepts of what is 'normal and acceptable behavior'. A society doesn't outlaw all socially unacceptale behavior. But if you violate those norms you can expect back-lash. What I fight against in this thread is the idealist talk here - that people's beliefs and social norms are irrelevant. Basically saying I should be able to hit on any woman I want - it's legal after all. You found that statement humorous - but this is the same exact thing. It really is.
Well John, what you seem to be missing is that I am 100 percent against harrasment. Someone who by blocking your way, sticking a camera into your face, etc, etc, are all guilty of harrasment.

But this would be true whether they used a camera or not.

Plain and simple people did Not object to their pictures being taken thirty years ago.

I was struck my Peripetitics example of a woman wearing a veil. In todays Iraq it's not safe for a woman to be in public without wearing a veil - But six years ago it was the norm not to wear a veil. Would you simply shrug your shoulders and say, this question isn't black and white?

I have never argued that people should tolerate being harrassed by anyone, and this includes photographers. But an objectively harmless activity, which is only feared now because of fear, part of the greater symptom of fear, cannot be silently accepted because some people fear to label it what it is. And this includes harmless pictures of children. And face it, if the image of a child taken in public is NOT harmless, then there is something very strange going on in this childs life.

You and others do a disservice to society by saying that the irrational is not only understandable, but legitimate.

Dave

Last edited by Chato; Oct 15, 2009 at 6:24 PM.
Chato is offline  
Old Oct 16, 2009, 12:33 AM   #103
Senior Member
 
SharpShotGal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Kitsap Penninsula, Washington State
Posts: 1,217
Default

This seems to be a big problem into days world and I was on the other side where I was asked if I could have my photo taken with my kids as I was moving back to Washington in a bus I OKed it but never did I sign any thing to him using our picture now he did mention he was writing a book of people living in buses. I have yet to see anything of any book and as of today I have seen many picutres of my Grandfather and Great Grandmother used in books.

My own picture was used as a means of a overlay in a face shot of an old photo in a Time Life Book and I have yet to find out whom did that .. its life and yes some one is either trying to hide behind a mask by pushing the no right to take mine with out some kind of gratitude and as well a permission but as one sees it from the photographers side of the lens there goes a perfect shot if one has to ask first.... cause Yes some of the best comes from just taking the shot before getting the legals... Don't feel bad and don't worry God is working on the plan of salvation for all of us equal rights for all to live in harmony stop the legals from over taking the rights to enjoy and preserve what we have lived to enjoy, be snap happy as long as you live to enjoy...
Whom started all this Look at Hollywood ah I remember a Mrs Coral Barnett going after the tabloids on this issue so blame them and as well those that push and shove to get he fresh news of the days happenings of what are just ordinary people but they see a story that will sell more if there was a photo to go with it ... but yet they would not take stories in I know as I wrote them once and got no answer back.

Last edited by SharpShotGal; Oct 16, 2009 at 12:40 AM. Reason: Typos fingers faster than keys LOL
SharpShotGal is offline  
Old Oct 16, 2009, 12:34 AM   #104
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 629
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
And, for the record - I'll state again. In the specific instance of this thread - I believe everything is as it should be. I don't think the OP should have been arrested. I don't think he should be prevented from taking photos of people. But I do suggest the parent behaved properly. I do suggest people have a rigt to question a photographer and learn their motives. That's it. We have a right to take photos and people, especially parents have a right to question motives for doing so. That's how a free society should work. In a perfect world there would be no need to question motive. But we don't have a perfect world. My preference would be the style of interactive - take the photos and then talk to the people. Especially when it involves children. But, as I say - exercise your right to take photos, but do so with common sense - don't try to hide what you're doing and don't violate social norms by taking photos of children looking out car our household windows.

This I agree with, and will say...well said, and in fact has been my position on this issue. I have stated more then once that I agree with the fathers concern...real or perceived. I am not questioning his reasons, however I do object to cops phoning every time someone calls in a harmless situation like this.

And I am concerned with the cop automatically assuming that the photographer was wrong. Perhaps the photographer wasn't even aiming at the car, perhaps he was shooting above. Maybe the father's got it all wrong. But yet the OP got the call and probably has a 'mark' next to his name..its the 'presumed guilty' that concerns me overall.

BTW I apologize, I may have misinterpreted your position on this issue...its been a rather long thread..
littlejohn is offline  
Old Oct 16, 2009, 12:37 AM   #105
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 629
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SharpShotGal View Post

My own picture was used as a means of a overlay in a face shot of an old photo in a Time Life Book
Oh the curse of having a good looking face eh?
littlejohn is offline  
Old Oct 16, 2009, 2:56 AM   #106
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

First of all - the circumstances always matter, and as Chato has frequently pointed out, harassment or causing a public nuisances cannot be excused by carrying a camera at the time. Nor though should the camera (or indeed the later publishing of those images) be an exacerbating factor. The camera is simply irrelevant.

And although I believe we are moving from one end of a spectrum towards the other, there have always been people who react badly to having their picture taken, and indeed people who react badly simply if you look at them for more than a fraction of a second. This is our vicious primate heritage at work. These are the hazards of street photography, and it is becoming more hazardous.

Despite this danger, or perhaps perversely because of it, there is a notion of "fair-play" that many street photographers share. Using a long telephoto lens is not generally regarded as acceptable; the most commonly used focal lengths for street shooting are 28, 35, 50mm-e. If you want a good picture you have to get close to your subject. Long lenses are for surveillance, not street photography.
__________________
My gallery
My X100 blog
peripatetic is offline  
Old Oct 16, 2009, 7:26 AM   #107
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,641
Default

Let me state first that I have no problem with the taking of any picture. Its the use I have a problem with. That said, Ive seen other remarks regarding the lens size and how a telephoto lens is not acceptable. This I dont understand. Whats wrong with the lens size? If you can afford a bigger lens to get right in there why not be able to use it? If as some of you are saying you have every right to do it what should the size of your lens matter. I have a gyzmo which allows me to take photos at right angles to the direction the lens is pointed. This is obviously meant as a deception device. Is this illegal? If taking pictures of anyone is legal and ok why should it matter if the subject knows he/she/it is being photographed?
Bynx is offline  
Old Oct 16, 2009, 8:44 AM   #108
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

There's nothing WRONG with using a telephoto lens for street photography.

There's nothing WRONG with using dynamite for catching fish.

Both seem to rather go against the whole spirit of the enterprise though. :-)
__________________
My gallery
My X100 blog
peripatetic is offline  
Old Oct 16, 2009, 9:03 AM   #109
Senior Member
 
kazuya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,007
Default

i wonder if the parent or police would have acted differantly if it had been a woman or a youngster taking the photo
kazuya is offline  
Old Oct 16, 2009, 9:26 AM   #110
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by littlejohn View Post
And I am concerned with the cop automatically assuming that the photographer was wrong. Perhaps the photographer wasn't even aiming at the car, perhaps he was shooting above. Maybe the father's got it all wrong. But yet the OP got the call and probably has a 'mark' next to his name..its the 'presumed guilty' that concerns me overall.
I would suggest taking another look at what the OP said:
Quote:
The caller introduced himself as Constable ***** of the RCMP. He said that he had received a call from the Father of the little girl who was very concerned about someone taking pictures of his Daughter. ... He seemed to believe me and my wife but I'm sure that I am going to be put on some kind of watch list or something.
So - all the cop told the OP was they got a complaint from someone concerned about the OP taking pictures of his daughter. According to what the OP told us the cop NEVER accused him of anything. Just following up on a complaint. Any fears of being on a 'watch list' are entirely within the mind of the OP. I have several members of my family in law enforcement (father retired police chief and runs a county narcotics bureua) - when I asked him about keeping a 'watch list' of people based on a phone call like this he just laughed. This was a single phone call - not the cop showing up at the house, not taking the OP into the police station. A several minute phone call during which I'm guessing the OP did most of the talking. I think it's an overreaction to say the cop assumed he was guilty. The cop did what he was supposed to do - he interviewed the OP and when he determined there was no crime he let the matter drop. Police talk to people all the time - it's their job. In many cases no one is arrested or charged. This is a FAR cry from other situations my colleagues over at sportsshooter like to talk about when cops actually DO interfere with photographers rights. Anyway, re-read it and see if anything the OP said indicates the cop assumed guilt or that anything besides a several minute conversation took place.
JohnG 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 12:02 PM.