Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > People Photos

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 28, 2009, 8:17 PM   #31
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aladyforty View Post
Id just like to remind everyone that if one took a photo of anything, randomly posted it online, to find it would either be luck or an extensive hunt. so the chances of anything bad coming out of a street shot is unlikely. whatever side you sit on in this debate, surely you can see just how many great images would have never been seen without the candid street photographer, before and after the internet. That would have been a loss I think

It would seem that an art form, celebrated and recognised for Longer than Anyone on this boards has been alive, can not transmute into evil. As you point out the Internet hasn't changed reality. Books of street photography are perused by millions, without any threat at all to people rights or privacy. While some have argued against this in a reasonable manner, most have simply been unable to articulate their opposition.

Should we burn the works of Cartier Bresson?

Fear is the motivating factor here. That in some unknown and undefinable way, the boogyman will come. Your children will be on porn boards, your persona will be stolen by those seeing these images.

So, here's a link to Cartier Bressons work. Better look before they get banned, by those who will rob us of our freedom in the name of preserving it.

YouTube - Henri Cartier Bresson

YouTube - The Decisive Moment - Henri Cartier-Bresson

Dave
Chato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 29, 2009, 11:54 AM   #32
Senior Member
 
Dr. Mr. Vandertramps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 471
Default

so i looked up "woman bag side mirror new york digicams steve's" on google, and guess what: the first image in this thread didn't show up, even when I made the search term more specific.

Bynx, I understand your apprehension but I don't think your concerns are very realistic. In fact, you may have made your fears MORE realistic by putting in type the name of the business in the mirror - text that wouldn't be parsed by a search engine. (even then, searching for woman bag new york side mirror r.m. multiservices turned up nothing relevant). Even if you were sure your wife was having an affair at RM Multiservices, wouldn't it be easier to go and hide in the bushes yourself, rather than fanatically googling in the off chance that Chato took a snap at precisely the right time on precisely the right day of precisely the right person?

The same goes for ANY of your arguments. Worried about a picture of, for example, a 43 year old woman being co-opted for porn overlays? it's probably easier to do this (http://images.google.ca/images?hl=en...=f&oq=&start=0) than to wait for someone to upload a relevant photo to some backwater gear forum on the internet. Think there is a guy who used to be named Sal the Knife who might be living in Omaha? Well google "salvatore omaha" and comb through those results. There are a lot of people in the world, and the chances that a random snapshot on a street contains a person of interest to you are infinitesimal at best.
Dr. Mr. Vandertramps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 29, 2009, 1:18 PM   #33
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

I also realize this is a thread in a Canon specific forum, but take a quick look at some of the photos in this series. Really some nice stuff in there. I'd hate to see an entire art form get shut down even though it's not really my style of photography.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=33164495
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 29, 2009, 1:35 PM   #34
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,646
Default

http://www.montrealmirror.com/2005/080405/news1.html
Unfortunately this only applies to the province of Quebec but Im sure it will spread across Canada if photographer's arent a little more considerate regarding the people they are publishing.
Bynx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 29, 2009, 1:50 PM   #35
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bynx View Post
Unfortunately this only applies to the province of Quebec but Im sure it will spread across Canada if photographer's arent a little more considerate regarding the people they are publishing.
Fortunately 4 years later, Quebec is still the only place in North America where this exists. Fortunately the rest of Canada, US and Mexico have decided such laws are unnecessary. As already stated multiple times - in the US you have no expectation of privacy when you are in public.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 29, 2009, 1:54 PM   #36
Senior Member
 
Dr. Mr. Vandertramps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 471
Default

Bynx, again: if the photos aren't defamatory in any way, what harm's been done? If you are in a public space, people are going to see you. Any person can see you reclining on a bench or strolling down main street. What is the damage to a person? What is different about a photograph? If an artist were painting a portrait of someone sitting on a bench, is that permissible? should we ban architectural photos without consent from the designer as well? Can i take a picture of a field without talking to the landowner? What is the difference?

I also noticed that you were very adamant about the timing of the photo (going up one hour later, etc). What difference does the timing make?

Frankly, I think the quebecois law is ridiculous. I think it is POLITE to ask permission when taking street shots, but by no means necessary. Street photography and candid portraiture depend on realism. By forcing people into the corner and requiring them to get permission in a public place, we become artificial and useless.
Dr. Mr. Vandertramps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 29, 2009, 2:00 PM   #37
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,646
Default

Im a photographer (or at least one who takes photos), so I should welcome that attitude. However, Im an individual, and as an individual, I think I should be treated as something other than an inanimate object. While the law in Quebec might not apply anywhere else, I have to say I agree with it and hope for the day it applies across the continent. It doesnt affect street photography at all. Cameras can still take the pictures. But after the pics are taken, permission must be given before those pics are published.
Bynx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 29, 2009, 2:18 PM   #38
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

People are harmed be concrete acts, and things. Calling an entire ethnic group with racist expressions can be painful. Calling woman by sexist terms can be painful. Having a private conversation with someone who thinks you are a friend, and then to find out he/she has posted it in a newspaper or the Internet is both a betrayal, and certainly painful. And if we outlaw such things, the harm will be to the General Public. Will a criticism of any person of a particular ethnic group be regarded as defamation of the entire group? Will opposing the act of countries like China or Israel be defacto proof of a hatred of Chinese or Jews?

Will someone masquarading as as a civil libertarian be harmed by the revelation that they couldn't care less about civil liberties. Can the banning of one specific aspect of speech be accomplished without opening the door to banning all forms of speech?

I cannot speak about Canada or any other part of the world, but in the United States, all but the most extreme aspects of speech are beyond the power of the authorities to ban. Yet, everyone whose photograph is posted can go to court and claim "harm" and achieve redress even if the photograph is an accurate representation. A drunk, falliing down in front of the bar, can claim "harm," even if they drink and fall down in front of bars every night. Whereas there is no relief possible for an accurate posting of a persons actual speech.

The world is full of countries where the authorities can arbitrarily act against anyone with the smallest of excuses - That Quebec and countries like Germany and France have done so, is not exactly an argument in favor of banning street photography. That France no longer allows people like Cartier Bresson, is their loss, not their gain.

Nor can or should people demand that people watch their mouths, because if they don't speech will be banned. What is the value of a freedom that is never exercised? There is a reason why organisations like the ACLU defend those with whom few agree with. Laws that ban rights are NEVER innitiated against those who are the majority.

We can and do ban those who DO abuse OUR rights of privacy. No one can legally walk around sticking their cameras up a womans skirt. No one can use a long lens to photograph the insides of your home or apartment.

If a person doesn't want their views on race and sex to be public, then let them not speak racist or sexist terms to someone liable to repeat them. Let them not speak these views to the press or on Blogs. And if a person enjoys going naked down the streets in public, then let them not complain that someone took their photograph.

Dave
Chato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 29, 2009, 2:22 PM   #39
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Bynx - we get it. You want photographers to ask permission. You would prefer it's a law (although you still avoid every request to provide the verbiage for such a law).

Lots of things bug me too. I don't like it when a person with body odor sits next to me on a bus. I don't like having to look at someone with face piercings. I hate listening to country music and wish it wasn't played in public - even within acceptable noise limits. I don't like it when newspaper columnists publish extreme right or extreme left articles without the opposing viewpoints. I think all these people should have to ask my permission before doing these things which I have to endure (but do me no harm).

What do these things all have in common? Why they are all protected rights. And, just like street photography, although I don't like them they don't do me any harm. So fortunately there is enough common sense to realize we shouldn't legislate something just because some people don't like it.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 29, 2009, 3:03 PM   #40
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,646
Default

Holy mackerel, dont get me going on face piercings.
Bynx is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


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 1:46 AM.