| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/15/2010 02:10:15 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by NathanWert:
My biggest pet peeve isn't cops or guards or anything like that (I've never had that issue), but parents that say I can't take their child's photograph..."IT'S AGAINST THE LAW UNLESS YOU HAVE MY PERMISSION!!!"
Now I'm not saying I'm going out and taking pictures of random kids...these are kids that were on a soccer team with my daughter and I was taking photos to give to the parents after the season was over (I did it each year my daughter was on the team). I was even told by one parent I couldn't post a team portrait on my facebook page (with my daughter in the photo) because it had her kid in it....This is the same photo that about 15 other people took standing around me...and was even posted in the local newspaper for everyone to see.
While I respect other people's privacy...telling me I can't publish a photo with my own kid and her WHOLE team is irritating.
This same parent then asked me "politely" not to take photos of her kid...so I stopped including her child in any photo I took. However, there was one day that the child ASKED me to take her photo with some friends...I told her that her mother didn't want me to...the kid went home and told mom...mom then sent me a pissy email saying what right did I have to tell her kid that I wouldn't take her photo!!! HOLY CRAP WOMAN MAKE UP YOUR MIND!!!! |
Hahaha, I love the jackassery, it makes me laugh! :-D |
same here |
|
|
|
11/15/2010 02:28:46 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by hihosilver:
Hmmmmm...as I read this thread and examined my own feelings on this topic, this issue sprang right out of the realm of legality and the importance of individual/group rights and straight into the realm of common sense.  Yanko's thought "Intimacy breeds authenticity" rang true to me because authenticity indicates an agreement of mutual trust.
In the case of buildings/property and children, when does my right as a photographer entitle me to skip the step of permissibility? Is this step important? Why or why not? Hmmmmm...
Really, I have no answer to this topic other than to listen to what my own horse sense may tell me at the level of sensitivity and awareness required of my presence as a photographer...within different environments.
Johanna...a thought provoking post! |
I know. It's not a clear cut issue. There are legitimate concerns - to a point. For me, it was simply the level of the response. I expected a fully-armed SWAT team to rappel down the walls any second. Remember, I was on an escorted tour of the campus for the sole purpose of documenting everything. |
|
|
|
11/15/2010 02:42:45 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
So, you're saying, in effect, that we should all be willing to give up our rights to make others feel a tad more comfortable? |
I don't think that photography is a right and I'm pretty sure you don't have a right to take pictures of minors whose legal guardians ask you not to. Making others feel a tad more comfortable is good manners, pretty much by definition. |
|
|
|
11/15/2010 02:44:49 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by hihosilver:
Hmmmmm...as I read this thread and examined my own feelings on this topic, this issue sprang right out of the realm of legality and the importance of individual/group rights and straight into the realm of common sense. Yanko's thought "Intimacy breeds authenticity" rang true to me because authenticity indicates an agreement of mutual trust.
In the case of buildings/property and children, when does my right as a photographer entitle me to skip the step of permissibility? Is this step important? Why or why not? Hmmmmm...
Really, I have no answer to this topic other than to listen to what my own horse sense may tell me at the level of sensitivity and awareness required of my presence as a photographer...within different environments.
Johanna...a thought provoking post! |
with the case of people and kids, it all comes down to people not being flat out paranoid.
i think people need to be more concerned about what their kids are doing and uploading then what photographers are getting.
//www.wmmr.com/shows/preston-and-steve/blogentry.aspx?BlogEntryID=10162964
Message edited by author 2010-11-15 14:46:54. |
|
|
|
11/15/2010 02:46:18 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
I know. It's not a clear cut issue. There are legitimate concerns - to a point. For me, it was simply the level of the response. I expected a fully-armed SWAT team to rappel down the walls any second. Remember, I was on an escorted tour of the campus for the sole purpose of documenting everything. |
The S.W.A.T team?!...lol...now those would be some terrific photos!
Obviously, the organizers of the escorted tour were at fault and should have communicated to the parents to make them feel comfortable about the presence of photographers on the site in advance of your tour. Then, they would have welcomed you with open arms and pestered you to death for copies of the photos. I've never had a parent say "No!" to me when I've asked permission to take photos of their kids either at a school event with my own kids or informally at the beach or park. In fact, they usually want copies and make a big effort to get smiles out of their children for the camera. I have not had any negative experiences with any parents at all. |
|
|
|
11/15/2010 02:53:04 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by raish:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
So, you're saying, in effect, that we should all be willing to give up our rights to make others feel a tad more comfortable? |
I don't think that photography is a right and I'm pretty sure you don't have a right to take pictures of minors whose legal guardians ask you not to. Making others feel a tad more comfortable is good manners, pretty much by definition. |
It would seem you and I disagree on the nature of liberty. I feel, that until a law is enacted specifically prohibiting an act, it should be viewed as a freedom, or as I've (perhaps somewhat inappropriately) labeled it, a "right"..
And to be clear, I'm pretty sure I do not have a legal obligation to stop taking pictures of people in public, no matter who asks. (I may, or may not comply, depending on the justification for asking)
Now, let's be clear.. I'm not really the type to cause a stink without cause, but it wasn't long ago that I was walking down the MIDDLE of a local street and a guy (who was quite obviously a drug dealer / shady character) came up to me and started to demand that I stop, as he felt I couldn't stand in the street and photograph his house.. Well, my response was something to the effect of "Shove it, we can call the cops if you'd like, I'm sure they'll clear this up"..
I will not be pushed around, I will not allow people to stop me from doing what is legally allowed if I want to do it. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it should be disallowed.
I guess what bothers me more than anything is that this type of thinking has brought us such wonderful things, including but not limited to:
Prohibition (Alcohol, early 1900's)
The war on drugs (US, 1970's-present)
Airport security (post 2001)
--
All of the above examples are proof of how well this sort of thinking works..
As for me? Ask me politely, with an explanation as to why you are asking, and I'll probably be glad to stop, and even delete photos... Demand anything of me, and you shall only get me to redouble my efforts.
Message edited by author 2010-11-15 14:55:38. |
|
|
|
11/15/2010 02:58:01 PM · #57 |
True...my kids are not quite teenagers (yet) and they are way too prissy to light their hair on fire. That being said...
I do talk to my kids about creating a positive image on the internet. Specifically, because one day, prospective clients, employers, or college recruiters will google their names and videos like that one will not help enlighten their career path.
However, if you want to take a photo of my kids...I want to know who you are.
I deserve that respect.
Thanks.
Message edited by author 2010-11-15 14:58:31. |
|
|
|
11/15/2010 03:18:55 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by hihosilver:
However, if you want to take a photo of my kids...I want to know who you are.
I deserve that respect.
|
I'll just open the lens all the way and blur their faces... |
|
|
|
11/15/2010 03:20:43 PM · #59 |
Both of my daughters have been in the newspaper on separate occasions. At least one was front page! (don't remember about the other off-hand) They're still alive & unmolested. Their names were even given (misspelled-doh) in the captions.
Usually, if I'm at an event around here (Burlington) in Canadaland with my camera, people want to know what paper I shoot for.
But in Toronto these days, Joe Security (around bank towers) will take every opportunity to let you know not to shoot on his private property. If you're in the subway, you've got to be quick to avoid detection. CN Tower security has spoken to me before, but just to ask who I shoot for (nobody). Because if I did shoot for somebody, I needed to get a permit from them.
All because asshole #1 made it a Standard Rule or Procedure, and all the little dumbasses had to follow suit.
I'm still foggy on the legality of photographing prisoners in a public park.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2010 03:25:59 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by hihosilver:
However, if you want to take a photo of my kids...I want to know who you are.
I deserve that respect.
Thanks. |
Who do you feel is responsible for this? Do you really think it is practical for the photographer to seek out the parent of every child on the street, and take them out to coffee? Do you feel you need to confront anyone with a lens, and get their ID (government issued, photo ID of course), so that you know who they are?
In truth, while you seem to make good enough sense, in practical terms what you want is impossible, either due to logistics or the simple fact that you have absolutely no legal right to demand to see someone's ID.
Aside from this, predators are often quite good at blending in, and either not being noticed, or, possess enough skill to lie to your face and make you think you should trust them... Hell I'd even argue that you're potentially putting your child in further danger by actually talking to the person, as that opens a direct line of interest and communication, making your child a more likely target.
My point is, stop the madness, if someone wants to get you or your child, I can promise you that there's nothing you will be able to do to stop them, so just take heart in the statistics, your child is much more likely to be killed by your driving or by falling, or, or or or ororororororororor.....
Message edited by author 2010-11-15 15:38:00. |
|
|
|
11/15/2010 03:26:22 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
I'm still foggy on the legality of photographing prisoners in a public park. |
Legal, but ass-kickingly dangerous. |
|
|
|
11/15/2010 03:28:49 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Both of my daughters have been in the newspaper on separate occasions. At least one was front page! (don't remember about the other off-hand) They're still alive & unmolested. Their names were even given (misspelled-doh) in the captions.
Usually, if I'm at an event around here (Burlington) in Canadaland with my camera, people want to know what paper I shoot for.
But in Toronto these days, Joe Security (around bank towers) will take every opportunity to let you know not to shoot on his private property. If you're in the subway, you've got to be quick to avoid detection. CN Tower security has spoken to me before, but just to ask who I shoot for (nobody). Because if I did shoot for somebody, I needed to get a permit from them.
All because asshole #1 made it a Standard Rule or Procedure, and all the little dumbasses had to follow suit.
I'm still foggy on the legality of photographing prisoners in a public park. |
I've been mulling over the legality of my Military entry, I'm pretty sure I'm in the clear, but legality on this one is a bit fuzzy.. |
|
|
|
11/15/2010 03:34:53 PM · #63 |
FWIW, I am pretty much with  Cory and  BrennanOB on this issue. I have raised 4 kids and am working on a 5th (a 5th child, I mean, not "drinking a fifth" although...). Anyway, I have never had an issue with them being photographed in public by anyone. I think the irrational, unsubstantiated, illogical, emotion-charged atmosphere of fear that drives our social and legal policies these days is destroying us all. |
|
|
|
11/15/2010 03:44:47 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by hihosilver:
However, if you want to take a photo of my kids...I want to know who you are.
I deserve that respect.
|
I'll just open the lens all the way and blur their faces... |
You won't have to make any such effort...my kids have become trained professional experts at dodging the camera...most especially their mother's! ;-/
Message edited by author 2010-11-15 17:02:50. |
|
|
|
11/15/2010 04:57:02 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by raish:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
So, you're saying, in effect, that we should all be willing to give up our rights to make others feel a tad more comfortable? |
I don't think that photography is a right and I'm pretty sure you don't have a right to take pictures of minors whose legal guardians ask you not to. Making others feel a tad more comfortable is good manners, pretty much by definition. |
...and you would be wrong (Except for the Province of Quebec). There does not exist any bona fide expectation of privacy in a public domain, and if the photographer took the image in a public place you have no recourse. You can ask, but there is no legal requirement for them to acquiesce to your demand.
Making others feel a tad more comfortable is indeed good manners and truly a commendable undertaking, but good manners are not prescribed by law.
Ray |
|
|
|
11/15/2010 06:57:10 PM · #66 |
"I will do it until somebody makes a law forbidding it" really does make for a lot of dependency on other people's action and thinking, not to mention attempted delegation, dereliction and general lack of personal responsibility.
We are similar in not wanting to be told what to do, or what not to do, but insofar as I am a convicted criminal then I don't really give a monkey's buggery about the law. I do have some sort of sense of common decency though, uncommon as it may be.
I've hardly a second thought about people taking pictures of my children or grandchildren, but if I'm responsible for other people then I just might make a move.
Having the freedmom to be an arsehole and the freedom to do yourself a favour may just be too much freedom for some small minds. |
|
|
|
11/15/2010 07:26:58 PM · #67 |
In Brittan the average person is captured on a closed circuit camera about 300 times a day. CCCs are pretty darned ubiquitous when shopping at a store or driving down a highway. Podcast cameras are set up at street corners and public parks, and no one seems to mind.
What is it about private persons aiming cameras at strangers that is so frightening to so many people? Why are there so many parents who are frightened that strangers might get hold of an image of their child?
Of course it is rude to intrude on private moments, but if an activity is taking place in public, why would one object to being photographed if one is not afraid of being watched? Who are these predators we fear, and what is it we are afraid they are going to do with these stolen images? I really don't understand this fear that is becoming policy in more and more places. |
|
|
|
11/15/2010 07:50:11 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by raish:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
So, you're saying, in effect, that we should all be willing to give up our rights to make others feel a tad more comfortable? |
I don't think that photography is a right and I'm pretty sure you don't have a right to take pictures of minors whose legal guardians ask you not to. Making others feel a tad more comfortable is good manners, pretty much by definition. |
Perhaps you are correct in Norway, I don't know.
However, in the US, there is no expectation of privacy in public places. That includes children, parents, the family pet, buildings, bridges, skylines, the police, stores etc. This law is well-established and has been for quite some time. In other words, in public, there is no requirement on the part of the photographer to seek consent to photograph someone or something.
Is it good manners to comply with a parent's wishes regarding taking their child's picture in public? Of course.
It's not against the law to have poor manners. |
|
|
|
11/15/2010 07:50:17 PM · #69 |
Hmmmmm...a civilized photographer who has a given invitation may have more opportunies than those who behave like Conan the Barbarian.
And those Big Brother cameras are a whole other topic...
Just my two cents... |
|
|
|
11/15/2010 09:07:59 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
In other words, in public, there is no requirement on the part of the photographer to seek consent to photograph someone or something. |
I think there is much confusion about one's right to take a photo and the right to use the photo. You almost always have the right to take a photo if you are on your own or public property. However inappropriate use of such photos can have serious consequences.
For example, you have the right to photograph any child playing in a public park. However, you are not allowed to use that photo in an advertisement for playground equipment. You could publish it in a newspaper or blog accompanying a story about parks or recreation.
You are allowed to take a picture of the Eiffel Tower at night, but you are not allowed to use it commercially (e.g. on a greeting card or posting as a stock photo); there is a whole list of buildings which are copyrighted, and cannot be used commercially without a license. However, you are perfectly within your rights to include such a photo in your year-end family newsletter or for your kid to include it in a school report.
I've rarely had problems with people not wanting me to take pictures, but personally I wouldn't include them unless there was a really compelling reason to do so. Usually, hen people inquire about what I'm doing, I try to explain and give them a business card. |
|
|
|
11/15/2010 09:09:03 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by hihosilver:
Hmmmmm...a civilized photographer who has a given invitation may have more opportunies than those who behave like Conan the Barbarian. |
There is a big difference in reality between what is legally permissible and what most people will actually do.
I know that I can take pictures of anything I see in public, but that doesn't mean that I shoot everything I see, let alone every kid I see. I read the situation and make a decision on the spot, but I also know what my rights are.
Much of this discussion (and it happens exactly the same way on every photo board I've been on) is people taking the argument to it's logical extremes on both sides.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2010 09:28:05 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
You are allowed to take a picture of the Eiffel Tower at night, but you are not allowed to use it commercially (e.g. on a greeting card or posting as a stock photo); there is a whole list of buildings which are copyrighted, and cannot be used commercially without a license. However, you are perfectly within your rights to include such a photo in your year-end family newsletter or for your kid to include it in a school report. |
In the US, there is a specific exemption to architectural copyright law that allows 'pictorial representation'. As long as the building is visible in public, you can sell pictures of it.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2010 10:28:48 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by alohadave:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
You are allowed to take a picture of the Eiffel Tower at night, but you are not allowed to use it commercially (e.g. on a greeting card or posting as a stock photo); there is a whole list of buildings which are copyrighted, and cannot be used commercially without a license. However, you are perfectly within your rights to include such a photo in your year-end family newsletter or for your kid to include it in a school report. |
In the US, there is a specific exemption to architectural copyright law that allows 'pictorial representation'. As long as the building is visible in public, you can sell pictures of it. |
You can sell individual "fine art" reproductions, but you may still be prohibited from using it "commercially" as in posting as stock or printing up 10,000 calendars.
My point was that it's usually a simple point to decide whether you can take the picture, but the use to which you can put it can be a more complicated issue. |
|
|
|
11/16/2010 01:04:45 AM · #74 |
Originally posted by alohadave:
Much of this discussion (and it happens exactly the same way on every photo board I've been on) is people taking the argument to it's logical extremes on both sides. |
Frankly, this post makes me think my position isn't extreme enough. Why wouldn't a photographer be willing to endeavor to make the parent of a child a partner in the process?
An unwillingness to make crystal clear as to the purpose of the image and to disregard blatantly the parents of a child indicates a severe disrespect, arrogance and blatant selfishness on the part of the photographer. To wrap the "legal" aspect around the argument, doesn't strengthen the position under the more universal law of common sense and human decency.
What's so complicated about that?!
|
|
|
|
11/16/2010 01:12:23 AM · #75 |
I can think of two instances, Mae. First, when the photographer is seeking candid photography and to "make the parent a partner in the process" would ruin the endeavor. Second, when the children are incidental background items. What if there are four kids in the background of your subject?
Anyway, I'm in the middle on this one. I don't do much street photography so I don't have a close association with the "I'm-gonna-do-what-I-want-and-damn-how-you-feel-about-it" mentality, but then again I tend to feel stifled by irrational expectations of others. |
|
