# Photographer's Code of Ethics Vs Subject's privacy. I would really like some answers.



## kyonkon (Feb 15, 2012)

Everywhere I look, people are saying that photographers have the right to take whatever pictures they want, whenever they want, wherever they want, even if the subject of their photo is explicitly asking for photos to not be taken. The answers given tends to be on the photographer's side.

Is there absolutely no laws against somebody ramming a camera in my face and flashing me blind?

I have a serious problem when it comes to internet privacy, especially with facebook. Some 'friends of friends' have been going way over the top with photography. You know who I'm talking about -- you see 200 random snap shots from their updates on a daily basis, ranging from an old man at the bus stop to gum stuck under the table. These people are documenting everything that happens at any social gathering that I try to enjoy myself at, but notices several hours later that they have uploaded and tagged me, in a detail account of the exact amount of crackers, cake slices, or even sips of drinks I've taken.

Each time they point the camera my way, I politely ask them not to take a picture of me because I don't want pictures of me being spammed online, and each time they brush me off.

I'll admit that I'm not at all a photographer, so I really don't know most of the terminologies -- but other than the feeling of breached privacy, and a lack of trust, the constantly flashing is also rather irritating. Especially when the brightness burns into your eyes in the middle of a conversation. I find it rather rude, and have tried many times to ask certain people to, well, quit it. As you can probably tell, they haven't yet.

I really think I need outside help, from people who are professionals. No amount of talking or asking these people politely is at all doing the trick.

And a stupid question, can I send them a legal invoice for using me as a model and get paid for modelling or something? Not that I expect to get paid, but I'd hope that something like that would send them a message that I seriously don't want to be ninja-photographed and blinded every ten seconds.

Anything that is short of ripping their camera out of their hands and smashing it into a million pieces, I am willing to give it a try. 


Thank you so much in advance!


----------



## EIngerson (Feb 15, 2012)

So you come onto a "photography" forum, full of "photographers" and ask this? 

Have you seen yourself spammed all over the internet? Have you even seen one picture of yourself out there other than your facebook page?


----------



## MTVision (Feb 15, 2012)

kyonkon said:
			
		

> Everywhere I look, people are saying that photographers have the right to take whatever pictures they want, whenever they want, wherever they want, even if the subject of their photo is explicitly asking for photos to not be taken. The answers given tends to be on the photographer's side.
> 
> Is there absolutely no laws against somebody ramming a camera in my face and flashing me blind?
> 
> ...



Laws vary from place to place. 

Are these people your friends?? Or friends/family of friends? These people aren't really photographers per se - just people taking everyday snapshots?

From what i understand In the US you can take pictures of people in places where there is no expectation of privacy. If you are on private property at a party it's still kind of fair game.  As long as the people aren't trying to sell their pictures for commercial use then I don't think they need your permission and you can't invoice them. 

The people should respect your privacy though. If you ask them not to take pictures they shouldn't. If you ask them not to post online they shouldn't.  Especially if they are acquaintances.


----------



## Trever1t (Feb 15, 2012)

Certain situations aside, if you're in a public place you can be photographed without permission. Your likeness can be used for non-profit (Facebook) and there isn't much legal recourse unless your image is being used to slander, inflame etc. 

Most photographers should respect your desire to be anonymous and retract any photo or tag if requested.


----------



## skieur (Feb 15, 2012)

Well, ramming a camera in someone's face or seriously interfering with someone's activities through extremely aggressive photography have resulted in assault charges in some areas along with convictions in some courts.

skieur


----------



## MLeeK (Feb 15, 2012)

What country are you in? 
In the US if you have a reasonable expectation of privacy-inside your home, back yard, etc. then they have to have a release. If you are in public? you have no expectation of privacy. 
I have no idea where you are finding all of these invasive photographers. I've been in the industry for nearly all of my life and I haven't run into any photographer who is rude or invasive when told no. Sounds to me like you are a bit beyond pissy about the whole thing.


----------



## kyonkon (Feb 15, 2012)

To answer:
I'm from Canada, so I'm not sure how privacy laws differ, especially in photography.

We're chilling at our friend's rec room in their basement, even though we're there pretty often, I don't think we can call it a 'public place' per se.

I'd say they're not photographers. They have some expensive toys, but as far as I know they don't have any formal training. They're friends of friends that I really don't care to get to know better.

I can't say for sure they were used for slander, but I know one of the girls was rather upset when several people started posting comments that mocked her weight. It snowballed and the comments weren't remove, to my knowledge. In the uploader's comments sections, these people have made some rather lewd and inappropriate suggestions and descriptions, especially towards female friends.


----------



## usayit (Feb 15, 2012)

kyonkon said:


> Each time they point the camera my way, I politely ask them not to take a picture of me



Our obsession with protecting our "image" (literal meaning) from cameras in a public place when there is absolutely no expectation of privacy is as stupid as our ancestors who believed that the camera captured our souls.  Society is really walking in reverse.


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 15, 2012)

This is not a photographers' issue.
This is an issue with the friends your friends have.
They would be A**holes with or without a cell phone or a camera, those things just makes it worse.


----------



## kyonkon (Feb 15, 2012)

usayit said:


> kyonkon said:
> 
> 
> > Each time they point the camera my way, I politely ask them not to take a picture of me
> ...



But it's not in a public setting...


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 15, 2012)

Best solution? 

Dont go ... or find better "friends" who will tell their "friends" to cool it.. or leave!


----------



## Rephargotohp (Feb 15, 2012)

You don't have a problem with photographers, You're friends are just a-holes. Unfortunately there aren't many anti-Douchebag laws on either  side of the border


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 15, 2012)

kyonkon said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> > kyonkon said:
> ...



Yea.. but it isn't YOUR house, right? So only the owner of the house can set the rules... as to what is acceptable and what isn't!


----------



## e.rose (Feb 15, 2012)

:roll:


----------



## kyonkon (Feb 15, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> kyonkon said:
> 
> 
> > usayit said:
> ...



Wait, wait, so then it falls on the owner of the house to press charges if anything even is to happen?


----------



## MLeeK (Feb 15, 2012)

kyonkon said:


> To answer:
> I'm from Canada, so I'm not sure how privacy laws differ, especially in photography.
> 
> We're chilling at our friend's rec room in their basement, even though we're there pretty often, I don't think we can call it a 'public place' per se.
> ...


The injured party just needs to contact facebook and tell them that the image is used without permission. Facebook takes down anything in question like that.
Sounds to me like you guys need to let your friends know that in light of the recent facebook mess you are REALLY uncomfortable having XXX there and snapping away. 
I know that if one of my friends posted an image of my other friends that was handled like that I'd be telling them that they are no longer welcome period, let alone no longer welcome with any kind of a camera in hand.


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 15, 2012)

kyonkon said:


> Wait, wait, so then it falls on the owner of the house to press charges if anything even is to happen?



Charges?

What law did they break?


----------



## manaheim (Feb 15, 2012)




----------



## e.rose (Feb 15, 2012)

manaheim said:


>



Yo, pass that back!  I want some more.


----------



## usayit (Feb 15, 2012)

kyonkon said:


> Wait, wait, so then it falls on the owner of the house to press charges if anything even is to happen?



Anyone can press charges but you have almost zero chance of it even reaching a judge (assuming that it wasn't a situation that obviously privacy was expected.. i.e.  bathroom taking a crap).   What law exactly is being violated?  The home owner can ask you to leave.  They can't touch your camera nor your images/film.   Its still the property of the photographer.

Pressing charges?   I'm starting to think your "friends" deserve better too....

You should read this prior to asking more questions...

http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf


----------



## MLeeK (Feb 15, 2012)

The only charges I can forsee anywhere is from the injured party if the comments were slanderous or harassing. the charges would then be on those who made the comments, not those who took and posted the photos.


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 15, 2012)

kyonkon said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > kyonkon said:
> ...



No.. I wouldn't say that.. either! More that the owner of the house can usually dictate the behaviour of guests to some degree.. or ask them to leave. If the owner of the house allows this behaviour, you have two choices... 

#1 LEAVE 

  #2 Stay and deal with it! 

  I am not an attorney.. and know absolute SQUAT about Canadian law.... but I know that if a "Friend" was allowing me to be treated that way against my wishes, They would not remain a friend for long.

And since we are only hearing your side of the story, and not theirs... we don't even know the whole story!


----------



## megdagooch (Feb 15, 2012)

Interesting thread...something I have been wondering: my daughter competes in cheer ( what a money hungry racket that is!!!) and suddenly I am not allowed to photograph her at competitions. What!?!? I had been for years!!! But NOW they have a photographer come in and force me to buy her prints online. IF she gets a pic of my daughter and I'm sure it won't be in the middle of the cartwheel she mastered just before competition that I am soooo proud of. How can they ban me from photographing MY daughter and force me to pay them??? Oh I'm so frustrated! Is there any way around this?


----------



## usayit (Feb 15, 2012)

The competition is a privately organized event (assuming on private property).   They do have the right to restrict photographs even if your daughter is in it.  Yes.. it sucks.   As you said "Money Hungry Racket".


----------



## e.rose (Feb 15, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> you have two choices...
> 
> #1 LEAVE
> 
> *#2 Stay and deal with it! *



Confucius say, if you don't want to be set on fire... don't stand on a pile of lighter-fluid soaked wood as a match is about to be thrown on it.

Or... you know... SOMETHING deep like that...


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 15, 2012)

Although this is somewhat enjoyable, I sort of feel like I am watching wolves prowl around a lamb smiling.  The lamb thinks he is among friends but really they are just waiting for someone to return with the mint sauce.

I will unsubscribe and hope that just these 23 or 4 posts has not marked me in some way that my children will notice.


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 15, 2012)

megdagooch said:


> Interesting thread...something I have been wondering: my daughter competes in cheer ( what a money hungry racket that is!!!) and suddenly I am not allowed to photograph her at competitions. What!?!? I had been for years!!! But NOW they have a photographer come in and force me to buy her prints online. IF she gets a pic of my daughter and I'm sure it won't be in the middle of the cartwheel she mastered just before competition that I am soooo proud of. How can they ban me from photographing MY daughter and force me to pay them??? Oh I'm so frustrated! Is there any way around this?



You really shouldn't thread Hi-Jack.. since your issue is totally different from the OPs! Just open your own thread..


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 15, 2012)

Makes me wonder what the OP is hiding?  Why is he _really _not wanting his pix taken & posted.


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 15, 2012)

e.rose said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > you have two choices...
> ...



:hug::


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 15, 2012)

480sparky said:


> Makes me wonder what the OP is hiding?  Why is he _really _not wanting his pix taken & posted.



Yes... it would be interesting to see if the op will POST links to these offensive photos, so we can evaluate them?


----------



## megdagooch (Feb 15, 2012)

cgipson1 said:
			
		

> You really shouldn't thread Hi-Jack.. since your issue is totally different from the OPs! Just open your own thread..



Yea, I thought it fit in with his first paragraph and before everyone got into the manners of his friends. I apologize and probably should apologize for any future thread jacks, that's how my brain work sometimes. I will try not to in the future.


----------



## usayit (Feb 15, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Makes me wonder what the OP is hiding?  Why is he _really _not wanting his pix taken & posted.
> ...



Many years ago here on the TPF, someone started a thread posting photos of their boyfriend (or was it girlfriend?) at a bar having a good'ol time with someone else.  Then proceeded to ask if the photo was faked.... :er:

So it wouldn't be the first time.


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 15, 2012)

megdagooch said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No biggie.. we all do it sometimes! Just a totally different issue...


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 15, 2012)

usayit said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...



Funny.. we had one of those about two weeks ago... lol! Psychos!  :thumbdown:


----------



## usayit (Feb 15, 2012)

oh man.. and I missed it?  lol


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 15, 2012)

usayit said:


> oh man.. and I missed it?  lol



here ya go... http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/general-gallery/272047-professional-opinion-please.html


----------



## manaheim (Feb 15, 2012)

e.rose said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Wait, I'm gonna put some more butter on it first.  Stop being so fricken grabby.


----------



## e.rose (Feb 15, 2012)

manaheim said:


> e.rose said:
> 
> 
> > manaheim said:
> ...



Keef calls me "grabby crab" cause he says I'm too grabby............................ I promise you that's not as dirty as it sounds.  I'm just a clingy 3-year old, that's all.

Okay.

Still sounds bad.

I'm just gonna......... ::runs away::


----------



## usayit (Feb 15, 2012)

For crying out loud... its fraking.  Don't you guys watch Battlestar Galactica????

Frak (expletive) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

hehehe


----------



## EIngerson (Feb 15, 2012)

Get some better friends and stop bringing your drama to photography forums. Life is hard, people are mean. Get over it.


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 15, 2012)

BUMPING 4 JUSTICE


----------



## IByte (Feb 16, 2012)

e.rose said:
			
		

> :roll:



ulling up a seat, and here we go:

Can you pass the bowl?


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 16, 2012)

IByte said:


> e.rose said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think the show's over.........Carol sang, "I'm so glad we had this time together........." yesterday.


----------



## IByte (Feb 16, 2012)

480sparky said:
			
		

> I think the show's over.........Carol sang, "I'm so glad we had this time together........." yesterday.



Dammit! Like watching the Superbowl on DVR...not the same. >&hellip;<


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 16, 2012)

e.rose said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Forget the pop corn...


----------



## jowensphoto (Feb 16, 2012)

Nice Shepherd sign in the background!


----------



## KmH (Feb 16, 2012)

megdagooch said:


> Interesting thread...something I have been wondering: my daughter competes in cheer ( what a money hungry racket that is!!!) and suddenly I am not allowed to photograph her at competitions. What!?!? I had been for years!!! But NOW they have a photographer come in and force me to buy her prints online. IF she gets a pic of my daughter and I'm sure it won't be in the middle of the cartwheel she mastered just before competition that I am soooo proud of. How can they ban me from photographing MY daughter and force me to pay them??? Oh I'm so frustrated! Is there any way around this?


It would help if your profile indicated what country you are in. The internet is international, but laws aren't.

Way around this? If you are in the USA - Not if the event is on private property.

There is no way they can force you to buy the other photographers photos, however they can make those photos your only option.

If you want to fight back, find out if the photographer is giving the organisers/sanctioning body kickback $$$'s. Though quite common in youth sports, in most other businesses giving and accepting kickbacks gets people tossed into jail.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 16, 2012)

Next time they point the camera at you punch them they won't do it again


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 16, 2012)

jowensphoto said:


> Nice Shepherd sign in the background!


 
That "fell" off the metal posts that were originally holding it up... :mrgreen:


----------



## Overread (Feb 16, 2012)

usayit said:


> For crying out loud... its fraking.  Don't you guys watch Battlestar Galactica????
> 
> Frak (expletive) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> hehehe


 
Pfft I prefer Frell or Frelling -- Farescape > BSG (the new one)


----------



## IByte (Feb 16, 2012)

No BSG for me  Robert Chicken and Venture Brothers.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 16, 2012)

As a professional, I respect what people say to me, if they don't want photos shot of them I won't do it. I was covering a tragic car accident years ago and was asked by the police if I was planning on shooting any pictures of the kids that died in the van, they burned to death, it was news and I was working for a newspaper. I  respected the rights of these kids and their parents and friends, and didn't shoot any pictures. Being asked by the police had nothing to do with it, as I had already decided not to.

I have no time for the "professionals" that chase the rich and famous, they are the sleaze that bring photographers down, they don't have any respect for anyone, and are the first to scream about their rights as photographers.  Half of them using iphones.

I take my profession seriously and respecting people is part of it.


----------



## tirediron (Feb 16, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:


> As a professional, I respect what people say to me, if they don't want photos shot of them I won't do it. I was covering a tragic car accident years ago and was asked by the police if I was planning on shooting any pictures of the kids that died in the van, they burned to death, it was news and I was working for a newspaper. I respected the rights of these kids and their parents and friends, and didn't shoot any pictures. Being asked by the police had nothing to do with it, as I had already decided not to.
> 
> I have no time for the "professionals" that chase the rich and famous, they are the sleaze that bring photographers down, they don't have any respect for anyone, and are the first to scream about their rights as photographers. Half of them using iphones.
> 
> I take my profession seriously and respecting people is part of it.


Thank-you!  Without a doubt one of the best posts ever made on this forum!


----------



## usayit (Feb 17, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:


> As a professional, I respect what people say to me, if they don't want photos shot of them I won't do it.



In certain parts of the US (being purposely vague), police may restrict immediate access to an accident scene to any photographer (including press) that has been cornered off from public.   This does not restrict photography taken from outside of the controlled area into the accident scene.  I have read many times that this action has been contested with claims of 1st amendment rights.  The judge usually sides with the police and arresting officer.  Whether or not it is the proper interpretation of freedom of press is beyond the scope of my response.... simply it hasn't been contested and won enough to make it a trend.

Something to consider... ethics and morality have little to do with legality (exactly the way it should be).  The two are mixed up quite often in such discussions.   For example, it may be ethically wrong to take those accident photos but it may be perfectly legal.  Also consider if one's career/job is on the line.  Whether or not a photographer takes said photos is highly dependent on personal needs vs moral compass.   Kevin Carter for example took a Pulitzer Prize winning photo that eventually haunted him for the rest of his life.  It may have been morally wrong and I certainly don't agree with the actions he took after the shutter was tripped.  On the other hand it brought attention to the situation in Sudan. 


I'm all for image-maker's response but its not a simple situation and to me sounds off topic (a bit pretentious IMO).... comparing an accident scene to the OP's predicament of being annoyed by his annoying friends with their annoying cameras.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 17, 2012)

Kevin Carter's photo did impact alot of people and draw attention to the Sudan, I think it is a brilliant image, would I have shot the same thing if I were in the same situation, I'm not sure, would I have just walked away after feeling good about myself.  He was living in a bad place in his life at the time and  it was a combination of things that finally drove him to suicide.  While I agree the photos of  kids burned alive in the back of a van is news,  I saw it as morally wrong to shoot the photos. I was one of the first people on the scene, it happened on some backroads and and the reporter I had with me knew a back way in.  This also happened in 1979, to this day, I could describe to you, draw a picture of where eveything was, it wasn't something I ever wanted to see again. Why should the parents have to see that, if  the images were printed, and the paper I was working for probably would have, I got raked over the coals by the news editor for not having those photos.  I knew where his moral ethics were located.  By today's rules the whole scene would have been restricted.

My response was to point out the difference between professional respect and not directed at children with iphones.  I thought adding a professional side to a topic about the ethics of photographers would make sense. I'm not sure why it comes off as sounding pretenious, making a statement as a professional, I show respect to the people I deal with, that's the way it should be, and something that is being lost in today's world. 

 The topic should have been more along the lines of "My idiot friends with iphones have no respect and invade my personal privacy"  Using the word photographer in this case is incorrect as I don't regard iphone users as photographers, regardless of how good the cell phone is.


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 17, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:


> As a professional, I respect what people say to me, if they don't want photos shot of them I won't do it. I was covering a tragic car accident years ago and was asked by the police if I was planning on shooting any pictures of the kids that died in the van, they burned to death, it was news and I was working for a newspaper. I  respected the rights of these kids and their parents and friends, and didn't shoot any pictures. Being asked by the police had nothing to do with it, as I had already decided not to.
> 
> I have no time for the "professionals" that chase the rich and famous, they are the sleaze that bring photographers down, they don't have any respect for anyone, and are the first to scream about their rights as photographers.  Half of them using iphones.
> 
> I take my profession seriously and respecting people is part of it.



If everyone share your views we wouldn't have photos as influential as this,







Along with many other images that people would consider tragic and possibly "wrong" to have been photographed.

The world isn't full of unicorns and rainbows.


----------



## Overread (Feb 17, 2012)

Yes we would - the monk set out to set himself on fire as part of protest. It was a clear visual message being sent and is nothing at all similar to people being accidentally burned and killed in a car crash. Right or not is a question we each have to come to our own views upon, but I'd say - horrible as it is - that not photographing the monk would have been the greater wrong than to take the photo - taking and distributing the photo directly allowed his efforts to multiply.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 17, 2012)

Village Idiot said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > As a professional, I respect what people say to me, if they don't want photos shot of them I won't do it. I was covering a tragic car accident years ago and was asked by the police if I was planning on shooting any pictures of the kids that died in the van, they burned to death, it was news and I was working for a newspaper. I respected the rights of these kids and their parents and friends, and didn't shoot any pictures. Being asked by the police had nothing to do with it, as I had already decided not to.
> ...



I don't believe I asked anyone to share my views, I just stated my personal opinion.  The photo of the monk is not the same as a photo of 5 dead children in the back of a van.  There have been hundreds of photos shot over the decades similar to the image of the monk, and there will be hundreds more shot.  

No the world is not full of rainbows and unicorns, just village idiots.


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 17, 2012)

Overread said:


> Yes we would - the monk set out to set himself on fire as part of protest. It was a clear visual message being sent and is nothing at all similar to people being accidentally burned and killed in a car crash. Right or not is a question we each have to come to our own views upon, but I'd say - horrible as it is - that not photographing the monk would have been the greater wrong than to take the photo - taking and distributing the photo directly allowed his efforts to multiply.



What about this well known photo by Michael Yon?






The fatally wounded Iraqi girl was innocent and never asked to have her life ended by terrorist? Is this so much different because she wasn't killed in a car wreck?

There's many more news worthy photos like this out there. It's a journalist's responsibility to report the news and not sensor it.



imagemaker46 said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > imagemaker46 said:
> ...



You didn't ask anyone to share your views, but you sure don't seem to mind judging people that have different views.

The people jumping from the WTC weren't protesting anything and those are considered newsworthy photos.

There's other plenty of newsworthy photos of innocent people, young and old, that would not be taken if we had an army of journalist such as yourself. If you have a weak stomach or think that anything disturbing should not be shown to the public, you're probably better off doing family photography and not journalism.

And you're pretty clever. I never realized anyone could ever come up with a personal attack using my screen name. Oh the irony! :er:


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 17, 2012)

So as an IT professional you have been in these photo situations many times, I'm sure.  Why don't you just drag up all the images you know of that will back your statements. I have worked in this business for a long time, I've been though and seen things that I wish I hadn't. Some of my best friends have gone through death and destruction, during the Gulf wars. My dad spent time in Viet Nam as a Canadian photographer covering part of the conflict, he was in Israel during the 6 Day war, where his hearing was damged because of the tank fire. I talk to these photographers and know what they have gone through, we have discussed the moral and ethical reasons for why, and why not shoot pictures, and at the end of the day I still have great respect for their choices. Don't pretend to understand my business,or who I am, how many times you had guns pointed at you because you were taking pictures?

I don't have a weak stomach, but tell me, if they were your chidren, ages 10-18, five of them, in the back of a van filling a chain saw with gas, and someone lights a cigarette, basically blowing the inside of the van to pieces along with the kids, and you watched them being carried out one by one, charred black, with limbs missing. As a parent would you want to see that? As a human being with compassion, would you want to see that?  I expect if they were your children, you wouldn't have a problem with it though, afterall it's just a photo, and it is news.  Am I wrong?

This debate could continue to go on forever, and I'm not prepared to discuss what is wrong and what is right about some photos. There are some things that I personally don't think need to be seen, but you believe that everything is fair game, that is the obvious difference between us, there are times when not shooting, is  correct.


----------



## usayit (Feb 17, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:


> So as an IT professional you have been in these photo situations many times, I'm sure.  Why don't you just drag up all the images you know of that will back your statements...



BUZZZ.... foul!

You don't need to be poor to have something to say about it.

You don't need to be a woman to have an something to say about women's rights.

You don't need to be a veteran to have something to say about war. (or Daddy)

You don't need to be a photographer to have a valid opinion regarding this subject.



I was kinda polite when I said it the first time imagemaker.... but you missed my point.   So I will be blunt this time.  Don't wear your self-righteous attitude like a badge of honor.  It wasn't becoming the first time around and looks increasingly low now.   You've now taken this thread so way off topic into an over simplified, black and white debate argument that you obviously are not capable of discussing without getting personal.

So just when I thought this thread was going to slowly end.....  Can someone PLEEEZE pass the popcorn!?


----------



## DiskoJoe (Feb 17, 2012)

kyonkon said:


> Everywhere I look, people are saying that photographers have the right to take whatever pictures they want, whenever they want, wherever they want, even if the subject of their photo is explicitly asking for photos to not be taken. The answers given tends to be on the photographer's side.
> 
> Is there absolutely no laws against somebody ramming a camera in my face and flashing me blind?
> 
> ...



Sounds like a good smack is in order. Dont take crap from people you call friends.


----------



## jonathon94 (Feb 17, 2012)

To the OP. Some people are assholes (sorry but true) I deal with them alot. You may try to be friends with their friends but if they won't say anything to people that are annoying you then it might be better to leave and not come back. If they are bothering you to this point then obviously you are not enjoying yourself so why do you stay? As mentioned earlier you shouldn't judge an entire population by the few. For every bad 'photographer' there are a 100+ that you would like and wouldn't mind hanging with.

As for the posters that moved this thread from a couple assholes in a friend's house to photojournalism, as bad as these images are and as much as they make your stomach churn, this is what journalists and photojournalists are for. If we removed these people from the world, you wouldn't know the effects of Hurricane Katrina, The hunger and illness in Africa, or the Quakes that happen through out the world. These people see many bad things but at the same time they give an image to the many problems with our world today and helps us identify them. How much can I bet that after Kevin Carter's photo more people realized what was happening in Africa and did what they could to help whether it be sending money, food, or at the very least spread the news so that someone else could help. These photos challenge our morals but at the same time they help us see what is going wrong in this world.


----------



## Diffuser (Feb 17, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> > oh man.. and I missed it?  lol
> ...



Had to laugh at post 11 .. .'the ***** is dead' ;-)

It doesn't look good, the path humanity and facebook are walking. This can only end badly when everyone is over-connected and has no clue what's going on anymore.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 17, 2012)

Yes, you're both right, I made a simple statement about showing respect for people that don't want their photos taken, because I believe that peoples rights should be respected.  It was my own opinion.  

You are correct in your statements, regarding women, the poor, veterans and not having to be photographers to have  valid opinons.   What I do not like is being told that I am gutless because of what I didn't shoot. I was not the one started the personal attack on my ethics as a photographer.  I wouldn't presume to understand what it's like to be a professional race car driver, so my opinion to him wouldn't start with, you must have a weak stomach if you can't be like everyone else, how hard can it be to drive a car at 240 MPH.  I can say I understand what it's like to be an IT specialist, but I don't, I don't have a clue. Being a photographer working in difficult situations, I understand.  

If Village Idiot tells me an IT professional is the reason all computers work, who am I to dispute it, I don't know, I've never been one.  I respect his opinon in his chosen field.  

All I'm saying, give respect to those that have experience in their chosen fields. They understand what it's like better than those that don't. Just my opinion.


----------



## bogeyguy (Feb 17, 2012)

Seems to me like a good ***** slapping is called for with your friends, friends!!!


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 21, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:


> Yes, you're both right, I made a simple statement about showing respect for people that don't want their photos taken, because I believe that peoples rights should be respected.  It was my own opinion.
> 
> You are correct in your statements, regarding women, the poor, veterans and not having to be photographers to have  valid opinons.   What I do not like is being told that I am gutless because of what I didn't shoot. I was not the one started the personal attack on my ethics as a photographer.  I wouldn't presume to understand what it's like to be a professional race car driver, so my opinion to him wouldn't start with, you must have a weak stomach if you can't be like everyone else, how hard can it be to drive a car at 240 MPH.  I can say I understand what it's like to be an IT specialist, but I don't, I don't have a clue. Being a photographer working in difficult situations, I understand.
> 
> ...



This post is as idiotic as well, most of the people I deal with on a day to day basis. I shoot street photography and I know my rights. I'm not about to lay down and let people walk all over me because they disagree with what I'm doing. I don't live in some communist country where I don't have rights afforded to me by the constitution.

I'm not a doctor, but I don't believe that they wave their magic clipboard over people and magically heal them.


----------



## jowensphoto (Feb 21, 2012)

Wait, wait! I'm in IT, so does that mean I have no business/knowledge of photography or cameras? Should I just "stick with what I know"? 

God, this thread wen to hell in a hand basket PDQ.

FWIW: IT guys (and girls.. me!) are the reason computers work. Don't let anyone else tell your different. They're wrong


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 21, 2012)

jowensphoto said:


> Wait, wait! I'm in IT, so does that mean I have no business/knowledge of photography or cameras? Should I just "stick with what I know"?
> 
> God, this thread wen to hell in a hand basket PDQ.
> 
> FWIW: IT guys (and girls.. me!) are the reason computers work. Don't let anyone else tell your different. They're wrong



That's because unlike the normal unwashed masses, we know where the power button is!


----------



## tirediron (Feb 21, 2012)

Village Idiot said:


> ...I shoot street photography and I know my rights. I'm not about to lay down and let people walk all over me because they disagree with what I'm doing. I don't live in some communist country where I don't have rights afforded to me by the constitution....


So why do you feel that your desire take a photograph trumps someone's wish not to have their photograph taken?


----------



## jowensphoto (Feb 21, 2012)

Village Idiot said:


> jowensphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Wait, wait! I'm in IT, so does that mean I have no business/knowledge of photography or cameras? Should I just "stick with what I know"?
> ...




...and the power cord.

During my desktop support days, I taught a guy how to copy and paste. Mind = blown. For both of us.


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 21, 2012)

Village Idiot said:


> jowensphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Wait, wait! I'm in IT, so does that mean I have no business/knowledge of photography or cameras? Should I just "stick with what I know"?
> ...



I will mention that to my boss.. the next time I need a raise!    lol!


----------



## jowensphoto (Feb 21, 2012)

tirediron said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > ...I shoot street photography and I know my rights. I'm not about to lay down and let people walk all over me because they disagree with what I'm doing. I don't live in some communist country where I don't have rights afforded to me by the constitution....
> ...



This wasn't posed to me, but I'd like to give my HO.

I feel like this is simple (and hashed out a few times in this thread): in a public space, you pretty much give up any expectation of privacy. I, however, do not lose the right to photograph a public space and whatever may be included in that space. My right trumps theirs because the Constitution says it does. If people are sooooo afraid of having their soul stolen by the picture machine, they shouldn't put themselves in a situation/environment where that can happen. I like taking photos, so I'm sure as hell no moving to N. Korea. KWIM?


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 21, 2012)

tirediron said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > ...I shoot street photography and I know my rights. I'm not about to lay down and let people walk all over me because they disagree with what I'm doing. I don't live in some communist country where I don't have rights afforded to me by the constitution....
> ...



Because I live in the USA and not Canada.


----------



## tirediron (Feb 21, 2012)

Village Idiot said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > Village Idiot said:
> ...


Okay, I freely admit to not being the brightest bunny in the briar patch, but could you please enlighten me as to what political boundaries have to do with this?  In this issue, the relevant statutes are almost identical in both Canada and the USA. (Or was this just a petulant remark intended to inflame?)

Take the photography out of the equation.  Let us assume that the citizens of country 'X' have nothing in their constitution or laws which makes it wrong or illegal to smack people in the back of the head when they walk past them.  This hurts and you don't want to be smacked in the head...  should you not have the right NOT to be smacked?


----------



## jowensphoto (Feb 21, 2012)

tirediron said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > tirediron said:
> ...



If I had a goal of one day being a professional head-smacker, then I'd exercise my right to head-smack to my heart's content.  /snark

I get what you're saying: it's not necessarily what is/isn't law, but what is and isn't moral. Everyone's morals/ethics are different, and that's why we have a written Constitution (only speaking for USA, not familiar with law, etc in other countries). I support every man's right to exercise his Constitutional rights to the full extent, whether people he interacts with agree or not.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 21, 2012)

I agree that in a public place anyone can take a picture of anything or anyone they want. I think everyone agrees to that. What I said was that if someone asks me not to, I will respect their request and not do it.  Everyone else can make their own decision and choice, that is their right, regardless of the country they live in.


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 21, 2012)

tirediron said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > tirediron said:
> ...



Well basically, don't live in that country. That's a totally different comparison though. Taking a photo of someone does not cause them physical harm. Now if you said people had the right to walk around without pants on and with their junk hanging out but you found that offensive, you could do one of two things: don't go outside or move to a country where you're required to wear pants in public.

And further more, how many times a day do you have your likeness recorded? I can tell you I've been on video about about 6 times today. And people freak out about someone taking their photo in public? "Oh my, the guy with the big ass heavy DSLR and lens that costs atleast $500 is a terrorist or pedophile! Let's make it illegal for them to take a picture of me in public!" If that attitude became law (and people have tried but thanks to our rights in this country we still have to freedom to photograph things outside of our own homes) it would be dangerous to even carry a camera in public. All someone would have to do is accuse you of taking a photo of them and you could be detained while your photos were searched. LEOs would become art critics and the whole country would be doomed. Plus, I'd probably move to Japan or some place where I wouldn't get strip searched by the cops for owning a camera.


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 21, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:


> I agree that in a public place anyone can take a picture of anything or anyone they want. I think everyone agrees to that. What I said was that if someone asks me not to, I will respect their request and not do it.  Everyone else can make their own decision and choice, that is their right, regardless of the country they live in.



Dear officer, it's my right to photograph you possibly violating other people's rights.

Mr. criminal, I'm sorry you don't want me taking a picture of you car jacking that poor old lady.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 21, 2012)

Village Idiot said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > I agree that in a public place anyone can take a picture of anything or anyone they want. I think everyone agrees to that. What I said was that if someone asks me not to, I will respect their request and not do it. Everyone else can make their own decision and choice, that is their right, regardless of the country they live in.
> ...



When stupidity rolls back into a thread, there is no need to further comment on a subject.


----------



## tirediron (Feb 21, 2012)

Village Idiot said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > I agree that in a public place anyone can take a picture of anything or anyone they want. I think everyone agrees to that. What I said was that if someone asks me not to, I will respect their request and not do it. Everyone else can make their own decision and choice, that is their right, regardless of the country they live in.
> ...



Okay, now who's being silly? There's a HUGE difference between recording something like one of the above examples, and say: seeing a little old lady sitting quietly on a park bench on an out-of-the-way path in a little used area of a city park. You feel this would make a great street shot, but she's an older lady, who values her privacy. She's out in public and has no (under the law) expectation of privacy, but she very much dislikes having her photograph taken.

Because you may have the right to do something, does that mean you should?  To be perfectly clear, the 'little old lady on the bench' example is the type of thing to which I refer.  NOT the recording of a criminal act, or similar.


----------



## jowensphoto (Feb 21, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > imagemaker46 said:
> ...



I don't think these statements are any more "stupid" than the head-smacking argument.  Just because the example lies on the side of ridiculous, doesn't make the point behind it so.


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 21, 2012)

tirediron said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > imagemaker46 said:
> ...



I'd shoot it. Sometimes I use UWA lenses, sometimes I use telephoto.

I shoot restaurant reviews and have photos of people in some of my photos. I'm pretty sure most of them don't want to have someone taking pictures of them shoveling food into their mouths and then posted on the internet, but they're in public and I'm using it for editorial purposes and not commercial so I don't need releases. A restaurant owner could tell me not to shoot if a customer said it was bothering them, but they're probably happier with the publicity and business it brings.


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 21, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > imagemaker46 said:
> ...



I can see how someone in the great state of Canadia would think that excercising a right is stupid if they don't have the same rights.


----------



## tirediron (Feb 21, 2012)

Village Idiot said:


> I can see how someone in the great state of Canadia would think that excercising a right is stupid if they don't have the same rights.


Okay, now you're being deliberately offensive.  I will repeat, since you apparently missed it the first time, with respect to this issue, the laws (which may have different names in each country) are almost identical.  There is no issue of this being a "right" which you can exercise in one country and not in the other, rather the point (which I had thought we could debate as adults),  was whether or not it was appropriate to photograph someone who expressly does not wish to be photographed and why.


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 21, 2012)

tirediron said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > I can see how someone in the great state of Canadia would think that excercising a right is stupid if they don't have the same rights.
> ...



John, there are no "privacy" rights for people in public places, where street photography occurs. The issue with your "head slapping" analogy is that there ARE laws to protect people from being slapped in the head... Because everyone knows that is deemed as "assault." No one has the right to tell you to stop doing something that you're constitutionally allowed to do in the street (photography), unless it's an "officer of the law" telling you to stop taking photos of Govt. Buildings. 

People can ASK you to stop, but you aren't legally required to. It's not a question of legalities at this point, it's morality and doing what you think is right. Everyone has different morals, and VI has no qualms with doing street photography. Sure, his subjects might, but they've not got a legal leg to stand on. 

Simply, what VI is trying to say is that if people take great objection to having their photo taken, that they need to get used to it if they're out in public. There's NO expectation of privacy when in public, whichever way you look at it.


----------



## jowensphoto (Feb 21, 2012)

> People can ASK you to stop, but you aren't legally required to. It's not  a question of legalities at this point, it's morality and doing what  you think is right.



Right. 

It might not be right, but it's the photographer's right.

Right?


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 21, 2012)

jowensphoto said:


> > People can ASK you to stop, but you aren't legally required to. It's not  a question of legalities at this point, it's morality and doing what  you think is right.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Right. Er... Correct?


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 21, 2012)

tirediron said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > I can see how someone in the great state of Canadia would think that excercising a right is stupid if they don't have the same rights.
> ...



And others haven't been? :er:

If street photography worked on the grounds of you only take photos of people that want their pictures taken, then there'd be a lot less interesting photos out there.

People that have issues with that aren't street photograpers...or generally not very good ones.


----------



## tirediron (Feb 21, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> ...Simply, what VI is trying to say is that if people take great objection to having their photo taken, that they need to get used to it if they're out in public. There's NO expectation of privacy when in public, whichever way you look at it.


I understand the legal aspects of, and I understand that there is no legal expectation of privacy when one is out in public.  There's no question or issue with that.  What I am trying to understand is why some people feel that simply because there is no law prohibiting an action, it is always morally acceptable to engage in that action when the person against whom the action is directedfinds it unpleasant, distasteful, offensive, etc.  (This presumes a case where the subject is aware of the photographer)

Granted, the head-slapping analogy was ridiculous, but that was done intentionally, and I also specified that in 'X' it was perfectly legal to engage in head-slapping.

Let's try another approach:  Let's say that you REALLY want the picture of that little old lady on the park bench, but her very tall, very angry, son interposes himself between you and her.  He does not touch you, but repeatedly asks you to go away and not bother her, and masks the shot with his body- would this bother you?


----------



## jowensphoto (Feb 21, 2012)

Sure it would, because he would be infringing upon my ability to take the photo. He wouldn't be doing anything "wrong" per se, but I wouldn't be either. 

In general, if we (general, as in every person) quit doing everything that pissed someone off, a whole lot of nothing would get done. 

FWIW: I'm enjoying this discussion. Lots of good arguments on all sides.


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 21, 2012)

tirediron said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > ...Simply, what VI is trying to say is that if people take great objection to having their photo taken, that they need to get used to it if they're out in public. There's NO expectation of privacy when in public, whichever way you look at it.
> ...



John, it's clear that you have fundamentally differing views on street photography, and the morality therein. Without the human element, street photography loses it's luster. Without the freedoms that people of the US (and I would hope Canada as well) are granted, there would be no street photography, and there would be a distinct lack of evocative street photographs over the past 80 years. 

People have every right to get mad if there's a photographer in their face, but there isn't anything they can do about it. If it's not you taking the photo, it's someone else... They simply need to get used to it. If they don't want to get their photo taken, they should practice looking less intriguing to the photographic eye. 

As for your last statement: Everyone would handle that situation differently. If I felt like I could potentially be in a dangerous situation, I would continue walking and shooting. If I didn't feel that he posed a threat, I'd leave and then come back around for a second attempt with hopefully a much less aware son.


----------



## jowensphoto (Feb 21, 2012)

> As for your last statement: Everyone would handle that situation  differently. If I felt like I could potentially be in a dangerous  situation, I would continue walking and shooting. If I didn't feel that  he posed a threat, I'd leave and then come back around for a second  attempt with hopefully a much less aware son.



Or maybe snap a pic of him. :greenpbl:


----------



## tirediron (Feb 21, 2012)

Village Idiot said:


> If street photography worked on the grounds of you only take photos of people that want their pictures taken, then there'd be a lot less interesting photos out there.


Granted, however (and I admit that it is a distinction with a subtle difference) I am not referring to people who only want their pictures taken, but rather NOT taking pictures of those who do not wish it.  I've done a fair bit of street/urban candid photography and whenever I'm dealing with a situation where the image will be of a single person who will clearly be able to see me shooting, I've sought permission.  Yes, I have lost the odd 'moment' because of that, I do regret not having some of those images, but NOT at the cost of offending someone.


----------



## tirediron (Feb 21, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> John, it's clear that you have fundamentally differing views on street photography, and the morality therein.


Yeah, I'd say that's a fair assessment!



o hey tyler said:


> Without the human element, street photography loses it's luster. Without the freedoms that people of the US (and I would hope Canada as well) are granted, there would be no street photography, and there would be a distinct lack of evocative street photographs over the past 80 years.


True, but again, I'm only talking about not shooting those who people who expressly don't wish to be photographed.  I suspect in the overall archive, that would make up a fairly small percentage.



o hey tyler said:


> People have every right to get mad if there's a photographer in their face, but there isn't anything they can do about it. If it's not you taking the photo, it's someone else... They simply need to get used to it.


And therein lies the cornerstone of my position:  I fail to see why a person should be forced to get used to something that they don't like. (Presupposing of course, that 'something' is a lawful activity)


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 21, 2012)

tirediron said:


> ]And therein lies the cornerstone of my position: * I fail to see why a person should be forced to get used to something that they don't like.* (Presupposing of course, that 'something' is a lawful activity)



Women are forced to get mammograms, men are forced to get a colonoscopy, kids are forced to go to school, people are forced to work jobs they don't like, etc. 


Life is hard. Getting your photo taken by a stranger in a public place should be the least of anyones worries.


----------



## Bossy (Feb 21, 2012)

When I was in Washington DC, I was walking around with my kiddos. We were looking at some of the monuments and I look over to see a lady standing about 3 feet from my 4 year old (who was sitting in the stroller, lonng day of walking), and watched her turn and aim her camera at my daughter to take a picture of her. I thought it was odd and invasive, and stepped in front of her and glared at her.  (much like the old lady/ son situation). If she had continued to try to take a photo of *just* my daughter, I probably would've hollered and made a scene. She may have had the legal right, but I also have the legal right to let her know exactly how I feel about that. As it was she just looked up like, "oh!" and moved along.


----------



## tirediron (Feb 21, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> ...Women are forced to get mammograms, men are forced to get a colonoscopy, kids are forced to go to school, people are forced to work jobs they don't like, etc.
> 
> 
> Life is hard. Getting your photo taken by a stranger in a public place should be the least of anyones worries.


True, but going to school provides an education, a painful mamogram may detect and allow the curing of potentially fatal cancer, and an unpleasant job puts food on the table and a roof over one's head.  These, while unpleasant provide a direct and tangible ('though not always immediately apparent) benefit to the person.  My photographing him/her for my own purposes does not.


----------



## IByte (Feb 21, 2012)

If it was an invasion of privacy, then the paperazzi whom Princess Diana sped away from would have been in jail a long time ago.  I think some people here are getting stalking confused here with street photography.  Unless otherwise noted and clearly stated; people are going to take pictures, film documentaries, protest open and freely until they crossed the legal line.  This is not "1984" (at least in the US) or military state.


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 21, 2012)

tirediron said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > ...Women are forced to get mammograms, men are forced to get a colonoscopy, kids are forced to go to school, people are forced to work jobs they don't like, etc.
> ...



Being a character in an amazing street photograph could make you famous, and it doesn't even allow anyone to know your name, age, or any details about you other than your likeness.


----------



## tirediron (Feb 21, 2012)

IByte said:


> If it was an invasion of privacy, then the paperazzi whom Princess Diana sped away from would have been in jail a long time ago.


Hardly germaine to the discussion.  Legal rulings in most western countries have established that so-called "celebrities" by their very popularity are part of the public interest ('though why anyone would care is beyond me),


----------



## tirediron (Feb 21, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> Being a character in an amazing street photograph could make you famous, and it doesn't even allow anyone to know your name, age, or any details about you other than your likeness.


Possible, albeit unlikely.


----------



## IByte (Feb 21, 2012)

tirediron said:
			
		

> Hardly germaine to the discussion.  Legal rulings in most western countries have established that so-called "celebrities" by their very popularity are part of the public interest ('though why anyone would care is beyond me),



True but I was trying to stress (next time I'll be more clear) that after that accident they were looking on the paperzzi methods unfortunately; as stated as many other threads if you are in a public place expect very privacy.  IMO I think they are ...holes but in a legal stand point they were innocent.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 21, 2012)

The drunk behind the wheel that lost control of the car was responsible for Diana's death, not a pack of photographers as everyone wants to believe.  That incident changed how people view photographers.  We were all painted with one big brush for a long time after that.  Did they contribute to the accident, perhaps in a very small way.

People don't have to get used to doing anything they don't want to do, women aren't forced to get mamograms, men aren't forced to get a colonosocopy, and people aren't forced to work in jobs they hate, these are all choices people make.

This thread has drifted to a land far far away.    My personal opinion is that I respect another persons rights not to want their picture taken, I'm not talking about criminals saying, don't take my picture.   There are times when people like to have their pictures taken, and there are times when they don't. Respect that line, is all I'm saying.


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 21, 2012)

tirediron said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > ...Simply, what VI is trying to say is that if people take great objection to having their photo taken, that they need to get used to it if they're out in public. There's NO expectation of privacy when in public, whichever way you look at it.
> ...



I'd shoot the son.


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 21, 2012)

tirediron said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > John, it's clear that you have fundamentally differing views on street photography, and the morality therein.
> ...



Then don't put yourself in an environment when you'll be put in that position. If you don't like loud noises, don't live in a city where you'll be subject to them. If you're that adverse to having a photo taken of you in a public space, move to BFE where the chance of that is closer to 0% than 100%. If you don't like the cold, move to the tropics. etc, etc...


----------



## tirediron (Feb 21, 2012)

Village Idiot said:


> I'd shoot the son.


  All right, so much for a mature debate.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 21, 2012)

tirediron said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > I'd shoot the son.
> ...



He has the right to carry a gun as well.


----------



## IByte (Feb 21, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:
			
		

> There are times when people like to have their pictures taken, and there are times when they don't. Respect that line, is all I'm saying.



In all honestly, I'm in agreement with you on that.  But in a legal sense, if the photographer decided not to ask; the "subjects" could only ask not to take pictures of them or their family out of consideration.  Shame all of us can't get together for a few pints and wings and debate.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 21, 2012)

IByte said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes I agree, nothing like beer and wings to set the world straight.


----------



## tirediron (Feb 21, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:


> IByte said:
> 
> 
> > imagemaker46 said:
> ...


:thumbup:


----------



## usayit (Feb 21, 2012)

tirediron said:
			
		

> And therein lies the cornerstone of my position:  I fail to see why a person should be forced to get used to something that they don't like. (Presupposing of course, that 'something' is a lawful activity)



That's the cornerstone of your position?  OMG....  I need a beer .. someone get me an Fin BEeR!!!   NOW  forget the popcorn.  

Heck...   i dont like pants..,  thye fin itch .. lets start with that...  i should have every right to walk out hanging my junk out.   hell yah     waving it all about... 

hey buddy,   in case you havent noticed...  when you say "presupposing of course, that ' something' is lawful activity"  it means fin get over it.... you have to force yourself to get used to it because the law doesnt care about what you dont like.


whners...   like sayin I am always right Presupposing of course, when I am wrong... crap logic.


----------



## manaheim (Feb 22, 2012)

There are some interesting elements to this that I don't think have yet been brought up...

1. From what I have seen, a photographers  "right" to take your picture in public really isn't a "right" per se... It's not explicitly prohibited, and in some cases precedent has been set in courts of law, but I don't think there's a law that spells it out saying that they can do this.

2. What's interesting about this is how wound up people are about an accurate image of them being recorded with intentions artistic.  Why?  I mean think about it... No one calls the police if you look at them.  No one calls the police on a street painter.  So why?


Anyway, this is really an interesting question and discussion... But in the end I think it still boils down to what is and is not protected by law.  Frankly, there are a lot of things that people don't like that either are legal, illegal, or not covered in law... Just because you don't like it, doesn't really mean you have the right to not be a part of it.  

At least with photography you can hide in your home or wear a ski mask.  There's nothing protecting you from seeing political ads, being harassed in malls by people selling facial cream, or ... really ... even being mugged in an alley.

Yes I know it's "not fair", but... Frankly there are far more pressing concerns on our society than who takes my picture or whether I'm molested by perfume salesmen.


----------



## tirediron (Feb 22, 2012)

usayit said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Perhaps you could rejoin the conversation when you have completed elementary school and can put together a coherent, English sentence?  Thank-you.


----------



## usayit (Feb 22, 2012)

Perhaps you can actually think your logic through before responding.    Oh wait!  Let me paraphrase for you.

tirediron is always right except when he is wrong.   

or

We should stop doing "A" because tirediron doesn't like it, except when we don't care and the law doesn't either.


shall I continue?  this is kinda fun...


----------



## tirediron (Feb 22, 2012)

usayit said:


> Perhaps you can actually think your logic through before responding.


I don't believe I ever said anything about logic; I was simply taking part in a debate and setting forth my position and feelings on the matter.



usayit said:


> tirediron is always right except when he is wrong.


speaking of flawed logic...  I would submit that this applies to everyone. 



usayit said:


> We should stop doing "A" because tirediron doesn't like it, except when we don't care and the law doesn't either.


For someone who doesn't care, you seem to be making rather a lot of noise.



usayit said:


> shall I continue? this is kinda fun...


If you like.  It's a free forum.


----------



## Overread (Feb 22, 2012)

Guys shift away from the insults/sniping and focus back onto the debate. Come on now we can debate - show all the newbies that we can debate here not just fight! 



tirediron said:


> If you like.  It's a free forum.



:raisedbrow:

Is it really?


----------



## tirediron (Feb 22, 2012)

Overread said:


> Guys shift away from the insults/sniping and focus back onto the debate. Come on now we can debate - show all the newbies that we can debate here not just fight!


Hokay!



Overread said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > If you like. It's a free forum.
> ...


Free-ish?


----------



## skieur (Feb 22, 2012)

manaheim said:


> There are some interesting elements to this that I don't think have yet been brought up...
> 
> 1. From what I have seen, a photographers "right" to take your picture in public really isn't a "right" per se... It's not explicitly prohibited, and in some cases precedent has been set in courts of law, but I don't think there's a law that spells it out saying that they can do this.
> 
> ...


----------



## ghache (Feb 22, 2012)

a good old beating is what they need.


----------



## KmH (Feb 22, 2012)

Here is some precedent - Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## DiskoJoe (Feb 22, 2012)

KmH said:


> Here is some precedent - Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Very interesting!!!! Me likes!!!! The shot he took was really awesome too.


----------



## manaheim (Feb 22, 2012)

skieur said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > There are some interesting elements to this that I don't think have yet been brought up...
> ...


----------



## Kolia (Feb 22, 2012)

It's funny how the examples always gravitate around pictures of old ladies on a bench and other cute scene.

On your next urban photo expedition, go spend some time and shoot some bikers at their bars.  Debating about your right to be taking pictures with a 250lb leather clad upset biker will still result in you needing a new camera. Even if you're right.

Like mentioned earlier, there is a difference between shooting a scene with people in it and shoving your camera in someone's face.  We all should know what's proper and what's not when we see it.


----------



## manaheim (Feb 23, 2012)

Kolia said:
			
		

> It's funny how the examples always gravitate around pictures of old ladies on a bench and other cute scene.
> 
> On your next urban photo expedition, go spend some time and shoot some bikers at their bars.  Debating about your right to be taking pictures with a 250lb leather clad upset biker will still result in you needing a new camera. Even if you're right.
> 
> Like mentioned earlier, there is a difference between shooting a scene with people in it and shoving your camera in someone's face.  We all should know what's proper and what's not when we see it.



Oh come on.

Proper?

Proper is defined heavily by a lot of subjective factors... Culture, location, mood, religion, etc.  You can't use a yardstick to measure when everyone has a  different definition of a yard.

The question posed in this thread asks pretty much just that... Is it proper?  In the end there really is no answer because there can be no clear rule.  People naturally then defer to law because it gives definition where there is subjectivity, but even there we find interpretation... So once again there is a bit of subjectivity at play, though at least on some firmer ground.

Proper is, however, weakest of all arguments... If for no other reason than it just paraphrases the original question by way of a response.


----------



## jonathon94 (Feb 23, 2012)

manaheim said:


> Kolia said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I completely agree. One of the benefits of having laws 

-Please ignore typos I'm currently on my phone-


----------



## BlairWright (Feb 23, 2012)

OP

In the US, if you are in public you are free game to be photographed. A public party at a private house can still considered public.

-B


----------



## jonathon94 (Feb 23, 2012)

BlairWright said:


> OP
> 
> In the US, if you are in public you are free game to be photographed. A public party at a private house can still considered public.
> 
> -B


 
But at the same time they can post a sign saying no cameras correct? And you will have to oblige?

-Please ignore typos I'm currently on my phone-


----------



## IByte (Feb 23, 2012)

jonathon94 said:
			
		

> But at the same time they can post a sign saying no cameras correct? And you will have to oblige?
> 
> -Please ignore typos I'm currently on my phone-



If you were on their property, or inside their house they can have you arrested for trespassing, but just like Google mapping, if you were on the street taking housing photos it would be legal. But then likely a nosey neighbor(we all have them lol) would still probably call the police.


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 23, 2012)

Kolia said:


> It's funny how the examples always gravitate around pictures of old ladies on a bench and other cute scene.
> 
> On your next urban photo expedition, go spend some time and shoot some bikers at their bars.  Debating about your right to be taking pictures with a 250lb leather clad upset biker will still result in you needing a new camera. Even if you're right.
> 
> Like mentioned earlier, there is a difference between shooting a scene with people in it and shoving your camera in someone's face.  We all should know what's proper and what's not when we see it.



I take a beating so I could have a new camera, new lenses, new motorcycle, new car, new house, and money for suing the **** out of someone for assaulting me and destroying my property. I'd sit there and smile like Brad Pitt getting waxed in Fight Club.


----------



## Kolia (Feb 23, 2012)

Yeah, in real life things don't always end up with a law suit that earns someone tons of cash.

I don't wish for anybody to get hurt and I'm happy for you that you've never been in a situation where you don't know if you'll make it home at the end of the day. 

If someone is obnoxious enough taking pictures that it leads to a scuffle, he'll have a hard time proving that he didn't simply tripped and dropped his camera himself.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 24, 2012)

Village Idiot said:


> Kolia said:
> 
> 
> > It's funny how the examples always gravitate around pictures of old ladies on a bench and other cute scene.
> ...




Or you would simply get shot for pissing off the wrong person proving the point of being the village idiot. I would hope that common sense would keep you out of these types of situations, people don't always need much of a reason to be violent. Sticking a camera in the face of the wrong person, would be just that kind of reason.


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 24, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > Kolia said:
> ...



Again, I'm sorry that the fact that I would stand up for my rights makes you mad enough that you want to insult me. If you don't like it, I'm sure there's forums out there that will delete any posts that don't conform to their rainbows and unicorns standards.


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 24, 2012)

Kolia said:


> Yeah, in real life things don't always end up with a law suit that earns someone tons of cash.
> 
> I don't wish for anybody to get hurt and I'm happy for you that you've never been in a situation where you don't know if you'll make it home at the end of the day.
> 
> If someone is obnoxious enough taking pictures that it leads to a scuffle, he'll have a hard time proving that he didn't simply tripped and dropped his camera himself.



They would have to drop their camera extraordinarily hard to destroy the CF card in it...you know, the one that has probably had the photo/video footage on it.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 24, 2012)

Village Idiot said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > Village Idiot said:
> ...



I just go back to my original words.  I show respect to the people I photograph, as a professional, I believe that their are standards that professionals should live by. I realize that is not always the case, and in this society people are showing less respect for people's rights. They are the first to start crying when their rights are stepped on, but too many are willing ignore other peoples rights to futher their own agenda.

As far as being mad, far from it, if you want to stand outside a bar and take pictures of people walking out in hopes of getting the crap kicked out of you so you can sue them, do it, that is your right as a US citizen. I didn't choose the name Village Idiot, not even suggesting that in the real world that you are,  I think quite the opposite.


----------



## jonathon94 (Feb 24, 2012)

Village Idiot said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > Village Idiot said:
> ...



Dude, I think you are trying to put laws and rights before common sense and respect. Show some people some respect and they will respect you which might mean better photos



-Please ignore typos I'm currently on my phone-


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 24, 2012)

Be careful in America, many of us have carry permits =)


----------



## jonathon94 (Feb 24, 2012)

Lol


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Feb 24, 2012)

kyonkon said:


> Everywhere I look, people are saying that photographers have the right to take whatever pictures they want, whenever they want, wherever they want, even if the subject of their photo is explicitly asking for photos to not be taken. The answers given tends to be on the photographer's side.
> 
> Is there absolutely no laws against somebody ramming a camera in my face and flashing me blind?
> 
> ...



Now, I've got to respond to this because it is too funny. However, I do not need to read/feel like reading all the darn pages of previous answers, so here's my take.

Get yourself some real friends.

Or, as they say, one has the friends one deserves. Shoot, probably not what you wanted to hear.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 24, 2012)

c.cloudwalker said:


> kyonkon said:
> 
> 
> > Everywhere I look, people are saying that photographers have the right to take whatever pictures they want, whenever they want, wherever they want, even if the subject of their photo is explicitly asking for photos to not be taken. The answers given tends to be on the photographer's side.
> ...



I have my facebook friends, which is a limited number, and I have my day to day friends which is also a limited number and most are the same.


----------



## SteffJay (Mar 7, 2012)

kyonkon said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > kyonkon said:
> ...



If you are gonna react like this everytime someone takes a picture of you, I suggest Amish country.


----------

