| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/01/2013 04:30:35 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by Cory:
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. |
maybe, but considering he was drinking in an outdoor cafe with a couple similarly outfitted gents, i was thinking he was probably a member of a different organization.
|
|
|
|
01/01/2013 06:08:00 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by Skip:
Originally posted by Cory:
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. |
maybe, but considering he was drinking in an outdoor cafe with a couple similarly outfitted gents, i was thinking he was probably a member of a different organization. |
The CIA? |
|
|
|
01/01/2013 06:09:57 PM · #103 |
|
|
|
01/01/2013 07:57:22 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Skip:
Originally posted by Cory:
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. |
maybe, but considering he was drinking in an outdoor cafe with a couple similarly outfitted gents, i was thinking he was probably a member of a different organization. |
The CIA? |
25 years ago in Miami? There's a good variety of characters to choose from. |
|
|
|
01/01/2013 11:17:41 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by PW321:
Actually I do have a reasonable right to privacy and I certainly have the right to prevent you posting a recognisable image of me on the internet (data protection act specifically covers this). You also do not have the right to profit from my image in any way without my consent and you can not take a picture that harasses, defames, libels, or otherwise causes me harm. The only REAL circumstance I have no right to privacy is if you are an accredited press photographer and I'm in the middle of an event that the public has a "right to know about" and even then you still can't just photograph anything and publish it because there are the victim's right to privacy to be considered as well.
And I can assure you that I can make an extremely good case for mental distress if you try to ignore my request to not photograph me or delete my photo if you have already taken it. I would also make an extremely strong case for harm if you do go ahead and post my recognisable image on the internet because by doing so you have placed me in harm's way of any one using the net who wanted to do anything with that photo. There is no control over where an image ends up once it's on the net. Anyone who posts pictures of themselves on the net is asking for trouble. Pictures get used by certain social networking sites for all kinds of things including porn. (Cite one housewife in Singapore as the most recent example of this) Photos of kids get taken and used in places you don't want to know about. (Cite photo of kids fishing that was posted in an online competition forum much like this one that was photoshopped and put on several porn sites) I can go on and on listing examples of how posting photos online is definitively without doubt putting me in harm's way. Especially when I can prove that no other photos of me exist online except yours. So yeah ... if you want to try ... go ahead ... but I think I will win in the end. |
You are correct, the Data Protection Act does indeed address this issue. section 32 of part IV spells it out: Under Journalism, literature and art, "1) Personal data which are processed only for the special purposes are exempt from any provision to which this subsection relates if—
(a)the processing is undertaken with a view to the publication by any person of any journalistic, literary or artistic material,
(b)the data controller reasonably believes that, having regard in particular to the special importance of the public interest in freedom of expression, publication would be in the public interest, and
(c)the data controller reasonably believes that, in all the circumstances, compliance with that provision is incompatible with the special purposes."
The above comes directly from the DPA legislation. So it does sound that you are incorrect in your assumptions. You can read more about it in Legal Guidance a paper put out by the information commissioners office.
Can you cite any legal challenges and precedents to the exemptions?
|
|
|
|
01/02/2013 12:05:53 AM · #106 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
You are correct, the Data Protection Act does indeed address this issue. section 32 of part IV spells it out: Under Journalism, literature and art, "1) Personal data which are processed only for the special purposes are exempt from any provision to which this subsection relates if—
(a)the processing is undertaken with a view to the publication by any person of any journalistic, literary or artistic material,
(b)the data controller reasonably believes that, having regard in particular to the special importance of the public interest in freedom of expression, publication would be in the public interest, and
(c)the data controller reasonably believes that, in all the circumstances, compliance with that provision is incompatible with the special purposes." |
That's incredibly opaque language. Impossible to parse it... |
|
|
|
01/02/2013 04:03:40 AM · #107 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
You are correct, the Data Protection Act does indeed address this issue. section 32 of part IV spells it out: Under Journalism, literature and art, "1) Personal data which are processed only for the special purposes are exempt from any provision to which this subsection relates if—
(a)the processing is undertaken with a view to the publication by any person of any journalistic, literary or artistic material,
(b)the data controller reasonably believes that, having regard in particular to the special importance of the public interest in freedom of expression, publication would be in the public interest, and
(c)the data controller reasonably believes that, in all the circumstances, compliance with that provision is incompatible with the special purposes." |
That's incredibly opaque language. Impossible to parse it... |
I had problems with understanding the language myself and had to reread a number of times but the way I understand it, Robert, is that the "special purposes" are journalistic, literary, or artistic and anyone intent on publishing personal data for these purposes, and, if the publishing of such data is important for issues of freedom of speech, and, compliance with the DPA is incompatible with these purposes, then the person in control of this data is exempt from the provisions of the DPA and allowed to publish without permission. I don't know if I've made any more sense of it for you but that's why I posted the other web site from the information commissioner of the UK. |
|
|
|
01/02/2013 05:08:33 AM · #108 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
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. |
Some time last year I was shooting the street in and around Times Square in NYC when a woman came up to me yelling that I had no right to photograph people there without permission. (I had seen her with another guy a few blocks earlier, they were both very recognizable because of multiple tattoos, piercings and multiple hair coloring.) I hadn't photographed her or her companion so I argued back in principle but this just escalated to a shouting match. When I challenged her to call a cop to see what his/her take on it was she backed down and left.
I had a plastic bag tied securely to my backpack straps just hanging down filled with snacks. When I reached to get some food out of it a little later I realized it was gone. I had thought that it probably fell off, but when I took off the backpack I saw that it had been cut off and then I realized that it was probably the woman's companion who did the deed. She probably had acted in concert with this guy to distract me and had we both continued with the heated discussion he may have even unzipped my backpack and reached in to lift out some of my other gear.
I had learned a few important lessons that day. If someone confronts you angrily just smile, wave and walk away. An apology may be appropriate but don't hang around. Keep wallets and other personal matter in front pockets. I now insert a small combination lock through the zippers of my backpack so it can't be opened easily and without me noticing. I also wear a large sized fannie pack over my lower abdomen so that I can quickly secure my camera. It does double duty as it holds a second lens and makes lens changes a lot easier without having to remove my backpack. Make sure the fannie pack belt is thick and made of tough material so it can't be cut easily. Finally, have a cell phone handy if needed to call the authorities. Hopefully, it never escalates to that stage. Of course, arguing the matter here on DPC you just have to make sure you don't lose your sanity. |
|
|
|
02/01/2013 04:14:51 PM · #109 |
On a similar topic, here is an article about a woman that was upset she was photographed praying in public after the Sandy Hook school shooting. She was mad the photographer did not request permission after taking the picture. He says he left her alone out of respect for her private moment.
Photo of Woman Praying Causes Debate About Photojournalism and Privacy |
|
|
|
02/01/2013 04:43:58 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by markwiley:
On a similar topic, here is an article about a woman that was upset she was photographed praying in public after the Sandy Hook school shooting. She was mad the photographer did not request permission after taking the picture. He says he left her alone out of respect for her private moment.
Photo of Woman Praying Causes Debate About Photojournalism and Privacy |
Saw this earlier. I still side with the photographer. |
|
|
|
02/01/2013 06:14:55 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by IAmEliKatz:
Originally posted by markwiley:
On a similar topic, here is an article about a woman that was upset she was photographed praying in public after the Sandy Hook school shooting. She was mad the photographer did not request permission after taking the picture. He says he left her alone out of respect for her private moment.
Photo of Woman Praying Causes Debate About Photojournalism and Privacy |
Saw this earlier. I still side with the photographer. |
+1
|
|
|
|
02/01/2013 06:51:13 PM · #112 |
| I think I wouldn't make a good photojournalist. I'd be too busy worrying about being a good person (and by then the shot would be gone). |
|
|
|
02/01/2013 07:21:32 PM · #113 |
I realize some see street photography as disrespectful and intrusive. There are some prominent DPCers who have made it clear that they donèt shoot street photography for these reasons alone.
Well, itès only because in that case you can actually see the photog.
IMNSHO, if youère out in a street in a metropolitan centre, you should expect to be photographed - because even if you donèt know it, there are hundreds if not thousands of cameras quietly recording you from atop buildings, street corner lamps etc etc. The bigger the city the more this applies. Go into any corner store or gas station, glance up, eh wala, there is probably a big ol fisheye mirror with a camera behind it.
So if I were to glance over and see another photog targeting me in particular when they have a whole streetful of people to choose from....hell, I would be flattered to be found more interesting than everyone else, to that particular photog in that particular moment of time. Would I stop and pose...hell no. I would carry on doing whatever I was doing. Maybe I would start shooting them, just to remind them that itès a two-way street, and I can take just as much liberties as they are with me!
And if your subject sees you and obviously does not want their pic taken...well...depending on where you are and the nature of your subject, take it from there.
Life is all about risks. More to the point, calculated risks. Calculated risks are what kept me alive and not crippled up and or dead when I was training horses. Question is, how much risk are you comfortable with....discuss.
Message edited by author 2013-02-01 19:27:50. |
|
|
|
02/01/2013 07:31:53 PM · #114 |
| Every time I see this thread title, I get it confused with the gun thread. ;D |
|
|
|
02/01/2013 08:02:17 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Every time I see this thread title, I get it confused with the gun thread. ;D |
Speaking of which we need to ban the long telephoto "assault" lenses for street photography. it's the streets not the Sahara. |
|
|
|
02/01/2013 08:10:32 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Every time I see this thread title, I get it confused with the gun thread. ;D |
Speaking of which we need to ban the long telephoto "assault" lenses for street photography. it's the streets not the Sahara. |
Don't look at me, I've only got a 28-135. ;o |
|
|
|
02/01/2013 08:14:24 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by snaffles:
So if I were to glance over and see another photog targeting me in particular when they have a whole streetful of people to choose from....Maybe I would start shooting them, just to remind them that itès a two-way street, and I can take just as much liberties as they are with me! |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Every time I see this thread title, I get it confused with the gun thread. ;D |
Speaking of which we need to ban the long telephoto "assault" lenses for street photography. it's the streets not the Sahara. |
 |
|
|
|
02/01/2013 09:32:45 PM · #118 |
Anything goes. The result is all. The pleasures enormous. Go get them, shoot shoot shoot!
Why not a 400mm? If you shoot animals, do you go for a 10-22mm? Come on, street photography is exactly what it is. What I see, I saw. What my camera see was seen and captured.
Invasion of privacy my arse. Where I live all I have to do is look up and see those round eyed glass eyes following and recording my every move. The government does it for all the wrong reasons, I do it for all the whatever reasons. Are we getting so used to being controlled that we now only discuss the extend?
Truth, I shot my best streets with my 100mm f/2.8 macro. And whenever I shot someone who saw me, I go to them and show the image. 99% are more than happy. The odd one wants me to remove it, which I then do. Also; settle at on spot and stay there, people get use to you and even ask for a picture to be taken. Obviously those who did not notice are entirely depending on the photographer's integrity. Example: shooting a one man band performing and later noticing a lady sitting in a compromising position; keep it, post it or delete it? She is unknowingly hoping you will do the right thing. And so do all of us. And if someone wants to shoot me, man I will be the best actor he/she can ask for. After all, if I can take it I should give it. You will be surprised how many of my street portraits float around Seoul and see if I care. |
|
|
|
02/01/2013 11:28:53 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Speaking of which we need to ban the long telephoto "assault" lenses for street photography. it's the streets not the Sahara. |
Indeed. Saw it off.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2013 12:02:52 AM · #120 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Every time I see this thread title, I get it confused with the gun thread. ;D |
Lol - me too! |
|
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: 08/02/2025 08:24:24 AM EDT.
