Big question, Sir/ Madame, about when I should take the shots.

[RustyTheGeek]

Unfortunately, no matter what we discuss here, we can't change the fact that a lot of people are essentially clueless and inconsiderate people regardless and nothing we think will change that.

And I'll repeat, the "golden rule" that has been mentioned several times is always in effect, treat/photograph others as you would like to be treated/photographed. Pretty simple!

Thanks for the reply. If you read my original reply to the OP I think you'll see we're on the same page.

I agree. But I still have about 300 more posts than you so I'm "more right"!! So there!! You buy the beer! Bwahh, ha, ha, haaaaa!!! 8)

 

[Orangutan]

Orangutan, distant.star is a pretty cool member. And he makes a pretty good point. I didn't detect any insult intended toward you specifically. He simply commented on the perceived paranoia of your posts. He makes a good point about "the position you've taken", and I think it was intended to be more about the mindset you present, not about you in particular. So get a beer, have a seat and let's all chill out together

I appreciate the thought, but I beg to differ: first, he takes one statement of mine and says "This tells me everything there is to know about the position you've taken," then he goes on to characterize it as paranoia. That word suggests more than over-caution, it implies mental illness. If d.s wanted to engage in a more civil discourse, he/she could have quoted my statement and said something like "don't you think this is a a little hyperbolic, there's no reason to worry about people tracking you at all times."

d.s declined to engage with the main theme of my argument, which is that publicized photos have real-world consequences, and it's presumptuous to assume the world shares your values in the balance of freedom vs. privacy. We could then have agreed to go off in separate directions and see if there's any opinion research on where the population as a whole settles on the issue.

Thanks for your civility, Rusty. BTW, I'm not actually un-chilled by d.s, I just thought his rudeness needed to be recognized. But a beer does sound good... ;D

 

[Orangutan]

You don't say if you you are in the USA. But if you are the reason is the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, and the right to freedom of speech. Taking a photo in public is at most times considered protected speech. And 200 years of case law and various rulings on privacy. It boils down your rights and the rights of the person you photograph. The concept is if they are in a public place people are going to see and hear them. Why should recording that seeing and hearing be different.

And before the board light up with 100 examples of someone who's rights were trampled, I know, I know, sometimes peoples rights are violated. That is not what I am trying to explain.

If you are not in the United States, your country may have similar laws.

Hi Tex.

Thanks for the civil reply. I am in the US. I don't think it's a Constitutional issue (but would be open to evidence to the contrary). If it were a First Amendment issue, there would not be restrictions photographing military installations, e.g. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/795, as well as some recent state laws regarding creeper photography.

Also, if it were a Constitutional Free Speech protection, that would also apply to sound recording, which is treated very differently under law from photography. Many states have laws against recording someone without consent.

I'm sure there are some lawyers out there who would know more, but I"m pretty sure this is a purely statutory issue.

However I'm more interested in the ethics than the law.

 

[fragilesi]

Very important subject and I can't see there ever being a "right" answer. I love some of the street photography I see and even though I'm not exactly the most attractive subject and generally don't like my own photo being taken I wouldn't object to someone taking photos of me in a public place. In my view, as a general rule, if it's happening in public then you should be able to photograph it - obviously there are exceptions and I agree with one previous poster. I doubt I would hold back if someone started photographing a funeral uninvited.

Where I do see a problem though is when an image is published on a public forum. Then, in my mind, it becomes a very different thing. To have for example the fact you were appearing to indiscreetly view an attractive person (whether it was real or not) made public and widely distributed is a league apart from a stranger spotting it in the street. To be caught say in an uncharacteristic angry moment being published could be very damaging.

On one of the UK broadcaster's websites (presumably visited by hundreds of thousands of people) one of the leading entries in a street photography competition was of a very angry old lady falling over. The photographer said something along the lines of "She was clearly upset, angry, and got much worse when she realised I was photographing it". To me the fact that he went on to make that picture so widely available crosses miles over the line of fairness and was a massively selfish and inconsiderate act.

Of course, you can imagine a young man or girl who was the "star" of a winning entry being delighted with the whole idea if it showed them in a good light possibly. So it could go either way but in any case I'd make the point that the act of publishing the photo, in any way, raises far more questions and doubts to me than the mere act of taking it.

 

[Orangutan]

Very important subject and I can't see there ever being a "right" answer.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

Very important subject and I can't see there ever being a "right" answer. I love some of the street photography I see and even though I'm not exactly the most attractive subject and generally don't like my own photo being taken I wouldn't object to someone taking photos of me in a public place. In my view, as a general rule, if it's happening in public then you should be able to photograph it - obviously there are exceptions and I agree with one previous poster. I doubt I would hold back if someone started photographing a funeral uninvited.

Where I do see a problem though is when an image is published on a public forum. Then, in my mind, it becomes a very different thing. To have for example the fact you were appearing to indiscreetly view an attractive person (whether it was real or not) made public and widely distributed is a league apart from a stranger spotting it in the street. To be caught say in an uncharacteristic angry moment being published could be very damaging.

On one of the UK broadcaster's websites (presumably visited by hundreds of thousands of people) one of the leading entries in a street photography competition was of a very angry old lady falling over. The photographer said something along the lines of "She was clearly upset, angry, and got much worse when she realised I was photographing it". To me the fact that he went on to make that picture so widely available crosses miles over the line of fairness and was a massively selfish and inconsiderate act.

Of course, you can imagine a young man or girl who was the "star" of a winning entry being delighted with the whole idea if it showed them in a good light possibly. So it could go either way but in any case I'd make the point that the act of publishing the photo, in any way, raises far more questions and doubts to me than the mere act of taking it.

At some point, if a photo is going to be publicized or used in some kind of promotion or commercial venture, a release form is not only a good idea but also sometimes required. Pubic or not.

https://asmp.org/tutorials/forms.html

 

[distant.star]

.
Thanks, Rusty. I may have to hire you to write my posts!!

Orangutan, distant.star is a pretty cool member. And he makes a pretty good point. I didn't detect any insult intended toward you specifically. He simply commented on the perceived paranoia of your posts. He makes a good point about "the position you've taken", and I think it was intended to be more about the mindset you present, not about you in particular. So get a beer, have a seat and let's all chill out together.

After all, Surapon is in the room! We all know he'll throw some serious kung fu on us if we misbehave!!

 

[sanj]

Surapon.
In my opinion there is nothing NOTHING wrong with your shots. I belong to the thinking that the day a person chooses to be a 'life' photographer, nothing is taboo. Then it is the photographer's duty and religion to document everything. Go to every extend to document life the way it is.

Why?

Friendly discussion. Always.

"Why"? I believe that as a photographer my job is to photograph. If I choose to be a street/life photographer, I can't filter. Here are some examples of photos from internet. These photos would not have been made if the at the situation the photographer was scratching his head questioning the ethics of it all.

I believe these are great photos.

 

[sanj]

Dear Teachers and friends.
I love to take the photos of any things in front of me, just for my record of the picture( My Photojournalistic style) in that mili-second moment.
Last week end, There are " The ANIMAZEMENT FESTIVAL/ CONVENTION " in my home city, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA. We ( my son and me) went to take the photos of Heros, Heroins, Evils and the Good guys/ Gals.
The question for you, Sir/ Madame---After we come back home, My son look at the photos and Tell me that. " I should not take any photos , when the people eating or make -up their face" , I should take their pictures only when they post the perfected ACTION.
Is my son = Right ?
Here are the photos that he told me do not take this kind of Photos again, It not good for the people in the Picture.
Thank you, Sir/ Madame and my dear Teachers.
Surapon

Your son is wrong. You are a photographer and you photograph. Simple.

 

[100]

As long as photographers personal ethics are within the boundaries of the laws of the country they are taking their photographs in they should do as they please. It might be beyond my own personal ethics so I wouldn’t take the picture but I can’t force my personal ethics on other people if they stay within the boundaries of the law. That’s an important part of freedom, I think.

In a democracy it’s always possible to change laws if you can find a majority for your ethics or point of view.

 

[sanj]

There is a simple minded way for the situation. Just imagine that YOU are the object in the picture that you are taking. Would you like it to be posted in the web? If the answer is YES. Then take the picture. If the answer is NO. Then, do not take it.

Does not matter how I would feel at that moment. I may never be part of a similar moment. A sports fan takes off shirt when the team wins, it looks amazing and I take a photo. Or would I ponder how it would be if someone were to take my photo at that point? I know I will never take off my shirt so I do not take the photo?

 

[sanj]

As long as photographers personal ethics are within the boundaries of the laws of the country they are taking their photographs in they should do as they please. It might be beyond my own personal ethics so I wouldn’t take the picture but I can’t force my personal ethics on other people if they stay within the boundaries of the law. That’s an important part of freedom, I think.

In a democracy it’s always possible to change laws if you can find a majority for your ethics or point of view.

Does not apply mostly. In my country the morons have a sign board outside almost everywhere 'photography not allowed'. At run down airports where no more than a single flight lands every day if you try to take a photo of your family near the plane someone will run frantically waving their arms 'no photo no photo'. Stupid jerk.

If you take a photo outside a temple, idiots will come by waving a stick "no photo".

I was in the lobby of a hospital and wanted to take a family photo before someone was getting admitted, the receptionist came running saying no photos in the hospital.

Been to Benaras? If you take out a camera at 50% of the places some stupido will come with authority saying 'no photos'. And you slip them some money and you can take photos to your heart content.

 

[fragilesi]

sanj

I agree about the photos you posted, all great and I have no problem with any of them. But they aren't a good argument to back up your assertion that you should be allowed to take photos wherever and whenever you feel the desire to. They are rather different to sticking your lens into people's faces on the street. There have to be boundaries in anything and photography is no different. Though like I say, my main issue with street photography is not the taking of great images it is in what has become their regular publication without the permission of the subjects.

 

[YuengLinger]

FIRST RULE OF EVENT PHOTOGRAPHY: NEVER TAKE PICTURES OF PEOPLE WITH FOOD IN THEIR MOUTHS.

Unless the event is an eating contest, of course.

 

[sanj]

sanj

I agree about the photos you posted, all great and I have no problem with any of them. But they aren't a good argument to back up your assertion that you should be allowed to take photos wherever and whenever you feel the desire to. They are rather different to sticking your lens into people's faces on the street. There have to be boundaries in anything and photography is no different. Though like I say, my main issue with street photography is not the taking of great images it is in what has become their regular publication without the permission of the subjects.

You have a valid point. My argument is limited to big events - earthquake type of situations. Of course no bugging anyone with a camera. But if someone is doing a show on the street, I will photograph it.

 

[sanj]

I have no guilt I took these photos. And I know for sure if you would have asked them, the photos would have looked staged. This is what street photography is about. Catching fleeting moments.
(Not saying these photos are great. Don't throw stones.)

 

[fragilesi]

sanj

I agree about the photos you posted, all great and I have no problem with any of them. But they aren't a good argument to back up your assertion that you should be allowed to take photos wherever and whenever you feel the desire to. They are rather different to sticking your lens into people's faces on the street. There have to be boundaries in anything and photography is no different. Though like I say, my main issue with street photography is not the taking of great images it is in what has become their regular publication without the permission of the subjects.

You have a valid point. My argument is limited to big events - earthquake type of situations. Of course no bugging anyone with a camera. But if someone is doing a show on the street, I will photograph it.

I see, yes and I tend to agree with both of those. If someone is performing in public then I don't think that they can complain much.

 

[YuengLinger]

I have no guilt I took these photos. And I know for sure if you would have asked them, the photos would have looked staged. This is what street photography is about. Catching fleeting moments.
(Not saying these photos are great. Don't throw stones.)

Sometimes "staged" might be better. Not always. But sometimes...

 

[Rocky]

As long as photographers personal ethics are within the boundaries of the laws of the country they are taking their photographs in they should do as they please. It might be beyond my own personal ethics so I wouldn’t take the picture but I can’t force my personal ethics on other people if they stay within the boundaries of the law. That’s an important part of freedom, I think.

In a democracy it’s always possible to change laws if you can find a majority for your ethics or point of view.

Does not apply mostly. In my country the morons have a sign board outside almost everywhere 'photography not allowed'. At run down airports where no more than a single flight lands every day if you try to take a photo of your family near the plane someone will run frantically waving their arms 'no photo no photo'. Stupid jerk.

If you take a photo outside a temple, idiots will come by waving a stick "no photo".

I was in the lobby of a hospital and wanted to take a family photo before someone was getting admitted, the receptionist came running saying no photos in the hospital.

Been to Benaras? If you take out a camera at 50% of the places some stupido will come with authority saying 'no photos'. And you slip them some money and you can take photos to your heart content.

Is it a real law, or someone just want to make some money??

 

[sanj]

As long as photographers personal ethics are within the boundaries of the laws of the country they are taking their photographs in they should do as they please. It might be beyond my own personal ethics so I wouldn’t take the picture but I can’t force my personal ethics on other people if they stay within the boundaries of the law. That’s an important part of freedom, I think.

In a democracy it’s always possible to change laws if you can find a majority for your ethics or point of view.

Does not apply mostly. In my country the morons have a sign board outside almost everywhere 'photography not allowed'. At run down airports where no more than a single flight lands every day if you try to take a photo of your family near the plane someone will run frantically waving their arms 'no photo no photo'. Stupid jerk.

If you take a photo outside a temple, idiots will come by waving a stick "no photo".

I was in the lobby of a hospital and wanted to take a family photo before someone was getting admitted, the receptionist came running saying no photos in the hospital.

Been to Benaras? If you take out a camera at 50% of the places some stupido will come with authority saying 'no photos'. And you slip them some money and you can take photos to your heart content.

Is it a real law, or someone just want to make some money??

Real laws. I do not understand why most of India / Gulf are obsessed with "No Photos". Retards.