# strange, but nice verbal stand off.



## bribrius (Dec 8, 2014)

and oddly enough over this pic none the less. I snapped this and put my camera back in the car and noticed a guy watching me. Then he snaps a photo of me with his cellphone and walks up to me. Asks me what I am doing. I asked him who he was. he asked again what I was doing. I asked if he was store security. he said no but didn't reveal who it was. he asked again what I was doing. I said I was photographing the salvation army and asked who he was again. He said he was a detective. I asked what exactly he did. He didn't tell me just said he noticed I was "sneaking around with a camera and looked suspicious" and asked why I didn't just walk up and take the salvation army guys photo. I said people don't often respond well to the camera. he asked who I was and I didn't tell him just that i was shooting it as a community event piece (which is where this was intended to go i suspected). Asked him again who are you again a detective? He said he worked "along those lines " and had been watching me. Then he seemed suddenly in a rush to get away. Even already knowing he snapped my photo to keep him from walking I asked him if he took my photo. He seemed in a hurry to get away suddenly and just said he did as he continued walking. Got into a car and left.

Nice enough gentlemen, but very strange verbal exchange..


----------



## bribrius (Dec 8, 2014)

shoot. I dropped the ball here. I should have asked him straight out for i.d. and taken his photo..


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 8, 2014)

Some people manage to get infected rather quickly with a God Complex if they see someone taking photos in public.


----------



## photoguy99 (Dec 8, 2014)

When someone's vague about what they do, they're BSing 90%+ of the time. He was just some nosey parker.


----------



## runnah (Dec 8, 2014)

Wow you are polite. I always follow up when asked with "None of your f@cking business."

Law enforcement must ID themselves as such before doing any sort of questioning. Odds are he probably wanted to make sure you weren't a pedo.


----------



## James Baranski (Dec 8, 2014)

bribrius said:


> View attachment 90958
> 
> and oddly enough over this pic none the less. I snapped this and put my camera back in the car and noticed a guy watching me. Then he snaps a photo of me with his cellphone and walks up to me. Asks me what I am doing. I asked him who he was. he asked again what I was doing. I asked if he was store security. he said no but didn't reveal who it was. he asked again what I was doing. I said I was photographing the salvation army and asked who he was again. He said he was a detective. I asked what exactly he did. He didn't tell me just said he noticed I was "sneaking around with a camera and looked suspicious" and asked why I didn't just walk up and take the salvation army guys photo. I said people don't often respond well to the camera. he asked who I was and I didn't tell him just that i was shooting it as a community event piece (which is where this was intended to go i suspected). Asked him again who are you again a detective? He said he worked "along those lines " and had been watching me. Then he seemed suddenly in a rush to get away. Even already knowing he snapped my photo to keep him from walking I asked him if he took my photo. He seemed in a hurry to get away suddenly and just said he did as he continued walking. Got into a car and left.
> 
> Nice enough gentlemen, but very strange verbal exchange..


You should have shot him(pun intended)


----------



## vintagesnaps (Dec 8, 2014)

Runnah you can just show someone your avatar, that ought to take care of 'em.

Strange, Bri. Was he wearing any sort of ID? Doesn't sound like he was security or he would've said so and not just gotten in his car and left. Could've gotten his license plate number just in case, but probably nothing will come of it, maybe he just wanted to act like he was somebody, and people sometimes overreact to pictures being taken these days.


Is there a full moon??


----------



## rexbobcat (Dec 8, 2014)

runnah said:


> Wow you are polite. I always follow up when asked with "None of your f@cking business."
> 
> Law enforcement must ID themselves as such before doing any sort of questioning. Odds are he probably wanted to make sure you weren't a pedo.



Yeah, but you're bearded and mean looking.

As a skinny non-threatening dude who has eyes that say "I don't ever know exactly where I am," the more polite the better.


----------



## MOREGONE (Dec 8, 2014)

bribrius said:


> He said he was a detective....... Asked him again who are you again a detective? He said he worked "along those lines " and had been watching me.



I would have been quick to point out pictures in public, totally legal, impersonating a police officer, not so much.


----------



## bribrius (Dec 8, 2014)

MOREGONE said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > He said he was a detective....... Asked him again who are you again a detective? He said he worked "along those lines " and had been watching me.
> ...


i posted this question to friend here who seems to think he is a detective in one of the local police departments. She seems to know who I am talking about and responded with he IS a detective that I guess frequents the store. perhaps off duty?


----------



## bribrius (Dec 8, 2014)

runnah said:


> Wow you are polite. I always follow up when asked with "None of your f@cking business."
> 
> Law enforcement must ID themselves as such before doing any sort of questioning. Odds are he probably wanted to make sure you weren't a pedo.


the salvation army bell ringer???? come on now...  unless he didn't put it together exactly what I was shooting when he saw me.


----------



## Gary A. (Dec 8, 2014)

Usually I say that I am exercising my First Amendment rights. Then a quick what are you doing? If the response is tactful and somewhat intelligent ... then I engage in the conversation just to see where it's going. If the conversation is one way and hostile then I just carry on with my business.


----------



## snerd (Dec 8, 2014)

Maybe he was hitting on you?


----------



## sashbar (Dec 8, 2014)

This one nearly hit me yesterday


----------



## bribrius (Dec 8, 2014)

he looks mean. scrawny, but mean.


----------



## Fred Berg (Dec 8, 2014)

Did you put any money in the bucket?


----------



## bribrius (Dec 8, 2014)

Fred Berg said:


> Did you put any money in the bucket?


no. but I posted it on facebook so I gave them free advertising.


----------



## Gary A. (Dec 8, 2014)

sashbar said:


> This one nearly hit me yesterday
> 
> View attachment 90973








This guy grabbed my camera.


----------



## Stradawhovious (Dec 9, 2014)

I must be missing the OP or something, so my post may be way off base..

Fact is, even though I enjoy taking photos, if some stranger comes up and just starts snapping pictures of myself or my family, without asking, and for an unknown reason, I am quickly going to get awfully inquisitive in a loud, boisterous, not so plesant fashion.  I have no Idea what capacity those photos will be used in, and I'm not one to lend my likeness to a cause that is misaligned to my own, or have others profit off the likeness of my family without permission or compensation.

As much as people are entitled to their first amendment rights, I am entitled my privacy.  When your rights clash with and trample my rights, well, things get interesteing.  Fast.

Any time I have taken photos in public, if it's someone I don't know, I usually strike up a conversation and ask permission.  Luckily that all but NEVER happens since I don't like people enough to photograph them.


----------



## qleak (Dec 9, 2014)

Stradawhovious said:


> As much as people are entitled to their first amendment rights, I am entitled my privacy.  When your rights clash with and trample my rights, well, things get interesteing.  Fast.



By right to privacy you mean what? In a legal setting right to privacy means that the government cannot intrude on your privacy not some 3rd party. 

Whatever you do don't hit them. Marlon Brando learned that lesson the hard way. 






It's too bad the Ron Galella screwed up the trial with Jackie O. Then we'd have more clearly defined laws about the interplay between privacy and 1st amendment rights of public photography. 

"Smash his camera" is an interesting documentary about this. I personally don't think too highly of Ron Galella, and the documentary didn't help too much I'd be interested on hearing other peoples perspective on him too.


----------



## Stradawhovious (Dec 9, 2014)

qleak said:


> Whatever you do don't hit them. Marlon Brando learned that lesson the hard way.


 
I never insinuated that I would.  I don't solve my problems with violence.  I solve them with words.

It's not illegal for people to take my picture.

It's also not illegal for me to make them feel extremely uncomfortable about it.  You can exercise your first amendment right, well... so can I.  Luckily I'm not memorable in apprearance, famous or in any other way a usual target for candid photography.  The situation has only come up once where a stranger came up and without consent took a photo of my then 9 year old kid at the park.  After a short discussion he erased the photo and issued an apology.  We parted on plesant terms.

If you take the photo of someone that doesn't want you to, expect to deal with unplesantness as a result.  Your right to take their photo without permission won't stop them from landing a right hook if they are the type who are inclinced to do so.

You can argue that until you're blue in the face, but it won't stop it from happening.  Occupational hazard I guess.


----------



## sashbar (Dec 9, 2014)

Stradawhovious said:


> I must be missing the OP or something, so my post may be way off base..
> 
> Fact is, even though I enjoy taking photos, if some stranger comes up and just starts snapping pictures of myself or my family, without asking, and for an unknown reason, I am quickly going to get awfully inquisitive in a loud, boisterous, not so plesant fashion.  I have no Idea what capacity those photos will be used in, and I'm not one to lend my likeness to a cause that is misaligned to my own, or have others profit off the likeness of my family without permission or compensation.
> 
> ...



When someone "starts snapping", he/she is not a street photog, probably just some weirdo with a camera. If someone sees you before you see him/her, raises his camera, shoots you once (twice at most) "quick, quick" as HCB used to say, and walks away before you open you mouth, THAT is a street photog  .
You are entitled to your privacy on your private land and propetry, no doubt about it. When you are in a public place, this is it - public. As for "making a street photog feel "extremely uncomfortable" you will look extremely silly before you even start approaching that. I am taking direct violence, causing bodily harm and similar reactions out of the picture of course. Because that you will seriously regret later. Or straight after. You know, sometimes you look at the guy and think, "the right hook, probably"/ Then look at him again and think "Nope. That is not an option"


----------



## waday (Dec 9, 2014)

Stradawhovious said:


> As much as people are entitled to their first amendment rights, I am entitled my privacy.  When your rights clash with and trample my rights, well, things get interesteing.  Fast.



When you're in public, you don't have privacy. The two words are pretty much antonyms.

While I definitely agree that it can get awkward, your rights aren't being "trampled" when you're in a public setting. Aren't you actually "trampling" on the photographer's rights of taking pictures?


----------



## bribrius (Dec 9, 2014)

Stradawhovious said:


> I must be missing the OP or something, so my post may be way off base..
> 
> Fact is, even though I enjoy taking photos, if some stranger comes up and just starts snapping pictures of myself or my family, without asking, and for an unknown reason, I am quickly going to get awfully inquisitive in a loud, boisterous, not so plesant fashion.  I have no Idea what capacity those photos will be used in, and I'm not one to lend my likeness to a cause that is misaligned to my own, or have others profit off the likeness of my family without permission or compensation.
> 
> ...


i don't really worry about it. i try to have tact and maintain a sense of respect and common sense about the entire thing and usually be respectful and considerate. i have passed by many photos as i didn't want to infringe on a family or the person just wasn't being painted in a good light at the time. Passed by some where while in public and legal the person was still somewhat engaged in things better left in private. so i didn't take the shot. i am not a pro about this but have a certain line of decency as i put the person over the photo.


----------



## JustJazzie (Dec 9, 2014)

Oh people. *sigh* this reminds me of my nephews birthday party this year. A man came to a public park attatched to the YMCA. Got out of his car, took a few photos and left. Next thing you know, some lady walks into the YMCA and has the police called to report suspicious activity, with the vehicles played number. :eyeroll:


----------



## bribrius (Dec 9, 2014)

JustJazzie said:


> Oh people. *sigh* this reminds me of my nephews birthday party this year. A man came to a public park attatched to the YMCA. Got out of his car, took a few photos and left. Next thing you know, some lady walks into the YMCA and has the police called to report suspicious activity, with the vehicles played number. :eyeroll:


there are some weirdos out there. Have to separate the weirdos from the photogs though.  who knows. Maybe the guy has a large portfolio of fine art and street shooting and this is what he does.  On the other hand, maybe he is just a sicko. hard telln i think that is what freaks people out sometimes they don't know WHY the photo is being taken.  if i shot photos of someones kids and they noticed, i would introduce myself and talk with them and explain my hobby and what i do. As i wouldn't want them to have to worry that some nut job took photos of their kid and be paranoid of why that happened.  Just like if i take a photo of someone and they look visibly upset over it. i will usually walk up after with my hand out and introduce myself. Good grief, i like to take photos i am not out to annoy people and make them paranoid or miserable.  Generally speaking though stores tape, traffic and pedestrian cams, business surveillance, satellite imaging. you are on camera much more than the person you just noticed took your photo. And the footage that all catches is much more damning than a photog with a sense of decency and discretion. people just don't think about it.


----------



## Gary A. (Dec 9, 2014)

Stradawhovious said:


> I must be missing the OP or something, so my post may be way off base..
> 
> Fact is, even though I enjoy taking photos, if some stranger comes up and just starts snapping pictures of myself or my family, without asking, and for an unknown reason, I am quickly going to get awfully inquisitive in a loud, boisterous, not so plesant fashion.  I have no Idea what capacity those photos will be used in, and I'm not one to lend my likeness to a cause that is misaligned to my own, or have others profit off the likeness of my family without permission or compensation.
> 
> ...


According the the highest court in our nation, my First Amendment rights trump your right to privacy, when in the public domain. Yes, you most certainly have a right to privacy, but not in public. 

If I abuse my First Amendment rights by profiting off your likeness or misaligning your character, then in a court of law, I will be at fault and you win. If I exercise my First Amendment rights properly, within the confines of law and use the images for art, editorially or privately, then in a court of law I win.

While being "loud" and "boisterous" may seemingly affect those which you are directing your "loud" and "boisterous" remarks ... being loud and boisterous most certainly will not make you any more right or the other person any more wrong ... and it certainly will not immediately change existing law.

But unleashing one's anger, regardless if you're right or wrong, may make you feel better.


----------



## Gary A. (Dec 9, 2014)

Stradawhovious said:


> qleak said:
> 
> 
> > Whatever you do don't hit them. Marlon Brando learned that lesson the hard way.
> ...


Yes, Street shooting can be hazardous. That is part of the challenge. I will shoot children. Children have no greater right to privacy than an adult. I also carry a business card with my name, phone number and web site that I will happily pass on to those I photograph. Over the years I found that the moment a conversation is started ... the magic of what I first saw and wanted to capture is gone.


----------



## Gary A. (Dec 9, 2014)

Stradawhovious said:


> qleak said:
> 
> 
> > Whatever you do don't hit them. Marlon Brando learned that lesson the hard way.
> ...



Exactly, it is a two way street ... so to speak. But being "loud" and "boisterous" comes close to crossing a line between exercising your First Amendment rights and verbally attacking someone ... and to be honest I don't know the legalities of verbal assault. But just as there are limits to photographing a person in public (i.e. expectation of privacy), there must also be limits to being loud and boisterous.


----------



## goooner (Dec 9, 2014)

So taking pictures in bars/restaurants won't be 'public'? I guess the laws in most countries differ on this as well.


----------



## Stradawhovious (Dec 9, 2014)

I love the internet.

The issue here is that wrong, or right, actions have consequences.  If the guy you photograph gets loud and boisterous, or punches you, well then, they are just as pissed at your actions as you are at theirs.  Doesn't make it right, but people, as a general rule, kind of suck, and will act in whichever manner they choose.

I truly hope you folks don't ever get into an altercation... but if you do, I hope you aren't surprised by it.


----------



## pgriz (Dec 9, 2014)

Kinda reminds me of being dead right.  I practice kayaking, and often have to "share" the waterway with much bigger vessels than mine.  In theory, all recreational vessels have the same rights, but in practice, the big boys get priority, because I'd rather be mad about an idiot in a boat, than having my wife be responsible for making funeral arrangements because I didn't get out of the way fast enough.

One way that "street photography" can work, is if the photographer participates in an area and becomes accepted as one of the people in it.  If they then take photographs, no-one gets their nose out of joint because "that's what that person does", and there's some trust there.  Not saying that this is prescriptive and the only way, but that would be the way I'd do it if I was to do "street".


----------



## goooner (Dec 9, 2014)

I think shooting and subsequent publishing (on the internet) of anyone without their consent is illegal in Germany, maybe Fred or some of the Germans on here could correct me. There are a few exceptions, but I think most of the street photography I see here, where the subject is recognizable, would not be allowed in Germany without the consent of the 'model'.


----------



## Gary A. (Dec 9, 2014)

goooner said:


> So taking pictures in bars/restaurants won't be 'public'? I guess the laws in most countries differ on this as well.


In this country, that would be considered as private property. A sidewalk outside a home is public property, lawn of the home adjacent to the sidewalk would be considered private.


----------



## sashbar (Dec 9, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> I'm fascinated by the distinction between 'sickos' and 'photogs'. Why should one of these, whatever those words even mean, have rights that the other does not?



They both have the perfect right to photograph you in public as long as they do not cross the line of expectation of privacy. The only difference is the former is more annoying than the latter.


----------



## Stradawhovious (Dec 9, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> I do not argue, I just shoot


 

He argued...


----------



## Gary A. (Dec 9, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> I'm fascinated by the distinction between 'sickos' and 'photogs'. Why should one of these, whatever those words even mean, have rights that the other does not?


Point well taken ... and as we all know an unconvicted sicko has equal rights as an unconvicted photog.


----------



## photoguy99 (Dec 9, 2014)

I'm not trying to be a jerk here, I'm just pointing out that the prevailing attitude toward "pervs" photographing people, in particular children, is.. excessive. At least in the USA.

I find it an interesting phenomenon. People tend to be pretty liberal about where and what people can shoot until kids turn up, and then suddenly it's "a) should not be allowed and b) we should probably commit violence on these people" for what is, essentially, wrongthink.


----------



## Stradawhovious (Dec 9, 2014)

snerd said:


> Stradawhovious said:
> 
> 
> > Well... that escalated quickly...
> ...


 

I love the interwebz.  They're a special kind of awesome.


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 9, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> I'm not trying to be a jerk here, I'm just pointing out that the prevailing attitude toward "pervs" photographing people, in particular children, is.. excessive. At least in the USA.
> 
> I find it an interesting phenomenon. People tend to be pretty liberal about where and what people can shoot until kids turn up, and then suddenly it's "a) should not be allowed and b) we should probably commit violence on these people" for what is, essentially, wrongthink.



I'm not a perv with a camera who like to take photos of little children.  I'm a scout for Al Qaeda on a recruiting mission!


----------



## pixmedic (Dec 9, 2014)

aaaaaand i would say that this particular verbal stand off is done.


----------



## pixmedic (Dec 9, 2014)

by request, I am going to re-open this thread. 

anyone posting anything even remotely combative gets a TPF vacation. 
there will be no further warnings.


----------



## photoguy99 (Dec 9, 2014)

As one of the offenders, I am going to commit to Not Posting in this thread, as I suspect it would result in vacation(s).

Therefore, if you're interested in my point of view, please PM me.


----------



## Gary A. (Dec 9, 2014)

goooner said:


> I think shooting and subsequent publishing (on the internet) of anyone without their consent is illegal in Germany, maybe Fred or some of the Germans on here could correct me. There are a few exceptions, but I think most of the street photography I see here, where the subject is recognizable, would not be allowed in Germany without the consent of the 'model'.


I believe the same goes in France. I think in France privacy and the consent of the subject even extends to the media/press/news.


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 9, 2014)

Is it just people with DSLRs that evoke some response?
How about P&Ss or even Google glass?


----------



## waday (Dec 9, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> Is it just people with DSLRs that evoke some response?
> How about P&Ss or even Google glass?


I would imagine that DSLR's provoke more response; however, I think it's all. 

For example, Google Glass has an "etiquette" page: glass-explorers - Glass Press


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 9, 2014)

All that is a bit like searching under the streetlight for one's car keys.
We can't stop thought crimes, so we try to stop the only physical manifestation of what we might think allows the crime.

Does it make sense that pedophiles, a pretty universally despised kind of criminal, would get themselves all fitted out with camera gear and then stroll the streets, looking for attractive children to photograph, taking the chance of being the target of attention?

TBH, that doesn't make much sense to me.

I don't take pictures of children generally; they aren't very interesting and, because of the semi-irrational response of adults, just not worth the trouble.


----------



## goooner (Dec 9, 2014)

I did some more reading. As long as the person is not the main subject of the photo it can be published without consent. I guess there is a big grey zone here...


----------



## sashbar (Dec 9, 2014)

I once met a really scary one. Was nearly hit by a spade.


----------



## bribrius (Dec 10, 2014)

goooner said:


> I did some more reading. As long as the person is not the main subject of the photo it can be published without consent. I guess there is a big grey zone here...


this is something I kind of ponder. Here in the u.s. For some venues they require you know the name of the person in the photo to submit it, news, magazines I suspect. Some might require a release.
so short of putting photos like this on line or leaving them on the hard drive for eternity I am kind of at a loss of what to do with them as I cant identitfy the subjects in them never mind having a release. Seems at the least a local paper will request the identity of the main subject. Not sure about contests, never put a street photo in a contest.  someone else told me it depended on the contest some required identity some didn't.

you also play that game of commercial use vs. art use I the u.s. If you sell prints of the photo is it still art or now commercial as well?

seems for unknown characters maybe you might just stay limited to online posting and hard drive fodder?

I think press gets a free pass under the news banner, but anything submitted to them that isn't considered flash news they need the subjects permission or at a minimal to be identified.  But like if I was hired to shoot something for the district volleyball, wrestling, whatever. Every person on that team they would make sign a release giving permission to photograph. My kid had a school event, they sent home papers for all the parents to check off asking permission for photography or video in case someone covered the event.


----------



## bribrius (Dec 10, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> All that is a bit like searching under the streetlight for one's car keys.
> We can't stop thought crimes, so we try to stop the only physical manifestation of what we might think allows the crime.
> 
> Does it make sense that pedophiles, a pretty universally despised kind of criminal, would get themselves all fitted out with camera gear and then stroll the streets, looking for attractive children to photograph, taking the chance of being the target of attention?
> ...


some people are just down right odd anyway.  like that lady using photos of other people kids to pretend they were their own and put them on her facebook creating a fake identity or something. And child identities are usually more protected in general as they are minors. I am not suggesting one shouldn't photograph children but it does come with complications, as you have mentioned.


----------



## runnah (Dec 10, 2014)

It's all about ego. When you take a persons photo and make a fuss about it with forms and permissions, the subject feels special. If you just snap a photo and walk away, the subject feels like they don't matter.


----------

