# Photographing homeless people - OK or not?



## Ilovemycam (Oct 30, 2012)

Photographing homeless people 

OK or not?


Edit: I mean from the moral point of view. Like some people say do not take pix of homeless as it is not the right thing to do.


----------



## nmoody (Oct 30, 2012)

If they are in public I dont see why not. Now making money off the photo's you take of them is a different story.


----------



## Ilovemycam (Oct 30, 2012)

nmoody said:


> If they are in public I dont see why not. Now making money off the photo's you take of them is a different story.



Sorry for the confusion. I mean moral point of view. Like some people say do not take pix of homless as it is not right type of thing.


----------



## snowbear (Oct 30, 2012)

I think it depends on the intent: journalistic is fine, but not for exploitation (including political)


----------



## nmoody (Oct 30, 2012)

Moral points are more of a personal thing. I have seen a trend in the most successful photographers having little to no morals for things like this. Its what gets them that difficult shot that nobody else is willing to get. They do whatever it takes to get that amazing picture regardless of the costs.

Now that being said, I wouldn't want to pester a homeless person and give them a reason to bother me.


----------



## ph0enix (Oct 30, 2012)

nmoody said:


> Moral points are more of a personal thing. I have seen a trend in the most successful photographers having little to no morals for things like this. Its what gets them that difficult shot that nobody else is willing to get. They do whatever it takes to get that amazing picture regardless of the costs.
> 
> Now that being said, I wouldn't want to pester a homeless person and give them a reason to bother me.



That's what super-telephoto lenses are for.  Get close without them knowing


----------



## pixmedic (Oct 30, 2012)

do you want someone taking pictures of you or your kids or family for whatever reason and posting them for critique all over internet photography websites, or instagram or facebook? why would you photograph a homeless person? because you think they are interesting? you want to document their lives in some way? (because that of course would be totally original) I don't imagine that many of us would want some random person taking pictures of us for any use or any reason. why is it "photographers" tend to feel like they are some special exception? they hide behind "public property" rules and feel that it justifies that overly creepy behavior. (im not talking about taking landscape picture where people just happen to get in the way) how would any of you feel if you logged in one day and found someone posted pictures of your children or spouse up here while you were at the park?
would you ask them to remove them? would you be upset? would the site actually make them be removed if it was taken on public property? I imagine that to be a pretty helpless feeling. personally, it is not something I would like done to MY family, so we don't photograph people without their permission.


----------



## JSER (Oct 30, 2012)

Ilovemycam said:


> nmoody said:
> 
> 
> > If they are in public I dont see why not. Now making money off the photo's you take of them is a different story.
> ...



Rubbish, all you do is either shoot with a 400mm or ask and offer to buy them a drink 

"I hope you don't mind me asking but would you mind if I took your photograph, it is my hobby, I am happy to buy you a coffee for your trouble"

BUT beware some especially drunks and junkies will NOT like it.

I was simply putting my camera in the car and one rudely asked and accused me of taking his photo, i explained politely that I was not, but was prepared for his attitude.


----------



## JSER (Oct 30, 2012)

pixmedic said:


> do you want someone taking pictures of you or your kids or family for whatever reason and posting them for critique all over internet photography websites, or instagram or facebook? why would you photograph a homeless person? because you think they are interesting? you want to document their lives in some way? (because that of course would be totally original) I don't imagine that many of us would want some random person taking pictures of us for any use or any reason. why is it "photographers" tend to feel like they are some special exception? they hide behind "public property" rules and feel that it justifies that overly creepy behavior. (im not talking about taking landscape picture where people just happen to get in the way) how would any of you feel if you logged in one day and found someone posted pictures of your children or spouse up here while you were at the park?
> would you ask them to remove them? would you be upset? would the site actually make them be removed if it was taken on public property? I imagine that to be a pretty helpless feeling. personally, it is not something I would like done to MY family, so we don't photograph people without their permission.



Well duh......

That is photography.

YOU and YOUR FAMILY are on video wherever you go 24/7 complain to the CCTV police and others.

THEY do NOT ask and you have NO choice


----------



## pixmedic (Oct 30, 2012)

JSER said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > do you want someone taking pictures of you or your kids or family for whatever reason and posting them for critique all over internet photography websites, or instagram or facebook? why would you photograph a homeless person? because you think they are interesting? you want to document their lives in some way? (because that of course would be totally original) I don't imagine that many of us would want some random person taking pictures of us for any use or any reason. why is it "photographers" tend to feel like they are some special exception? they hide behind "public property" rules and feel that it justifies that overly creepy behavior. (im not talking about taking landscape picture where people just happen to get in the way) how would any of you feel if you logged in one day and found someone posted pictures of your children or spouse up here while you were at the park?
> ...



but they arent put up on display asking for C&C. if you dont understand the difference between security cameras and photographers..i really dont have the time nor the inclination to explain it if you really believe they are the same thing.
the intent is the difference.


----------



## tirediron (Oct 30, 2012)

*Not even off of the first page and I can already see serious potential for a derailment...  Let's keep things to a civil discussion, k?

Thanks!*


----------



## bhop (Oct 30, 2012)

Here we go again.. why do people care if their pics are on the internet?  What's the fear?  What are you afraid will happen?  Someone will look at it?  I don't get it.. personally I don't care if someone takes my pic and posts it on the internet.  I go out in public.. it's no different really, people see me there.

As for the original question.  If it makes for an interesting photo, I don't see the problem.


----------



## pixmedic (Oct 30, 2012)

OP asked for the moral point of view. Just gave mine. sorry if it goes against the grain.


----------



## bhop (Oct 30, 2012)

pixmedic said:


> OP asked for the moral point of view. Just gave mine. sorry if it goes against the grain.



You're certainly entitled to your views on the subject.  I just don't understand what the big deal is.. not just from your comments, but generally speaking to anyone with similar thoughts.  What's the big fear?


----------



## pixmedic (Oct 30, 2012)

bhop said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > OP asked for the moral point of view. Just gave mine. sorry if it goes against the grain.
> ...



it isnt necessarily about fear.. although that might be an issue for some. for me, it is about respect. why would you feel the need to photograph someone else that has no desire to be photographed? or that you dont even KNOW if they do or not? just because you legally can? Is the justification only that they are outside in public so its ok? that is entirely self serving using someone else that gains no benefit from their unwilling participation. 

I just personally need a little more than that before I am willing to start taking photos of people that are unaware of it. that's just me personally. 
obviously there is no legal issues with it so...from that aspect, shoot away. i am only speaking to my own personal feelings on the matter...which is what the OP asked for.


----------



## SCraig (Oct 30, 2012)

pixmedic said:


> OP asked for the moral point of view. Just gave mine. sorry if it goes against the grain.



It doesn't go against the grain with me.  I happen to agree with it.

IMO people have an intrinsic right to privacy.  Doesn't matter if they are in a public place or not, they still have a right to a certain amount of privacy in my opinion.  In the case of homeless people where else are they going to go?  Their home is the street and they have no place that is private.

I personally don't photograph people on the street unless it is at an event where they would expect to be photographed.  Costume events such as a Renaissance Festival or a Zombie Walk or things like that come to mind, and these are the only places I photograph people.  My rules for my personal behavior.  Your rules may vary.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 30, 2012)

pixmedic said:


> do you want someone taking pictures of you or your kids or family for whatever reason and posting them for critique all over internet photography websites, or instagram or facebook? why would you photograph a homeless person? because you think they are interesting? you want to document their lives in some way? (because that of course would be totally original) I don't imagine that many of us would want some random person taking pictures of us for any use or any reason. why is it "photographers" tend to feel like they are some special exception? they hide behind "public property" rules and feel that it justifies that overly creepy behavior. (im not talking about taking landscape picture where people just happen to get in the way) how would any of you feel if you logged in one day and found someone posted pictures of your children or spouse up here while you were at the park?
> would you ask them to remove them? would you be upset? would the site actually make them be removed if it was taken on public property? I imagine that to be a pretty helpless feeling. personally, it is not something I would like done to MY family, so we don't photograph people without their permission.



Youn would be really pissed if i lived in Eustis Florida, if they are in public they are fair game, so to your questions my answers are NO, NO, NO


----------



## gsgary (Oct 30, 2012)

pixmedic said:


> JSER said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...



This really upset me when someone posted a photo of my dog 
Gallery - Category: 23/09/2012 - Hathersage - Image: 23-09-2012 - Hathersage_22


----------



## pixmedic (Oct 30, 2012)

gsgary said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > do you want someone taking pictures of you or your kids or family for whatever reason and posting them for critique all over internet photography websites, or instagram or facebook? why would you photograph a homeless person? because you think they are interesting? you want to document their lives in some way? (because that of course would be totally original) I don't imagine that many of us would want some random person taking pictures of us for any use or any reason. why is it "photographers" tend to feel like they are some special exception? they hide behind "public property" rules and feel that it justifies that overly creepy behavior. (im not talking about taking landscape picture where people just happen to get in the way) how would any of you feel if you logged in one day and found someone posted pictures of your children or spouse up here while you were at the park?
> ...



so you are saying you would deliberately take pictures of me and my family, even knowing that we did not wish it just because  you have the legal ability to do so? you would not stop if we asked? or perhaps i misinterpreted your meaning of me being pissed if you lived here? please elaborate. I personally disagree with your stance on this issue, but I appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions honestly.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 30, 2012)

pixmedic said:


> bhop said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...



Have you ever studied Garry Winogrand or Joel Meyerowicz photos ? they are not just photos they are art


----------



## gsgary (Oct 30, 2012)

pixmedic said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...




Yes if you were doing something that made an interesting photo


----------



## pixmedic (Oct 30, 2012)

gsgary said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...



i have to say..that honestly saddens me. I could not imagine making someone uncomfortable, or frightened, or upset with me photographing them or their children after they asked me to stop, simply for my sole benefit.  legal or not. Chivalry and Honor are indeed lost. but I suppose as long as you get your "interesting photo", its OK.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 30, 2012)

pixmedic said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...



You would not be  uncomfortable because you wouldn't even know i had taken your photo camera is set so i dont have to focus i just aim shoot and i'm gone


----------



## pixmedic (Oct 30, 2012)

gsgary said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...



the second part of my question asked if you would stop if we asked. your reply to the entire statement was no, so I assumed you meant that for both parts. everyone thinks they are a ninja photographer. doesn't always work out. If you are batting 1000, the my most sincerest Kudos, but its irrelevant since its "legal" to do so.  I guess im just too old and set in my ways to get over respecting even the feelings I only perceive people to have. 
I wonder if the OP has gleaned ANYTHING useful from this thread thus far.


----------



## Ilovemycam (Oct 30, 2012)

pixmedic said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...




I think the vast, vast amount of photogs would respect someones wishes to not be photogrpahed. Now, if your a movie star and they are the parasite photogs that chase them, then it may be different. 

I got the idea for this poll from another photog. He said the first rule of street photography was not to shoot the homeless. I had never heard of that rule before. So I brought it up here. Never really gave the homeless debate any thought before I read his "rule"


----------



## bhop (Oct 30, 2012)

Ilovemycam said:


> ...
> I got the idea for this poll from another photog. He said the first rule of street photography was not to shoot the homeless. I had never heard of that rule before. So I brought it up here. Never really gave the homeless debate any thought before I read his "rule"



I'm going out on a limb, but I think that guy probably said that because a lot of newbie street photographers think that shooting pics of any random homeless person instantly makes it a good "street" photo, so much to the point that it's one of the most tired, clichéd things about street photography.


----------



## pixmedic (Oct 30, 2012)

bhop said:


> Ilovemycam said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



totally agree with that assessment.


----------



## KmH (Oct 30, 2012)

nmoody said:


> Now making money off the photo's you take of them is a different story.


Oh! What's the different story?


----------



## unpopular (Oct 30, 2012)

It really depends. I think if you are photographing a person who is homeless, that is fine. If you are photographing the homeless as a whole through a person, that isn't. I think the important thing to remember is that these are individuals who, for whatever reason, lead a life which deviates from societal norms. No individual should ever be used to illustrate or represent their social class.

No person is "the homeless".


----------



## gsgary (Oct 30, 2012)

Winogrand, Garry

Just scroll down 10th photo on left, from the greatest street photographer (probably WW2 vet)


----------



## Mike_E (Oct 30, 2012)

It kind of depends on you.

Are you photographing them because they're homeless or are you photographing them because they are a part of an interesting scene?  If the first then no, exploiting anyone is crass at best.  If the second then why not?  They are after all people too.

If they are the scene, iow the only reason for the shot then pay them like you would any other model.


----------



## rambler (Oct 30, 2012)

Rather than trying to get some random shots on the side before sneaking away, engage the person in conversation, maybe explain the reasons for your interest in photographing them just as you might any other person.  You might be amazed to find some very interesting characters which in turn might get you some even better photos than if you had been trying to photograph on the fly. Hey, you might even give them some entertainment or a chance for them to tell you their story.  If your subject refuses or objects, have the respect and courtesy to move on.


----------



## TonysTouch (Oct 30, 2012)

Take the photograph and if it turns out well, then go back and ask for their permission to use it. You could sweeten the deal by paying them for being a model or a give them a print. 

If you are using the photo for profit, then you should compensate them. Many organizations will not buy/sell your photo without a model release form anyways.

and if somebody ever asks you to not take their photo, then be professional and don't do it.


----------



## unpopular (Oct 30, 2012)

TonysTouch said:


> Take the photograph and if it turns out well, then go back and ask for their permission to use it. You could* sweeten the deal by paying them* for being a model or a give them a print.



I think this is essentially bribery, taking advantage of their economic status or substance abuse problems. I am very against this. If the only way you can justify taking photos of the homeless is by paying them off, then the project is probably not socially responsible.


----------



## pixmedic (Oct 30, 2012)

People have to ask why they are photographing someone.  Are they photographing for the subjects benefit?  Or for their own?  Is it not pretty selfish and disrespectful to photograph someone for your own benefit with zero consideration for, at the very least, their feelings on the matter?


----------



## Ysarex (Oct 30, 2012)

gsgary said:


> Winogrand, Garry
> 
> Just scroll down 10th photo on left, from the greatest street photographer (probably WW2 vet)



An activity is not automatically validated because someone famous did it or became famous doing it.

Joe


----------



## TonysTouch (Oct 30, 2012)

I only post photos of my work if the subject has been compensated. Note that the first section only applies to photos you are not making a profit off of. You don't legally need someone's permission to take a photo. But if you do compensate them, I'm sure they will be more likely to allow you to photograph them. 

It is no different than a painter paying someone so they can use them to practice their technique. They don't have to, but it makes for a good gesture.


----------



## TonysTouch (Oct 30, 2012)

Ysarex said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Winogrand, Garry
> ...



Like coke.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 30, 2012)

pixmedic said:


> People have to ask why they are photographing someone.  Are they photographing for the subjects benefit?  Or for their own?  Is it not pretty selfish and disrespectful to photograph someone for your own benefit with zero consideration for, at the very least, their feelings on the matter?



We might as well give up on photography then, i expect there are hundreds of photographer walking round New York looking for stories of peoples misery


----------



## Ysarex (Oct 30, 2012)

I have spent many years photographing the homeless so I speak from experience. I've devoted a lot of time to thinking and reading about this question. A number of folks above hit on some of the key points.

First you have to examine your motivation. Why do you want to do it? Photographing people is arguably our most consistent activity as photographers -- we are our most interesting subjects. So there's legitimate reason to turn the camera on each other. Candid street photography in public is a standing tradition and I think an acceptable practice if done with discretion (if you can get a shot of Paul Ryan picking his nose great! but no need to do that to a stranger). *However the homeless are a special case.* When we photograph those among us who are living in misery and misfortune, even physically suffering, and we are not engaged in ending their plight it begs the question; what then is our relationship with them? All human beings have intrinsic dignity that can't be stripped from them, not even by self-abuse. Are you respecting that dignity? The photographer as voyeur is a long standing philosophical question. Susan Sontag addresses it well in On Photography.

If you head down to the seamy part of town armed with a telephoto lens and you're careful to stay concealed in your activity as you hunt for the cart-pushing bag lady or the old man passed out with a 1/2 pint, you're probably being an exploitative paparazzi pig.

Do you know any homeless people? Have you ever spent any time with and talked with homeless people? If the answer is no, then go photograph people who aren't suffering.

When I photographed the homeless I spent time with them and I was otherwise engaged in helping them. I knew the people I photographed and typically they saw the photos when I saw them again. In the few instances that I was asked not to show a photo by the individual depicted I destroyed the negative. You'll get much better photos of homeless people when they're your friends and then this question won't bother you.

Joe


----------



## unpopular (Oct 30, 2012)

TonysTouch said:


> I only post photos of my work if the subject has been compensated. Note that the first section only applies to photos you are not making a profit off of. You don't legally need someone's permission to take a photo. But if you do compensate them, I'm sure they will be more likely to allow you to photograph them.
> 
> It is no different than a painter paying someone so they can use them to practice their technique. They don't have to, but it makes for a good gesture.



I suppose if you have a general policy of paying human subjects, there isn't anything wrong with it. It just sounded like you'd only pay off homeless people.

Still, it's going to be very difficult for a homeless person to pass up a few bucks. Little things like hamburgers and french fries become sorely missed after week on end eating crappy goulash at the Mission (trust me, as well intentioned as they are, Christian missionaries can't cook), and for a drug addict it is going to be literally impossible.

I guess what I'm saying is you're putting people in a tough position, and they may be inclined to accept payment even if they wouldn't be willing in a different situation.


----------



## unpopular (Oct 30, 2012)

Ysarex said:


> If you head down to the seamy part of town armed with a telephoto lens and you're careful to stay concealed in your activity as you hunt for the cart-pushing bag lady or the old man passed out with a 1/2 pint, you're probably being an exploitative paparazzi pig.
> 
> Do you know any homeless people? Have you ever spent any time with and talked with homeless people? If the answer is no, then go photograph people who aren't suffering.



Yes! Yes! Yes! And as anyone can see, the quality of work improves considerably.


----------



## SCraig (Oct 30, 2012)

gsgary said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > People have to ask why they are photographing someone.  Are they photographing for the subjects benefit?  Or for their own?  Is it not pretty selfish and disrespectful to photograph someone for your own benefit with zero consideration for, at the very least, their feelings on the matter?
> ...



Yeah, much like the vultures that were running up to people getting out of the World Trade Center and sticking cameras and microphones in their faces.  The ultimate in bad taste journalism in my opinion.  Overly distraught people worried about themselves, their friends, their families, and these so-called "Journalists" wanting to get "Their Story".  Absolutely disgusting.


----------



## pixmedic (Oct 30, 2012)

gsgary said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > People have to ask why they are photographing someone.  Are they photographing for the subjects benefit?  Or for their own?  Is it not pretty selfish and disrespectful to photograph someone for your own benefit with zero consideration for, at the very least, their feelings on the matter?
> ...



just because a lot of people are doing it, does not make it morally right. it could be thousands of photographers walking around trying to benefit from the misery of others misfortunes, and i would still find all of them equally morally bankrupt.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 30, 2012)

SCraig said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...




And if they don't there will be no record for the future, in years to come there is going to be a massive hole in our social history due to digital photography because most never make prints


----------



## gsgary (Oct 30, 2012)

pixmedic said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...




Disatsers like this need to be documented for the future


----------



## unpopular (Oct 30, 2012)

^^ that's a different issue entirely. When it comes to the homeless, however, this 'poverty porn' doesn't really document anything of substance.


----------



## SCraig (Oct 30, 2012)

unpopular said:


> ^^ that's a different issue entirely. When it  comes to the homeless, however, this 'poverty porn' doesn't really  document anything of substance.




You're right.  My post has been edited to keep things more on topic.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 30, 2012)

Ive just been upstairs and got this book out of my collection American Photographers of the Depression: Photographs from Farm Security Administration, 1935-42 Photofile: Amazon.co.uk: Charles Hagen: Books photographing the poor and homeless has been going on for years


----------



## DiskoJoe (Oct 30, 2012)

Its all good if you are cool about. I meet people all the time when I walk around down town. Ive taken pics of homeless people. Ive had homeless people ask me to take their pictures. I have a rule of making someone let me take their picture if they want to bum a smoke off me. Nothing is free. I stop taking pics if people ask me too. Ive only been told to stop taking someone picture once and it was of a cop messing with his cellphone when he should have been patrolling.  But people are very interesting and I love to take their pictures. I like to do candid shots and I really like to get the chance to get up close and personal and get a portrait and maybe a story to go with it. 

There is nothing immoral about doing this unless you have immoral intentions to begin with. Good people dont take photos with bad intentions.


----------



## unpopular (Oct 30, 2012)

but good intentions aren't always enough. Plenty of people genuinely want to help promote social issues, and end up inadvertently exploiting people in the process.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Oct 30, 2012)

unpopular said:


> but good intentions aren't always enough. Plenty of people genuinely want to help promote social issues, and end up inadvertently exploiting people in the process.



Well **** happens


----------



## skieur (Oct 30, 2012)

I should point out that many of the homeless suffer from mental illness or premature dimentia and to protect themselves from being robbed at night, they often carry weapons.  From a practical point of view related to your own safety it would be advisable to be very careful if and when you decide to shoot them.

skieur


----------



## Ilovemycam (Oct 30, 2012)

gsgary said:


> Ive just been upstairs and got this book out of my collection American Photographers of the Depression: Photographs from Farm Security Administration, 1935-42 Photofile: Amazon.co.uk: Charles Hagen: Books photographing the poor and homeless has been going on for years



Thanks, just ordered one from the library.


----------



## Murasaki (Oct 30, 2012)

Sorry this is a long one.


Back in my home country of Australia (WA), taking photographs of anyone in the streets without their permission is illegal, but 99% of the time people do not care if you take their photographs, but photos of children never do it, you will be classed as a paedophile within seconds and the police will be zapping you with a 50KV taser and I am not joking, now days in Australia, taking photographs of your own kids can get them taken away from you if they are not fully clothed in the photograph, protection laws gone crazy.

Now here in my new home Japan, it is a different story, you must ask, if you do not then most of the people will contact the police. I take photos of people but I am making sure they do not see me doing it, as I am normally doing it from a far, but close ups then I ask, so far no one has said no to it. Even the media on TV anyone's face in a photograph or video is always blurred out to protect their privacy if they have not given permission for the news crew to take their picture. Privacy Laws in Japan are beyond stupid any photograph in the street by law if other people are in it, you need to ask every single person, if you do not then if you show the photograph every persons face must be blurred out to protect their privacy and people will sue you if you do not.



Now in regards to homeless (depending on your country) - I would be inclined to seek permission from the person first, tell them why you are taking the photograph, and even offer them a free meal, drink or cash to help them out for their time if they agree to let you take their photography. On saying that I would not use the photograph to make money or for political points or personal gains. If you do make money off a photograph of a homeless person, then I would say you should hand 25% ~ 50% of the money made to them to help them out.


This is only my opinion and nothing more. You do what you think is right.


----------



## unpopular (Oct 30, 2012)

DiskoJoe said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > but good intentions aren't always enough. Plenty of people genuinely want to help promote social issues, and end up inadvertently exploiting people in the process.
> ...



excuse fail.


----------



## unpopular (Oct 30, 2012)

Murasaki said:


> Sorry this is a long one.
> ack in my home country of Australia (WA), taking photographs of anyone in the streets without their permission is illegal, but 99% of the time people do not care if you take their photographs, but photos of children never do it, you will be classed as a paedophile within seconds and the police will be zapping you with a 50KV taser and I am not joking, now days in Australia, taking photographs of your own kids can get them taken away from you if they are not fully clothed in the photograph, protection laws gone crazy.



I'm sure the police in WA are very trigger happy with the tazer 

Here in the US if you're snapping shots of kids at a public playground, the police will certainly question you as well, and likely urge you to move along. Well, except in Skieur's fantasy world where the police don't have the right to question suspicious behavior.

It is true that in the US there may not be any law that would prevent you from photographing little kids, but it's a quick way to being the a prime suspect of every pedo case.


----------



## Ysarex (Oct 30, 2012)

gsgary said:


> Ive just been upstairs and got this book out of my collection American Photographers of the Depression: Photographs from Farm Security Administration, 1935-42 Photofile: Amazon.co.uk: Charles Hagen: Books photographing the poor and homeless has been going on for years



And if you understand all the history of those photos and that event you know it was a massive politically exploitative exercise on the part of Roy Stryker. Amazing and wonderful photos came from that episode, yes. They were taken by gifted and often well-meaning photographers, many of whom became famous. And none of that changes the fact that those photos were ordered and used by Stryker as political propaganda. Look into the case history of the most famous of those photos "Migrant Mother" by D. Lange; the subject of the photo Mrs. Thompson complained about the photo and claimed she was exploited -- clearly she was.

During the time those photos were published people knew they were propaganda and complained violently.

Joe


----------



## Murasaki (Oct 30, 2012)

unpopular said:


> I'm sure the police in WA are very trigger happy with the tazer



The police across the whole country are trigger happy now days with tasers and .40 glocks, they no longer talk, they just scream at you and then turn you in to a Christmas Tree or Bug Food, .... I am happy I moved to Japan the police talk to you like a person and do not draw a weapon.


OK back on the topic.

Taking photographs of children in Japan is not a problem as long as it is innocent and nothing more, but of adults that is where the problem is, but here is the ringer, the laws on privacy only protect Japanese Citizens, non-Japanese are not protected by privacy laws.

Japanese Criminal always have their face blurred out on the TV to protect their privacy unless the courts give permission to show the criminals face, but non-Japanese their face is shown all the time, and the TV station will also show a photography of where the Non-Japanese lives/lived, who lives with them if the people are not Japanese, what country they are from etc. etc.


On the news in summer time they are always showing people being arrested at the beach with hidden cameras taking photographs of females in bikinis.


----------



## Ysarex (Oct 31, 2012)

Murasaki said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure the police in WA are very trigger happy with the tazer
> ...



Since you said "back on topic" I just want to point out that the OP asked about the morality of photographing the homeless not the legality. Legality and morality are two very different things and often have little to do with each other. They can in fact be in direct opposition to each other and frequently are.

Joe

_The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and the poor alike  to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread._
-- Anatole France


----------



## Murasaki (Oct 31, 2012)

Ysarex said:


> OP asked about the morality of photographing the homeless



As I stated before .. one should 'ASK' the person in question if they like to be photographed and if they agree offer them something in return ... 

As for morals ... most people claim they have them, but in fact do not.


----------



## bratkinson (Oct 31, 2012)

I'm really torn on this. Legally, if they are in the public place, they are considered 'fair game'. But the question is -morally-, are they still fair game.

In my opinion, if I'm shooting a scene, and there's one or more homeless in it, then it's 'sort of' OK. My contention is the scene isn't the homeless, but the trees, the streets, etc, that happens to have some homeless, and hopefully, some not homeless people in it. Taking the picture of an individual from the back side is probably OK as well. I've seen several shots done quite well this way, and the 'dispair of homelessness' is readily apparent. 

On the other hand, taking a shot in which the person is clearly identifyable, then I'd definitely want to ask permission first. Certainly there are some homeless that may be on the run from the law, so having their picture taken would be a big no-no. Others may have psychological problems and not want to be photographed, either. Just because they are homeless, doesn't mean they don't have dignity, and a sense of their 'personal space', no different than anyone else, homeless or not. 

In short, give the homeless the same amount of respect as you would anyone else...although in this day and age, respect of any kind is fast disappearing.


----------



## myvinyl333 (Oct 31, 2012)

I have seen some really moving potential shots of the homeless people in my neighborhood that are very moving. I have thought of asking them if I could photograph them in exchange for the same $ I give Cubby Bear @ Wrigley. I would ask them.


----------

