# It's all in the eye of the beholder



## Miaow (Jun 5, 2008)

Thought this article might interest a few people - It was in the opinions section of a local paper here.



> It's all in the eye of the beholder
> 
> * Christopher Deere
> * June 2, 2008
> ...


----------



## Socrates (Jun 5, 2008)

Miaow said:


> Thought this article might interest a few people - It was in the opinions section of a local paper here.


I believe that it's incorrect to suggest that photographers are being singled out.  Right or wrong, it's a new world and everyone is impacted.  When I flew commercially the first time, the airline gave out free cigarettes and the cockpit didn't even have a door!  Now, they'll lock you up if you light a cigarette and you need to prove your innocence before you can so much as set foot in the airport.


----------



## Overread (Jun 5, 2008)

> Meanwhile, every train station and office building and shopping centre and corner pub and casino is taking my picture, and there isn't a damn thing that I can do about it.


 
people don't see them - most people hardly ever look up and those black domes in shops don't look like cameras so most people forget that they are there; A photographer with a huge lens however is easily noticable.

Going further I think the first thing is that media, government and general hype has gone a long way to make people fear other people more and more - we no longer walk in saftey and fear our fellow Man. 
The final bit I think is that people don't like to feel out of control - in the past when your photo was taken by a "pro" (as only pros could afford a big camera!) people felt that they could trust them to some degree-  and besides the worst that could happen is that the photo of you would end up in a gallery. Nowadays people fear finding their photo on the internet - and what could happen to it in the hands of a photoshopper - just think you could be made out to be having an affare!


----------



## Garbz (Jun 5, 2008)

With terrorism yes the entire world is going to ****, but this article being about the suspicion of paedophilia really doesn't affect airlines much.

In that sense yes photographers are being singled out. Sure in airlines it's back to the whole terrorism mentality but I had enough problems photographing a university volleyball tournament (everyone was 18 or over). The management of the event tried to throw me out (out? they were playing on a beach) and only decided against it when the two teams I was with threatened to walk off the tournament.

It is an interesting article but a sad one too. My camera makes people suspicious especially mothers for no reason what so ever. Heck I weigh in at about 70kg most of these mothers could easily beat me in a fight (or eat me whole and have space for desert in the case of some). How am I a threat.


----------



## Overread (Jun 5, 2008)

What I find most annoying is holiding a little silver compact no one cares less - but you hold an expensive camera and suddenly you must be a bad person - I mean you can zoom like miles and miles with a big camera - all you can do with a compact is hide it!


----------



## usayit (Jun 5, 2008)

Good read...

Photographers are just among several groups playing the part of the scapegoat for an unknown/invisible enemy (whether pedophiles, terrorists, or the boogeyman).  

I'm not that old and even I can look back just 1 decade and see a huge difference.  It is a sad state of affairs.  *Shame on those (all of them) that leverage fear for their own agenda.  Shame on those that are willing to give up their rights to "feel" more secure.*


----------



## jg123 (Jun 5, 2008)

You can't take pictures at the local pool here in Toronto, Canada


----------



## Overread (Jun 5, 2008)

usayit said:


> *Shame on those (all of them) that leverage fear for their own agenda. Shame on those that are willing to give up their rights to "feel" more secure.*


 
This reminded me of something I (rather painfully) learnt. You know all those CCTV cameras - well most can't even read a car number plate - let alone a face. All they can do is show up these coloured blobs on the screen - so is you can identify the blob that is you and the blobs that are your attackers you can see that you were - in fact - attacked. Can't see thier faces though.... 
(that is if you are lucky enough to get attacked in a camera zone - and not 5 paces after!)


----------



## Mullen (Jun 5, 2008)

> I'm a photographer, after all, so it's my job to steal people's souls.



This made me giggle a little bit inside..

I don't really photograph people, so I never really get those 'He's a criminal' looks. When I'm walking around outside with the 70-300mm and a monopod attached to my 40D that's around my neck, I get some 'WTF is he carrying?' looks from people that drive by.


----------



## jvgig (Jun 5, 2008)

I find that if you are walking around and stop specifically to take a picture you get many more glancing eyes than if you are stopped at a street corner due to traffic or are sitting on a park bench.   Maybe  people then think that you are just trying to pass the time by taking a few shots rather than being on a mission to photograph them.


----------



## Socrates (Jun 5, 2008)

Garbz said:


> With terrorism yes the entire world is going to ****, but this article being about the suspicion of paedophilia really doesn't affect airlines much.
> 
> In that sense yes photographers are being singled out. Sure in airlines it's back to the whole terrorism mentality but I had enough problems photographing a university volleyball tournament (everyone was 18 or over). The management of the event tried to throw me out (out? they were playing on a beach) and only decided against it when the two teams I was with threatened to walk off the tournament.
> 
> It is an interesting article but a sad one too. My camera makes people suspicious especially mothers for no reason what so ever. Heck I weigh in at about 70kg most of these mothers could easily beat me in a fight (or eat me whole and have space for desert in the case of some). How am I a threat.


The fear of terrorism has certainly accelerated these issues but they've been gradually implemented over quite a period time.  I expect that you have at least heard of the Liberty Bell in the U.S.  I remember when you could walk up and touch it (which I did many times).  Now, you can't get within ten feet and it's protected by bullet-proof glass and human guards.  Bullet-proof glass!  It's cast iron, for God's sake and it was broken several hundred years ago.  For the record, these conditions have nothing to do with 9-11.  They've been in place for at least the last twenty years.  On the other hand, you are allowed to photograph it (through the glass).


----------



## usayit (Jun 5, 2008)

Isn't that nice...

*Liberty* Bell imprisoned...


----------



## Iron Flatline (Jun 5, 2008)

As an aside...

We are usually peeved when an image gets posted that's not ours, and especially when an image gets used by someone while the photographer gets no benefit from that use.

I think it's great when someone paraphrases an article and links to it, but cutting-and-pasting the whole thing from a site that lives off its ad revenue... well, you just took viewers and visitors from that site. The link at the bottom is a nice gesture, but why bother once the whole article was posted.


----------



## cdanddvdpublisher (Jun 5, 2008)

I think that, unfortunately, yes, everyone's under suspicion - but the reality is the majority of people were okay with letting it happen


----------



## Miaow (Jun 5, 2008)

Iron Flatline said:


> As an aside...
> 
> We are usually peeved when an image gets posted that's not ours, and especially when an image gets used by someone while the photographer gets no benefit from that use.
> 
> I think it's great when someone paraphrases an article and links to it, but cutting-and-pasting the whole thing from a site that lives off its ad revenue... well, you just took viewers and visitors from that site. The link at the bottom is a nice gesture, but why bother once the whole article was posted.



I get the idea - Maybe in future I'll just post a link  I tend to post articles like this so its a lot easier to read rather than having to open new links etc.


----------



## mrodgers (Jun 5, 2008)

Everyone complains about "mothers assume every person with a camera is a pedophile."

Well, you folks do the _exact same thing_ in your assuming that every mother assumes a pedophile!

Perhaps people don't want other random people to have photographs of themselves or their children for who knows what reason.  Why do you need photos of someone else's children?  If you want to take photos of children, go have your own children and take all the photos you want.

What happens to these photos of children?  What do you do with them?  The children don't mean anything to you, they are not your children.  Any more, 9 times out of 10, folks who are into photography for an enjoyable hobby put their photos up on the internet for the world to see.

Is it too much to have a little respect to folks that you don't know and think that perhaps mothers do not want their children's photos taken by some random person and may not want photos of their children up on the internet where anyone in the world has access to that photo?  Perhaps it's not the photographer who is the pedofile, but the guy who lived 2 houses down from me surfing Flickr that comes across the photo of my child on your account who is the pedophile.  Perhaps it would be within reason that I or my wife would not want the neighbor 2 houses down from me to find a photo of my child playing in the park on your Flickr account.

Yes, there are very disgusting and disturbing people out there in the world.  Yes, I was surprised to find out that my neighbor is on the list of pedophiles that they must be registered on.  No, that neighbor is no longer there as he passed away a few weeks ago.  But, if my living way out in the country, I can find these people living in my general vicinity, then anyone can find them living close by anywhere.

It's not the mothers who you folks _assume_ that _they_ assume pedophile of anyone with a camera that is the problem.  It is the photographers who disrespect everyone else and bark about their "rights to photograph anything and anyone" that is the problem.  Just leave the mothers and their children alone in peace and go have your own stinkin kids if you feel the need to intrude into other people's enjoyment of the public area.

I get so sick of these threads on the crying of "photographers" about how mothers are suspicious of everyone with a camera.  Nope, they just want to be left alone.  Public place or not, have some respect for you fellow mankind.


----------



## GeorgiaOwl (Jun 5, 2008)

I had the misfortune of having to be in downtown Atlanta a few days ago. Naturally, I took the camera for a few shots of the skyscrapers and other city stuff that I rarely see( and do not with so see, for that matter  ).

Anyway, I walked the nearly empty streets( everyone was working away inside those big glass towers), I occasionally saw a human being! Lo, and I held up my Nikon to capture their existance...and they...well, they all but ran away from me! Or it. Or...me? 
I saw several people outside taking mid-morning smoke breaks, and as soon as I got within 50 ft. of them, poof! - they all bolted inside! 

I thought it was rather funny...but I think I know what the problem is...and why a small camera is ok and a big one is not. 

For the same reason that driving a Honda around town is unnoticed, but a hot air ballon would draw alot of attention! People are just not used to seeing other people walking around with big cameras and zoom lens' and maybe a camera bag or whatever...unless they are at a sporting event, press conference or photography class! 

And now, with alot of people buying the new budget DSLR's ( myself included) there are going to always be more and more people out there having fun, taking pictures and scaring people that are afraid of their own shadows. Or something they don't normally see. 


Silly people. If I was a terrorist or an internet porn broker, I'd dress better!


----------



## craig (Jun 5, 2008)

I'm not interested. This is a tired subject. The real question is how are we as photographers going to change this misconception. We certainly must start at a local level. One person at a time. Maybe moms should be more forgiving with attitudes. Maybe photographers should start introducing themselves. Maybe we should figure out how to work together as a community as opposed to individuals. I am open to suggestions. I refuse to be that sad photographer that says "I remember when".

Love & Bass


----------



## usayit (Jun 5, 2008)

mrodgers said:


> Public place or not, have some respect for you fellow mankind.



Respect is a two way street....


----------



## shorty6049 (Jun 5, 2008)

although people notice photographers more possibly, they also notice anyone else too. My summer internship involves me walking up and down streets in a suburb of St. Paul MN, with a reflective vest and a big book which i write in (street crack data...) Every day so far, i've had at LEAST one person ask me what i was doing. Usually more. They all seem to think I'm a threat to their neighborhood or something. people are getting crazy...


----------



## Iron Flatline (Jun 6, 2008)

mrodgers said:


> Everyone complains about "mothers assume every person with a camera is a pedophile."
> 
> Well, you folks do the _exact same thing_ in your assuming that every mother assumes a pedophile!
> 
> ...


LOL thus proving the point that every person assumes something pedophilic will happen to the images of their child. Really, some people have self-righteous indignation perfectly pitched.


----------



## Miaow (Jun 6, 2008)

Iron Flatline said:


> LOL thus proving the point that every person assumes something pedophilic will happen to the images of their child. Really, some people have self-righteous indignation perfectly pitched.



I'm a member of a baby related site and I can tell you there are posts along this line (about pics of children being used on the net ) that happen relatively regularly - Also people reporting other that have used pics of others kids saying they are their own.

There was something actually recently (last 2 days) in the paper on a teacher that was taking pics of his pupils and then photoshopping their heads and his heads into VERY inappropriate pics....


----------



## simulacra2525 (Jun 6, 2008)

I´m new to this forum and want to know if there are any Roland Barthes fans out there. I just finished Camera Lucida and want to know what people think??


----------



## Iron Flatline (Jun 6, 2008)

Miaow said:


> I'm a member of a baby related site and I can tell you there are posts along this line (about pics of children being used on the net ) that happen relatively regularly - Also people reporting other that have used pics of others kids saying they are their own.
> 
> There was something actually recently (last 2 days) in the paper on a teacher that was taking pics of his pupils and then photoshopping their heads and his heads into VERY inappropriate pics....


There are lots of stories... but does that make everyone a perv? 

I ride motorcycles, and all it takes is one non-rider to talk about an accident they know of, and all the others will chime in with horror stories about motorcycling. Yet the majority of riders never get hurt. Should we outlaw motorcycling? Yes, there may be weirdos doing odd things to pictures... does that mean every person with a camera is a perv?

I don't know which to be astounded by more... how tired this story is, or that I'm actually participating in it....


simulacra2525 said:


> I´m new to this forum and want to know if there are any Roland Barthes fans out there. I just finished Camera Lucida and want to know what people think??


Please start a new thread, you will get a much higer response. I have no idea what you're talking about, but will Google it because the title sounds cool.


----------



## Chiller (Jun 6, 2008)

jg123 said:


> You can't take pictures at the local pool here in Toronto, Canada


 
 It is also forbidden in a few cemeteries here.   Been busted twice for it.   Apparently they are right. You need permission to shoot gravestones. :er:


----------



## Socrates (Jun 6, 2008)

Chiller said:


> It is also forbidden in a few cemeteries here.   Been busted twice for it.   Apparently they are right. You need permission to shoot gravestones. :er:



Aren't cemeteries private property?


----------



## Socrates (Jun 6, 2008)

Iron Flatline said:


> There are lots of stories... but does that make everyone a perv?
> 
> I ride motorcycles, and all it takes is one non-rider to talk about an accident they know of, and all the others will chime in with horror stories about motorcycling. Yet the majority of riders never get hurt. Should we outlaw motorcycling? Yes, there may be weirdos doing odd things to pictures... does that mean every person with a camera is a perv?



In the states (most of them, anyway), motorcyclsi

Please address the photography issue from the other side.
1. Why would someone want photographs of children that that they don't know?
2. How many photographers


----------



## Iron Flatline (Jun 6, 2008)

Until about ten to fifteen years ago (when the whole pedophilia thing really took off in the media as a favorite non-news "OMG" story) most people perceived children as something pleasantly innocent. Images of clumsy kids on playground equipment was cute, right up there with images of kittens and puppies.  Now even looking at them instantly makes everyone think about what others might be thinking. This is just weird. I have three kids, and I laugh all day at seeing them and others bounce around. 

I'm not a perv. I do not need to justify my likes or my action. I do not want to live in a society where bullies require a justification from me - or from 99% of the rest of society.


----------



## usayit (Jun 6, 2008)

oh no... no pictures of innocent kittens and puppies.....


----------



## Chiller (Jun 6, 2008)

Socrates said:


> Aren't cemeteries private property?


 Most are, but only the "big" ones really enforce the rules here.  It is up to the individual cemetery , and their policies.  My future son-in-laws brother is one of the big guns at the largest cemetery here, and he got me a paper on the rules of conduct in the cemetery.  No photography, or gravestone etchings.   You can get written permission to photograph there tho.   Im glad I have an "in"


----------



## Garbz (Jun 6, 2008)

mrodgers said:


> Perhaps people don't want other random people to have photographs of themselves or their children for who knows what reason.  Why do you need photos of someone else's children?  If you want to take photos of children, go have your own children and take all the photos you want.



That entire comment is ********. Photographers bark about their rights WHEN their rights are taken away, not the other way around. We don't take photos of people to make the assumption that their mothers think evil of us. The mothers just hide their children when they see us with a camera regardless if we're with our girlfriends or trying to take a picture of a bird in the tree.

If you don't believe that then maybe you should take a camera out and just walk past a local park one day. I have news for you if you want privacy stay in your home. You forfeit the right to privacy when you walk in a public place.

Oh and finally who cares if someone has a photo of you. Unless you're from a remote tribe in Mexico it's not like your camera can steal your soul or something.  Again if you don't want a photo taken of you, ever, then stay at home. The whole "protect the children" debate got very old very quickly (again cameras don't steal your soul) just like the whole terrorism thing got old when mum was questioned why she needed 100kg of fertiliser (we have a big garden).

The topic isn't exclusively about photographers rights, it's about photographers prejudice.


----------



## abraxas (Jun 6, 2008)

Garbz said:


> That entire comment is ********.
> ...



:thumbup:


----------



## King Mango (Jun 6, 2008)

I flew out of Houston/Hobby last month and experienced a similar situation.
This happened to be the last day of a HUGE HUGE volleyball tournament and there were literally thousands of people getting tickets and boarding passes last minute. 95 per cent of them were college-aged girls in their late teens with tight shorts and tight shirts on straight from their elimination games. The lines looked a whole day long, and my friend had just dropped me off from Galveston and I thought I was gonna be stuck overnight. I took out my camera and put it on motion picture mode, held it up as high as I could and simply scanned from the people ahead of me, up to the front of the line. As I was putting my camera back in my bag I happened to notice the short burly dad behind me glaring at me. I held eye contact with him for several seconds and came to the conclusion that he must have thought I was only filming to see the girls. Having pictures of sexy little teenagers hadn't even entered my mind otherwise I suppose I wouldn't have settled for an underexposed seven second 320x240 15 fps mov file. 
I can't help but wonder; Was he struggling somewhere inside to suppress something? Now I'm single, and have no children. I have an active social life, and that scene made me wish I was a kid again but truly I had no conflict with that feeling. Maybe he was wishing more and putting it off on me. Isn't there some sort of dime store psychology that says we only fear what he hide in our hearts?
I'm actually kind of angry now for feeling put off by it. There were some times that I wanted to get the camera out, but I was afraid of people being afraid of me! There would have been some really great shots of kids in the prime of their life out on the road meeting new people, saying goodbye to friends and new romances etc...


----------



## Iron Flatline (Jun 7, 2008)

Queen's Day is the biggest street festival in the Netherlands. All of Holland celebrates outside, and esp. Amsterdam becomes one big party. The Vondelpark is a refuge from some of the more drunken stupidity of the tourist area. It's where families set up baked-good stands, used toy stores, and little performances. A group of 12 -14 year old girls were doing ballet moves and American-style cheerleading stunts all afternoon long, wearing shorts and tights. Huge crowds were watching them, many of them with cameras and camcorders. The only ones making uncomfortable comments and compensatory jokes were the Americans. As a photographer and member of several forums, I was acutely aware of that aspect. I'm not saying that the threat is any less (or worse) in the US or Europe, but it seems that the US is the most advanced in its general atmosphere of fear and loathing in regards to such matters.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Jun 7, 2008)

There are people in society - and members of this photographic community - that would question why this blogger collected these images, whether he should be allowed to display them, and casually besmirch his reputation without a second thought...

Dark Roasted Blend: Kids

Dark Roasted Blend: Kids Pt 2

CAREFUL, might not be SAFE FOR WORK!!!! 

Child nudity, girls in bath tubs, kids kissing, and other highly charged content. 

...and kids with guns, but we all know guns are o.k. and non-controversial.


----------



## Socrates (Jun 7, 2008)

Chiller said:


> Most are, but only the "big" ones really enforce the rules here.  It is up to the individual cemetery , and their policies.  My future son-in-laws brother is one of the big guns at the largest cemetery here, and he got me a paper on the rules of conduct in the cemetery.  No photography, or gravestone etchings.   You can get written permission to photograph there tho.   Im glad I have an "in"


If private property, I don't see where you have a leg to stand on.


----------



## Photoguynorth (Jun 8, 2008)

Interestingly that exact comment could be made about people being suspicious of you.  Is it OK to take rights away from parents. but not photographers?   Whether you agree or disagree with the threat being real, you expect parents to forfeit their right to control when and where pictures of their kids are taken, but scream loudly when someones infringes on your right to take those pictures.  As always, we feel that what impacts US is more important and overrides what anyone else thinks impacts them.  Those 'evil' parents are not trying to restrict your right to do anything but take pictures of their children, without knowing anything about how they will be used.  My kids are old enough now that it is a non-issue, but when they were smaller and vulnerable, I was careful with them too.  That does not mean I assumed anything about a particular photographers intentions - it means without knowing, I was cautious. If that impacted negatively on anyones quality of life, I never knew or cared.  And you can disagree all you want on the accuracy of my concerns - but I can also disagree with your right to override them.
FWIW - I have a relative who was targeted on the internet by a known sex-offender (long after I established my own rules).  It was not photography related, but you are hiding your head in the sand if you think these things are rare.



Garbz said:


> I have news for you if you want privacy stay in your home. You forfeit the right to privacy when you walk in a public place.


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Jun 10, 2008)

Socrates said:


> I believe that it's incorrect to suggest that photographers are being singled out. Right or wrong, it's a new world and everyone is impacted. When I flew commercially the first time, the airline gave out free cigarettes and the cockpit didn't even have a door! Now, they'll lock you up if you light a cigarette and you need to prove your innocence before you can so much as set foot in the airport.


 
Socs, once again, you have proven the point that is so painfully obvious to most of us- you simply do not get out much. Also,  as has been pointed out by others,  I don't think you even own a camera.

The little town I live in, which is built around a lake, just finished work on a new recreational and beach area. I went down there the other day to shoot and some guy walked up to me and wanted to know why I was taking photos of children on the beach. I told him, because they were there and that it made for a nice shot. He gave me a hard look, and finally, being tired of all this constant bull****, I told him that if he had a problem to call a cop. Either that, or get lost. He left.

I am sick of all the whacked out weirdos who fear a camera. I used to be very polite and try to explain what I am doing. After putting up with this nonsense for several years now, I am not near as nice and polite as I used to be.


----------



## usayit (Jun 10, 2008)

Photoguynorth said:


> Interestingly that exact comment could be made about people being suspicious of you.  Is it OK to take rights away from parents. but not photographers?



What rights?????  Please state the law (and source) that specifically states that a child has the right not to be photographed even in public... (Everything else in your post is B.S. if you cannot).

It is LEGAL to take photographs in any location or anyone (assuming there is no reasonable expectation of privacy).  Therefore parents and children have NO rights when it comes to be photographed in a public location.  You speak of "rights" so loosely with so many assumptions... in the case you bring up, the photographers have legal right and the parent/child have NO rights.

So to answer you question: "Is it OK to take rights away from parents. but not photographers?"  The answer is YES.  Photographers have legal right and the parents have NO rights to be taken.

Garbz statement is correct. If you want 100% privacy the only LEGAL thing you can do is stay in your home and not leave.  EIther that or start covering you children head to toe because it is inappropriate for anyone to look at them much less take a photo.

First thing you need to understand when debating rights....  What you think is wrong/right has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with legal/illegal.  In debates like these, all that counts are the laws on the book.  If you don't agree with the laws, you are more than welcome to take actions to get them rewritten.



What a sad state we are living in when a simple photograph is treated as a severly as a physical act of aggression.  At what point is it going to be inappropriate to even look at a child.... when even a mental picture is wrong... when we have to start walking around with blind folds or make children wear burkas.


----------



## Miaow (Jun 10, 2008)

usayit said:
			
		

> It is LEGAL to take photographs in any location or anyone (assuming there is no reasonable expectation of privacy). Therefore parents and children have NO rights when it comes to be photographed in a public location.
> 
> So to answer you question: "Is it OK to take rights away from parents. but not photographers?" The answer is YES. Photographers have legal right and the parents have NO rights to be taken.



The parent of a child IMO does have the right to say NO I dont want you to take a picture - It's just common courtesy, respecting privacy, that a photographer, if hearing a parent say that (or obvious looks of displeasure) should not take pictures of that child.

To turn the tables a little how would you like someone taking a pic of you if you didnt want it - Yes some people don't mind it I'm sure but I'm sure at some stage in life's everyday happenings most people don't want to be photographed sometimes.


----------



## tineybabes (Jun 10, 2008)

well i have to agree with miaow, i think that parents should have the right to say no. Even when at kindergarten or school parents need to consent to photos being taken of their children.


----------



## Socrates (Jun 10, 2008)

Rick Waldroup said:


> Socs, once again, you have proven the point that is so painfully obvious to most of us- you simply do not get out much. Also, as has been pointed out by others, I don't think you even own a camera.
> 
> The little town I live in, which is built around a lake, just finished work on a new recreational and beach area. I went down there the other day to shoot and some guy walked up to me and wanted to know why I was taking photos of children on the beach. I told him, because they were there and that it made for a nice shot. He gave me a hard look, and finally, being tired of all this constant bull****, I told him that if he had a problem to call a cop. Either that, or get lost. He left.
> 
> I am sick of all the whacked out weirdos who fear a camera. I used to be very polite and try to explain what I am doing. After putting up with this nonsense for several years now, I am not near as nice and polite as I used to be.


Have you ever been in an airplane?
Have you ever seen an airplane?


----------



## Chiller (Jun 10, 2008)

​


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Jun 10, 2008)

Socrates said:


> Have you ever been in an airplane?
> Have you ever seen an airplane?


 
Maybe you have a picture of one?

I would love to see it.


----------



## King Mango (Jun 10, 2008)

Well the biggest problem I have is that I can't say "because I'm a photographer." Because well, I still suck, and more importantly, I don't have a card. 
I suppose some of us though could say that and hand out a card if confronted or we could possibly do something to appear more "professional..."
I don't know. There must be a way around it.


----------



## Socrates (Jun 10, 2008)

Rick Waldroup said:


> Maybe you have a picture of one?
> 
> I would love to see it.


If you've never seen one, you wouldn't recognize it.

I am wondering.  What is it about my air travel comments that you believe to be incorrect?  Why the moronic response?


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Jun 10, 2008)

King Mango said:


> Well the biggest problem I have is that I can't say "because I'm a photographer." Because well, I still suck, and more importantly, I don't have a card.
> I suppose some of us though could say that and hand out a card if confronted or we could possibly do something to appear more "professional..."
> I don't know. There must be a way around it.


 
Usually when I am confronted by the police or security officers, I tell them what I am shooting and I do hand them a business card.  Most of the time this is enough.  But there have been a few times where that was not enough and that is when the situation can become sticky.

I do know that I am tired of feeling like a suspect of an unknown crime every time I walk around with a camera or raise it to shoot some people in a downtown setting.  Like I've said many times, this crap is really starting to get old.:x


----------



## terri (Jun 10, 2008)

> Why the moronic response?


Ease up some.    His response read like a joke to me, and included a smiley that also supports that.


----------



## usayit (Jun 10, 2008)

Miaow said:


> The parent of a child IMO does have the right to say NO I dont want you to take a picture - It's just common courtesy, respecting privacy, that a photographer, if hearing a parent say that (or obvious looks of displeasure) should not take pictures of that child.



Please quote the law and source..... If you can't, it is all B.S.  Common courtesy is not written into law.  The only thing legally you can do is if I cross the line into harassment, trespassing, or break another law.



> To turn the tables a little how would you like someone taking a pic of you if you didnt want it - Yes some people don't mind it I'm sure but I'm sure at some stage in life's everyday happenings most people don't want to be photographed sometimes.



I could care less.... I'm in public.  People can see me visually with their own eyes, they can photograph me unless I"m in the bathroom or in a place of reasonable expectation of privacy.  If I'm walking the streets, I understand I have no right to privacy.  If you ask, I'll even pose for yah.


My source is this page as it summarizes everything and is composed by an Attorney at law.
http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

Please take note of section: Permissible Subjects.  It specifically names children in public places can be lawfully photographed.

Where is your source?  :madmad::madmad::madmad::madmad:  stop making assumptions on what you think the law should say.


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Jun 10, 2008)

Socrates said:


> If you've never seen one, you wouldn't recognize it.
> 
> I am wondering. What is it about my air travel comments that you believe to be incorrect? Why the moronic response?


 
Socs, I should have clarified my first post. It is not the remarks about air travel that I found amusing, it was the first line about how photographers are not being singled out. That's it. It is certainly no big deal. You and I just see differently on a lot of things, that's all.

You basically think I am a moron and I basically think you are full of **** most of the time.


----------



## abraxas (Jun 10, 2008)

tineybabes said:


> ...i think that parents should have the right to say no. ...



Think of your rights with the word 'enforcable' in front of them- Like, what are you going to do?

Parents do have the enforcable right to say "no."  However, they do not have the right to enforce that objection. Garbz is correct, you forfeit your enforcable right to privacy once you walk out your door. 

I've never been told no, or gotten a negative response from a parent (once from some buttinski, non-parent).  If I had, I probably would have honored their request and moved on--if the photo were not important to me. I do have the enforcable right to make that choice.


----------



## LaFoto (Jun 10, 2008)

In my country it is legal to take anyone's photo anywhere that person is out in public, no matter their age. 

It is NOT legal, on the other hand, to DISPLAY those photos. Which is different from using them for commercial purposes, which is what applies in the States (from what I have heard through TPF). 

So if you feel that photographing the happiness and innocence of playing children in a park gives you nice photo opportunities, you are entitled to do so. Though not all the children's parents KNOW that you have the right.

In my country, however, you must not put up those photos for display. If everyone were really, really, REALLY strict about those "Rights to A Person's Own Picture", you'd not even be allowed to share your photos with husband/wife and family. But who can come take a look?

Anyhow, while a photographer may have very good reasons for his wanting to take photos of children or teenagers (beauty, innocence, happiness, interaction, emotions, lovely faces, good light etc), not everyone might understand his/her reasons. Some, whose minds have actually also become kind of "corrupted" by the pervasive fear (fanned by the media, I should say) might easily (too easily) assume that it is, in fact, other things you're looking for when you take photos of children you don't know. 

There's the conflict.
If I get clear signals that someone does NOT want me to take photos of their children, I leave it. 

Thankfully, I live in Germany, and I only took photos of dancing children doing a ballet performance this spring. No one said anything against it. Phew!


----------



## usayit (Jun 10, 2008)

tineybabes said:


> well i have to agree with miaow, i think that parents should have the right to say no.



They have the right to ask not to be photographed... that is protected by the parents' right to free speech.   Photographer is under no obligation to follow.


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Jun 10, 2008)

Abraxas is right.  I do a lot of street shooting.  Some of them are candids and some are not.  If a person sees me shooting them and objects, I lower the camera immediately, smile at them, and move on.  I am not out here shooting to intimidate or bother anyone.  If I shoot someone and they see it and do not object,  I walk right up to them, hand them a business card and tell them that the shot will probably be on my website in a few days.  I have never once had anyone tell me not to post the shot.  You sort of develop a sixth sense about shooting people in public.

However, there should never be any laws restricting this type of photography.  Are some guys with a camera, jerks?  You bet. But I really believe that it is a very tiny minority.


----------



## skieur (Jun 10, 2008)

LaFoto said:


> In my country it is legal to take anyone's photo anywhere that person is out in public, no matter their age.
> 
> It is NOT legal, on the other hand, to DISPLAY those photos. Which is different from using them for commercial purposes, which is what applies in the States (from what I have heard through TPF).
> Phew!


 
I have seen nothing in German law that is any different from elsewhere in Europe.

Basically, anyone can be photographed in a public place as long as the resulting photo is not used for advertising purposes or in an out-of-context manner that suggests something different than what is shown in the photo.

It is that right that allows photojournalists to do their job and that is why it is present in Europe and elsewhere.  

The only ruling of the European Court which has limited power like the U.N. was that the children of famous people have a right to privacy from photographers while not acting in a public function.

So, again, I would like to see a specific law that denies the right to display a photo taken in a public place in Germany.  I would be very surprised if such a law exists. 

skieur


----------



## LaFoto (Jun 10, 2008)

Get it translated somewhere:
http://www.fotocommunity.de/info/Recht_am_eigenen_Bild


----------



## Kingoftown (Jun 10, 2008)

There is a lot of fear in America, and I don't think it is aimed at photographers. When I was young my mom kicked me out the door at around 8 in the morning, and besides lunch I didn't come back until I heard her yelling for me, and this was only 20 years ago. I have friends at work that won't let their kids go to the end of the block alone for fear they will get lost, start taking acid, or scrape a knee. Because I know that if I decided I wanted to take pictures in a park for some strange reason ( I don't think shots of little kids playing are terribly interesting) I would certainly go up to each parent there and tell them I was going to be shooting. I'm not going to stop if they say no, or anything but at least they would know why I was there. Also you might just solve your problem of people being afraid of your big professional camera by using a different camera when you shoot streets. I knwo the classic street photographers had leica's and such just for this reason.


----------



## skieur (Jun 10, 2008)

LaFoto said:


> Get it translated somewhere:
> http://www.fotocommunity.de/info/Recht_am_eigenen_Bild


 
The German case law that I have been reading in Tort Law and Unjustified Enrichment related to Personality Rights still in line with what I said acts against the photographer in ADVERTISING USE.  

I have yet to see any ruling against a photographer for the simple display of a photo taken in a public place or any artisitic or editorial/illustrative use.

skieur


----------



## LaFoto (Jun 10, 2008)

> Der Schutzbereich erstreckt sich nach § 22 S. 1 nicht auf das Herstellen von Bildnissen, *sondern nur auf deren Verbreitung und öffentliche Zurschaustellung.* Heute ist aber anerkannt, dass auch eine Vorverlagerung des Rechtsschutzes auf den Zeitpunkt des Herstellens von Aufnahmen nach dem allgemeinen Persönlichkeitsrecht geschützt sein kann. Das ist zumindest dann der Fall, wenn dies in der Absicht einer Veröffentlichung geschieht. Der Begriff des "Verbreitens" ist weiter als der entsprechende Begriff im Urheberrecht. *Er betrifft zum Beispiel auch die Weitergabe eines Fotos im privaten Bereich.*


Source: http://www.sakowski.de/skripte/eig_bild.html


----------



## Hawaii Five-O (Jun 10, 2008)

yeah, this whole " maul that person with the camera over there" is a result of violating the code of conduct in the  "Politically Correct era:hugs:"



( I used that little heart thing, to be nice to PC people in case they were offended, by my sarcasm woot)


----------



## MarcusM (Jun 10, 2008)

Socrates said:


> I believe that it's incorrect to suggest that photographers are being singled out.  Right or wrong, it's a new world and everyone is impacted.  When I flew commercially the first time, the airline gave out free cigarettes and the cockpit didn't even have a door!  Now, they'll lock you up if you light a cigarette and you need to prove your innocence before you can so much as set foot in the airport.



I don't see what not being able to smoke in an airplane has to do with the uneasy feelings towards photographers...other than, "The times they are a-changing", but if you're trying to relate smoker's rights to photographer's rights...that's not comparing apples to apples. People taking a photograph are not harming the person they are taking a photograph of, as smokers are harming others around them.


----------



## Socrates (Jun 11, 2008)

MarcusM said:


> I don't see what not being able to smoke in an airplane has to do with the uneasy feelings towards photographers...other than, "The times they are a-changing", but if you're trying to relate smoker's rights to photographer's rights...that's not comparing apples to apples. People taking a photograph are not harming the person they are taking a photograph of, as smokers are harming others around them.


If it will make you feel better, forget about the cigarettes and consider that cockpits didn't even have doors in the past.  Worse yet, consider the current requirement that I identify myself *and prove my innocence* before I am allowed to enter an aircraft.  None of that existed in the past.

"Verrrrr are your papers?"


----------



## LaFoto (Jun 11, 2008)

While all of what you say, Socrates, may very well be right and constitute a considerable change of things concerned with flying in the course of time, I still don't know what relevance any of that has to a discussion in the "Photographic Discussion Forum" on *photographers* feeling more and more hassled and more and more put into the defense?


----------



## Socrates (Jun 11, 2008)

LaFoto said:


> While all of what you say, Socrates, may very well be right and constitute a considerable change of things concerned with flying in the course of time, I still don't know what relevance any of that has to a discussion in the "Photographic Discussion Forum" on *photographers* feeling more and more hassled and more and more put into the defense?


I stated the relevance previously.  To repeat, my point is simply that photographers are not being singled out.  The changes in our society have impacted everyone and air travel is but one example.


----------

