DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Ethics of Shooting Random Strangers on the Street
Pages:  
Showing posts 76 - 100 of 120, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 12/30/2012 02:45:00 AM · #76
A Canadian legal view . It's a slippery slope and an easy one to construct a straw man argument from. What if you were depicted in an oil painting, or inadvertently identified in a reflection. What if my child sues me later in life for the horrible shots I've taken, what of my pets?
 12/30/2012 03:09:06 AM · #77
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by alohadave:
On the contrary, I think he's being intentionally obtuse and seeing things through his own distorted perception of how he thinks the world should work. Plenty of people have pointed out (politely) the real deal and he doesn't care.

It doesn't really matter what we say though, because he's a true believer in his way of seeing the world. Nothing anyone says will change his mind because he's not interested in any possibility that his worldview might be wrong.


Yeah but those are great things to have in rant. DrAchoo is getting old and Cory can't possibly continue his maniac pace forever so he could very well be the next heir apparent.


ROFL..
 12/30/2012 03:19:18 AM · #78
Personally I wouldn't have a camera if I couldn't shoot street. In ten years or so the hyper individualistic self protectionist attitude that is found in certain countries will have probably spread to the people in these parts and my camera will be forever put on a shelf. People are just becoming so inflexible and full of self importance, we will lose all that is fun and spontaneous and we'll only be punishing ourselves.
What in fact are we protecting and have you ever looked for it ?
Solid intransigent personalities built on the nothingness we all fear will lead to a shitty dried up sad society.


Message edited by author 2012-12-30 03:46:30.
 12/30/2012 06:44:56 AM · #79
Very true John.

Not sure I understand it but ...................must be.
 12/30/2012 11:14:13 AM · #80
Originally posted by PW321:
Actually I am not unaware of what is legal and what is not. On photography websites there is a general perception that goes like this "If you're in public and I have a camera I can do what I like and there isn't a thing you can do about it" Swop over to legal websites discussing the same issues with lawyers and you get a different picture entirely. From a legal standpoint there is a distinction made between the press and joe public with camera. If you are assuming you have the same freedoms as the press you are wrong. The people who have said that no-one has ever sucessfully sued over photographs misrepresenting them, being distributed on the net etc without permission are also incorrect. And yes there is also the moral/ethical aspect. Some people have personal, religious, and cultural reasons for not wanting to be photographed and photographers would do well to be more mindful of that because I see a distinct disregard for it amongst "street photography". Some small minority might be more aware than others but my overwhelming impression is that street togs basically don't care.

And from a personal POV that attitude gets my back up. When you do what you want with no regard for how some one else feels about it you are not just being a self-centered jerk but being abusive as well.

And whether you guys want to admit it or not it is getting harder to take photos in public. Try hanging around kids with a camera these days for starters. A larger number of places you think are public are banning photography - malls, buildings, playgrounds. Certain landmarks can't be photographed without permission and paying a fee. And it's not going to get better.

And yes I am unhappy about the level of intrusion into my privacy in the interest of "safety".


There's no legal requirement to be polite, nor should you assume that you have the right to expect it.

There have been lengthy discussions about the difference between publicly accessible private areas such as malls, WalMart, etc. And you can photograph anything you can see from public property without paying a fee, you just can't use that photograph commercially. It seems you remain confused.

12/30/2012 01:10:42 PM · #81
Originally posted by jagar:
Solid intransigent personalities built on the nothingness we all fear will lead to a shitty dried up sad society.


It dose amaze me that in a time when the average person's image is being photographed 300 times a day in Britain by governmental and business entities and who only worries about the misuse of their image by street photographers. You would think that our constantly being monitored by big brother would make us less sensitive to having a stranger take the occasional photo of us on the street, instead there is this lashing out against having that 301st image taken, perhaps because that is the only one of all the images taken of us that day where we can see the person behind the camera.
 12/30/2012 03:32:51 PM · #82
Seems to me that you should just consider yourself recorded, at all times, unless you are in your private home... (and even then it's questionable)

//tech.slashdot.org/story/12/12/30/1716257/moscow-plane-crash-caught-on-passerbys-dash-cam
 12/31/2012 01:01:41 AM · #83
Does that make it RIGHT? That argument is like saying because X number of people committed murder last year, that I can too. It's an entirely fallacious argument to say that because so many other people are doing it, it makes it valid for me to do as I like. Security footage is kept secure and there are many means of redress if security footage is released onto the net for example. There are also many restrictions on where security cameras are set up and most of the time that footage is not kept forever and a day so comparing your photographs to security footage is just ridiculous.
 12/31/2012 01:37:00 AM · #84
Originally posted by PW321:
Does that make it RIGHT? That argument is like saying because X number of people committed murder last year, that I can too. It's an entirely fallacious argument to say that because so many other people are doing it, it makes it valid for me to do as I like. Security footage is kept secure and there are many means of redress if security footage is released onto the net for example. There are also many restrictions on where security cameras are set up and most of the time that footage is not kept forever and a day so comparing your photographs to security footage is just ridiculous.


Morally right? maybe not. Legally right, you better believe it.

And no, security footage isn't "secure". Security camera footage is only restricted by company policy, assuming there is one. By entering their premises, you've given consent and surrendered any means of redress. Remember this YouTube video?? The security guard was fired for violating company policy by posting it, but despite her threats, the lady's lawsuit against the mall went nowhere.

Someone could have a camera in their store aimed out at the street/sidealk with a direct feed to a website and you couldn't do a damn thing besides not shop there.

Message edited by author 2012-12-31 01:40:37.
 12/31/2012 08:46:45 AM · #85
PW321 here's the thing. it legal for photographers to do it, so they will. it doesn't matter if you object or not. Just like abortion or any other controversial right its legal for people to exercise those rights and they do.

at this moment if you don't want to be photographed, you need to take the measures to keep yourself from being photographed, asking people to not exercise their rights so you feel more comfortable is fine but don't expect it if they refuse. Just know that if they do, you can't threaten a legal course of action.

Honestly your best approach is to walk up to the photographer and say "I know you are within your rights to photograph me, but I'd feel more comfortable if you didn't." It the ONLY thing you can do. Well i guess you could use force but no you open yourself up to legal recourse.

its not what you want to hear but i don't know what else to tell you.
 12/31/2012 09:02:58 AM · #86
Originally posted by mike_311:
Honestly your best approach is to walk up to the photographer and say "I know you are within your rights to photograph me, but I'd feel more comfortable if you didn't." It the ONLY thing you can do.


++

99% of people will stop shooting you if you are polite and ask nicely.
 12/31/2012 11:32:09 AM · #87
Originally posted by alohadave:
Originally posted by mike_311:
Honestly your best approach is to walk up to the photographer and say "I know you are within your rights to photograph me, but I'd feel more comfortable if you didn't." It the ONLY thing you can do.


++

99% of people will stop shooting you if you are polite and ask nicely.


And there is the voice of reason.
 12/31/2012 12:14:57 PM · #88
Originally posted by Jon_H:
Originally posted by alohadave:
Originally posted by mike_311:
Honestly your best approach is to walk up to the photographer and say "I know you are within your rights to photograph me, but I'd feel more comfortable if you didn't." It the ONLY thing you can do.


++

99% of people will stop shooting you if you are polite and ask nicely.


And there is the voice of reason.


PW has shouted down that voice before...

Message edited by author 2012-12-31 12:15:50.
 12/31/2012 12:15:29 PM · #89
.

Message edited by author 2012-12-31 12:16:15.
 12/31/2012 02:28:25 PM · #90
Would it be wrong to say I was shooting street at the weekend ???
 12/31/2012 06:12:39 PM · #91
Originally posted by PW321:
Does that make it RIGHT? That argument is like saying because X number of people committed murder last year, that I can too. It's an entirely fallacious argument to say that because so many other people are doing it, it makes it valid for me to do as I like. Security footage is kept secure and there are many means of redress if security footage is released onto the net for example. There are also many restrictions on where security cameras are set up and most of the time that footage is not kept forever and a day so comparing your photographs to security footage is just ridiculous.


Actually no... there are laws against murder, but none dealing with the situation you allude to, with the possible exception of street photography in the Province of Quebec and the taking of images of children in some countries.

Perhaps it would be best if you simply faced the fact that you came out guns blazing, made unsubstantiated assertions, was taken to task for it and now cannot bring yourself to admit that in a legal perspective that your are wrong.

It may not be right, but it certainly is not illegal and in no way compares to murder and other similar nefarious acts.

Ray

01/01/2013 11:57:07 AM · #92
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Hey. Don't go lump me with the crazies Richard. Although I am getting old.


Just to start 2013 on a totally different note... I agree with DrAchoo regarding the second sentence.

It's going to be a year full of surprises. :O)

Ray
 01/01/2013 12:04:41 PM · #93
Originally posted by Jon_H:
Would it be wrong to say I was shooting street at the weekend ???

:) so was I !
 01/01/2013 12:46:13 PM · #94
Originally posted by salmiakki:
Originally posted by Jon_H:
Would it be wrong to say I was shooting street at the weekend ???

:) so was I !


I thought I saw you ;)
 01/01/2013 02:41:02 PM · #95
Originally posted by alohadave:
99% of people will stop shooting you if you are polite and ask nicely.

about 25 years ago i was with some friends, wandering around south beach, miami on a nice december afternoon, with my camera, grabbing shots here and there. i pointed my camera in one direction and noticed a dark-haired gentleman dressed in black, with dark shades and a heavy 5 o'clock shadow gently lift open his jacket while pointing inside the jacket with his other hand. i heeded his polite request...
 01/01/2013 03:12:04 PM · #96
Originally posted by Skip:
Originally posted by alohadave:
99% of people will stop shooting you if you are polite and ask nicely.

about 25 years ago i was with some friends, wandering around south beach, miami on a nice december afternoon, with my camera, grabbing shots here and there. i pointed my camera in one direction and noticed a dark-haired gentleman dressed in black, with dark shades and a heavy 5 o'clock shadow gently lift open his jacket while pointing inside the jacket with his other hand. i heeded his polite request...


Sounds about right... For all it's worth he might well have been a cop - only recently did the police chief actually order his guys to stop harassing photographers after a few high profile screw ups.
 01/01/2013 03:23:44 PM · #97
Well there we have it. Someone send someone some shades, a dark suit and some stubble.
 01/01/2013 03:28:21 PM · #98
Originally posted by PW321:
If you take a 'candid' shot of me in the street and publish my image without my permission TRUST ME I will sue you for infringement of my rights.

One of the things that has me puzzled these days are the people who think they know so much about the law that they will walk up to me when I am shooting something and tell me I cannot shoot whatever it is.....when they are in fact, dead flat wrong.

To hear this same garbage coming from someone who is a photographer just blows my mind. PW321, I don't know where you're coming from, or where you're going, but you don't have a clue. Some of these folks you're talking down to have been on this merry-go-round for a long time and know of what they speak. You obviously don't.

And coming from some n00b, your condescending attitude toward a bunch of people you don't know is appalling. I've been on at least a dozen GTGs with these folks, and different groups of them in different places.......they have all been conscientious, courteous, and fun to be with out in public. I never experienced any of them being chased, asked to desist, or in general deport themselves in anything but the most decent of manner.

Originally posted by PW321:
this thread is titled "ethics of street photography" now I would think that giving proper consideration to how people feel about being photographed and how you should react when they object is part of the ethics and yet all I'm hearing is just how little regard there is.

And people wonder why certain kinds of photographers are regarded as lower life forms and there is a growing backlash against people taking photos of just about anything.

Next time you walk around hiding your camera in public because you jolly well know people aren't keen on being photographed and standing on your "right" to do as you please just remember you are contributing to the negative opinion that will eventually result in various restrictions being imposed.

Your choice really - continue as a collective group to show little or no respect for people or start to change before the change is imposed upon you.

This post above is what pretty much did it for me. You don't know a damn thing about any one of us. You jump into a thread, tell us we don't know what we're taking about, then get shitty when we back you down?

Have a nice day.......somewhere else, would ya?

Message edited by author 2013-01-01 15:30:18.
 01/01/2013 03:38:27 PM · #99
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by PW321:
If you take a 'candid' shot of me in the street and publish my image without my permission TRUST ME I will sue you for infringement of my rights.

One of the things that has me puzzled these days are the people who think they know so much about the law that they will walk up to me when I am shooting something and tell me I cannot shoot whatever it is.....when they are in fact, dead flat wrong.

To hear this same garbage coming from someone who is a photographer just blows my mind. PW321, I don't know where you're coming from, or where you're going, but you don't have a clue. Some of these folks you're talking down to have been on this merry-go-round for a long time and know of what they speak. You obviously don't.

And coming from some n00b, your condescending attitude toward a bunch of people you don't know is appalling. I've been on at least a dozen GTGs with these folks, and different groups of them in different places.......they have all been conscientious, courteous, and fun to be with out in public. I never experienced any of them being chased, asked to desist, or in general deport themselves in anything but the most decent of manner.

Originally posted by PW321:
this thread is titled "ethics of street photography" now I would think that giving proper consideration to how people feel about being photographed and how you should react when they object is part of the ethics and yet all I'm hearing is just how little regard there is.

And people wonder why certain kinds of photographers are regarded as lower life forms and there is a growing backlash against people taking photos of just about anything.

Next time you walk around hiding your camera in public because you jolly well know people aren't keen on being photographed and standing on your "right" to do as you please just remember you are contributing to the negative opinion that will eventually result in various restrictions being imposed.

Your choice really - continue as a collective group to show little or no respect for people or start to change before the change is imposed upon you.

This post above is what pretty much did it for me. You don't know a damn thing about any one of us. You jump into a thread, tell us we don't know what we're taking about, then get shitty when we back you down?

Have a nice day.......somewhere else, would ya?


Well said.
 01/01/2013 03:51:21 PM · #100
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by PW321:
If you take a 'candid' shot of me in the street and publish my image without my permission TRUST ME I will sue you for infringement of my rights.

One of the things that has me puzzled these days are the people who think they know so much about the law that they will walk up to me when I am shooting something and tell me I cannot shoot whatever it is.....when they are in fact, dead flat wrong.
I normally carry copies of these in my bag at any given time. It's amazing because I had one person adamant I was in the wrong. Apparently citing your own ass carries more weight than any law out there.

Message edited by author 2013-01-01 15:51:31.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/05/2025 05:12:25 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/05/2025 05:12:25 AM EDT.