-Split- Debate re Candids and morality

[Foto Fairy]

**EDIT**

This topic of debate was begun in the following thread;
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=266198

Since the discussion has far outgrown the Image Thread itself, the debate was moved here to an appropriate forum.
The Mods


I wonder about whether it's the right thing to do to just take and post pics of strangers. I'd have thought you'd need permission for this. I'm asking because I know someone who was placed under witness protection. If candid photos of him had been posted on the net then the nasty terrorist dudes who were after him would have had a way of tracing where he was staying.

[TXLEBER]

I wonder about whether it's the right thing to do to just take and post pics of strangers. I'd have thought you'd need permission for this. I'm asking because I know someone who was placed under witness protection. If candid photos of him had been posted on the net then the nasty terrorist dudes who were after him would have had a way of tracing where he was staying.

I don't think there's a problem with it. If the dude needs to go that deep into hiding, then he doesn't need to show his face in public. Plus, if the terrorist do get him, Jack Bauer will save him! :)

[Foto Fairy]

If you knew the effort it took to relocate this guy and his family, and then the effort it took for them to try and pick up the pieces and lead relatively normal lives with new names in their new location, you'd understand why I have concerns about someone exposing their new location on the net so they have to uproot and move all over again.

[Foto Fairy]

And frankly, I think it's kind of dodgy taking pics of unsuspecting strangers. I'm presuming model release forms exist because people should have a say in whether their image should be made public and commented upon.

[TXLEBER]

Foto, what you're saying here isn't realistic. First off, regarding the witness protection program....I've watched to many movies, so I won't even comment on that. As far as model releases...take 5 min to read up on when a model release is required. You'll have your answer then.

[Foto Fairy]

Okay, thanks - read up on it and I see you are right. But I still have a problem with it! For example, many parents I know are absolutely adamant that they do not want pics of their kids on the internet, as they are concerned about the images being used by paediphiles. So just say someone takes a pic of their child playing in a swimsuit on the beach with a bucket and spade, and then posts it in a place like this. Shouldn't the parent have a right to say whether their child appears on the net?

[geekaleek]

pictures of children are a different story. she's an adult and she doesn't seem bothered by attention :)

[seemaya]

hey, hey...thanks for the comments! its always nice to hear
feedback, either good, bad or ugly.
alot a questions raised...lemmie try an answer some.
thanks again!


"what's the rules for something like this??"
really are no 'rules' per say, but there are invasion of privacy laws,
whenever a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, it can not
be invaded. ie, photographing into someones home, or even into
their car...and of course any invasion of their clothing, up,
down or through it. but thats also known as, common sense.
and, shooting on private property can be a no no. the establishments
owner can ask you to stop shooting and or leave...

check out this site for The Photographer's Right (http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm) pamphlet, its a good document to read
and carry with you.

I really cant understand why so much fuss is made of the Kate Moss's etc of this world, when there are far more beautiful girls on the street.
steveathome, i couldnt agree MORE with this statement! give me the
'girl next door' anyday....although i would like to try my hand at
paparazzi celeb shots sometime.

i really don't understand what is going on!
What is that man with the cap doing?
were you standing on the other side of the street?

heres the scene....a car rally on a NYC street near Times Square,
i think the 2 woman she is standing with in the first 2 shots
where her friends...the man i think, was her boyfriend and they
were having an animated conversation, across the street from me
as they waited for the light to change and cross the street...
they attracted my attention and the attention of the others around them.


@foto fairy...i think TXLEBER addressed and answered your concern
and i also think you're unrealistic....AND, there are no photos
of children in this post. maybe you should start a new thread topic
and voice your concerns there....AND if you look closely at
the second to last pic, you'l see that the Police are looking right at me.
they said/did nothing, because there really isnt anything they can say
or do becuase i was doing nothing wrong...

thanks all!
:cool:

[steveathome]

Nothing wrong with snapping people on the streets, public domain surely.
As said if you have a reason not to be photographed then maybe you shouldnt be on the street.

I persoanally feel a little awkward to do this, but then I am the shy type :oops: but if I did snap someone against their wishes, it wouldn't be a problem to erase the image at their request.

Not to have photographed this beauty, should be a criminal offense lol.

[Foto Fairy]

Nice nipples too. :p


There's one reason why I feel it's not a good idea taking pics of unsuspecting strangers. Not every woman has the mindset of Pamela Anderson. I don't think it's fair that that woman has no idea that her image is posted on a forum for people to ogle at her breasts and making comments like this.

[steveathome]

Then if that was so she should wear a bra, people have eyes and good memorys, as well as camera's.
I think your hearts in the right place and I respect you for it, but to be honest you could go too far with censorship. What I'm against is (especially in the UK press) celebrities having their private parts put on the front page of newspapers, when getting out of cars etc. The picture posted by the OP is innocent and pleasant enough, my bets would be that the young lady in question would be flattered.

Whilst I share "Collins85" humour, as I am reasonably broadminded, maybe this is the wrong place for it, as it could lead to unfair critisism of such an innocent photograph.

[gkuenning]

There's one reason why I feel it's not a good idea taking pics of unsuspecting strangers. Not every woman has the mindset of Pamela Anderson. I don't think it's fair that that woman has no idea that her image is posted on a forum for people to ogle at her breasts and making comments like this.

Well, she's the one who chose the outfit and decided to go out in public while wearing it. The number of views of this thread is tiny compared to the number of people she encountered in NYC that day. I don't think an impartial judge would be too sympathetic to a complaint.

[OzScot]

Well, she's the one who chose the outfit and decided to go out in public while wearing it. The number of views of this thread is tiny compared to the number of people she encountered in NYC that day. I don't think an impartial judge would be too sympathetic to a complaint.

I think Fotofairy makes an exceedingly good point to be honest - One only has to look at the litigation following the shot done in public called 'the kiss' in Paris France - That cost the photographer one and a half million francs. Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Holland, Italy and all the Scandinavian countries outlaw taking peoples pictures unsuspectingly unless it can be shown to be in the 'public interest' - it is a contravention of their human rights.

IMO There's absolutely nothing wrong with taking pics of people in public places (except from a moral point of view and that's down to each individual to decide) but publishing them is another matter. It can prove very costly indeed.

OzScot

[steveathome]

Maybe we should all walk about with bin liners over us with holes for us to see that would solve everything

[TXLEBER]

ozscot, did a quick search on that photo and from what I read, the photographer had to pay because he made money off of the picture. I don't think the OP is making anything off of these shots....I could be wrong. It's been known to happen every once in a while. :-)

[Foto Fairy]

Well, she's the one who chose the outfit and decided to go out in public while wearing it. The number of views of this thread is tiny compared to the number of people she encountered in NYC that day. I don't think an impartial judge would be too sympathetic to a complaint.

Ah, the old 'if women dress in a certain way they should expect to be ogled' argument! Take that a bit further and you can add 'if women act sexily they shouldn't be surprised if they are to raped'. I'm not even getting into that. The point is that people should be allowed to go about their daily business, wearing whatever they want, without having to wonder whether voyeuristic pictures are being posted on the internet, attracting comments like 'nice nipples'. Maybe she would be flattered, I don't know, but there is a chance that she may be horrified about the situation too. I wouldn't want to presume anyone would be happy with having the pics on the internet because each person lives with unique circumstances, and I wouldn't want to do anything that could jeapardise their privacy, beliefs or safety.

[Foto Fairy]

Maybe we should all walk about with bin liners over us with holes for us to see that would solve everything

Or maybe we could just respect people and ask if they mind if we take their picture first.

[steveathome]

Have you ever read a newspaper without pictures?

do you think they get model release forms?

the picture the op posted is so innocent there isnt a problem as far as i can see

I could understand if circumstances were a little different, but I think you are a little over the top where this post is concerned.

Bill Brandt and many others have taken candids for years, what a boring world if they hadn't

[OzScot]

Have you ever read a newspaper without pictures?

do you think they get model release forms?

the picture the op posted is so innocent there isnt a problem as far as i can see

I could understand if circumstances were a little different, but I think you are a little over the top where this post is concerned.

Bill Brandt and many others have taken candids for years, what a boring world if they hadn't

And one of my favourite 'candids' is Oscar Mazzaroli - but even he sought permission before and after the fact - and when he couldn't get it he ditched the picture but that was before Human Rights legislation -

You're argument about 'Newspapers etc' is a straw man - they get away with it because the focal point is 'IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST'......

You know, I think the pics are great personally - but the rights of the individual have been breached and try as I may I cannot see the 'public interest'????

OzScot

[Collin85]

There's one reason why I feel it's not a good idea taking pics of unsuspecting strangers. Not every woman has the mindset of Pamela Anderson. I don't think it's fair that that woman has no idea that her image is posted on a forum for people to ogle at her breasts and making comments like this.

Although your paradigm of thought has it's merits (mainly regarding morals), the fact is it's not illegal and she chose to present herself in such a manner. Unless someone here actually wants to start an debate on whether or not she knew her nipples were poking out, I don't see what the huge issue is.

[steveathome]

Ah, the old 'if women dress in a certain way they should expect to be ogled' argument! Take that a bit further and you can add 'if women act sexily they shouldn't be surprised if they are to raped'. .


Your words and way of thinking
no-one elses here

[steveathome]

There's one reason why I feel it's not a good idea taking pics of unsuspecting strangers. Not every woman has the mindset of Pamela Anderson. I don't think it's fair that that woman has no idea that her image is posted on a forum for people to ogle at her breasts and making comments like this.

I think you maybe owe Pamela Anderson an apology, she is a person too, and you are the most likely to be sued here for defamation of character, on this public forum.

[OzScot]

I think you maybe owe Pamela Anderson an apology, she is a person too, and you are the most likely to be sued here for defamation of character, on this public forum.

You obviously don't understand what was meant by Fotofairy's comment about Pamela Anderson - she courts publicity - The woman in this picture MAY not (we'll never know because she was never asked).

OzScot

[Foto Fairy]

Your words and way of thinking
no-one elses here

If you think that I believe that then you've obviously misconstrued my post, and I apologise because I should have made it clearer. Saying that a woman who dresses in a sexy way shouldn't be surprised to have her photo plastered over the net is basically the same as saying she's 'asked for it' in a rape case. No one throws on a top, thinks 'man I'm hot' and fervently hopes that someone with a zoom lens will take pics of them (unless they're Paris Hilton :lol: ). She should have the right to wear whatever she likes and not have the 'but you were dressed sexily' accusation/excuse if she finds she has her pic on the net and she protests.

[steveathome]

this is going nowhere

OP's picture are fine

end of

Edit:
Looking back over this thread, I think what has sparked you off more (maybe) is that the posted pics are seen as a series of images. Had the OP had posted he's favourite one, and people including myself hadn’t commented on her beauty, ( or nipples – naughty Collin) maybe you wouldn't have been so bothered.

As said its going nowhere, but commenting on the posted pics, the lady is dressed, she is in a public place, where she has also probably been picked up by many cctv camera's and many other peoples personal camera’s purposely and/or accidentally. The picture certainly doesn't suggest voyeurism, and as I understand it, there is nothing illegal about taking picture in public places, and including people in them.

If you read back I did say I respected you for your moral thinking, . However, the majority here are for the pics, being a majority doesn’t necessarily make us right, but these particular pics are no big deal.

[OzScot]

this is going nowhere

OP's picture are fine

end of

Sadly I fear it might just be the beginning....- I vaguely recall reading somewhere (and I may be completely wrong as I'm a member of at least half a dozen camera/photography forums) that one of the rules here was that the poster had to have the permission of those in the pics to post them - like I say I could be wholly wrong - but I'll check with admin as soon as I can.

OzScot

[TXLEBER]

i posted 1 pic of this woman in the 'candid secret' thread...
someone asked if she was 'someone special' (celeb?).
not that i know of, but she was to me at the time.
but you can see, when you point a camera at a beautiful person
in NYC, the curiosity comes out in the bystanders.

any and all comments......click the thumbs

Ozscot, time to real you back in. Read the OP's comments. There was nothing wrong with what he was trying to capture. The rest of US (including me) have made it into the next eddition of Playboy. :rolleyes: Time to unsubscribe from this thread. I'll check back when I need a good laugh. Hopefully there will be more pics!! :D

[Foto Fairy]

Ozscot, there's no point in arguing with someone with a paparazzi mindset. I think what we're saying is just going right over their heads. :(

[OzScot]

Ozscot, there's no point in arguing with someone with a paparazzi mindset. I think what we're saying is just going right over their heads. :(

Actually I'm taken aback - more so given that there is thread after thread here where photographers are complaining bitterly that their work is being used by others WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION - They demand everything from acknowledgement to financial restitution.....

Seems permission is a one-way street.

OzScot

[Foto Fairy]

Actually I'm taken aback - more so given that there is thread after thread here where photogrpahers are complaining bitterly that their work is being used by others WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION - They demand everything from acknowledgement to financial restitution.....

Seems permission is a one-way street.

OzScot

Yup :(

[steveathome]

The Lady in question isn't in a compromising position, she is in fact out in front of the crowd, she doesn't appear to be shy.

What you see here in these pics are no different to what you would have seen standing on the same side of the street as the OP. No comment has been made about other people that appear in these pics, would it really be reality to haved asked everyone their permission?

I do applaud your moral standards, but some comments made have nothing to do with the posted pics. Had they been of a more sinister nature, I would be the first to complain and support your thoughts.

I am going to rest it here, you may get the pics removed as you may win that valid point about permission to post on this forum. I would have thought that the Lady and partner in question would probably eventually realised they may have been on camera, and obviously didn't protest, maybe they didn't who knows?

[Collin85]

Actually I'm taken aback - more so given that there is thread after thread here where photogrpahers are complaining bitterly that their work is being used by others WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION - They demand everything from acknowledgement to financial restitution.....

Seems permission is a one-way street.

OzScot

I think you're taking it out of context with that illustration.

Using other people's photographs without their permission arguably relates to breach of copyright laws. This topic itself can branch into several debates, including the subject of intellectual property theft and the whole legality aspect of it.

On the other hand, the OP arguably breached no laws and (depending on who you ask) did nothing morally corrupt.

I know what you're trying to say (i.e the irony of it all when it comes to the topic of permission), but I thought it was a bad example. I think we've really gotta treat each case on it's own merits.

[TXLEBER]

Couldn't stay away! Oz and Foto...I think you guys are mixing your personal opinion with what's legal and not. These photos have nothing illegal about them. I agree that there is a fine line when taking candid photos, but that line was not crossed here. As for the permission argument, the threads I've read only pertain to someone else using their photos for commercial profit. Apples and oranges here.

[OzScot]

The Lady in question isn't in a compromising position, she is in fact out in front of the crowd, she doesn't appear to be shy.

What you see here in these pics are no different to what you would have seen standing on the same side of the street as the OP. No comment has been made about other people that appear in these pics, would it really be reality to haved asked everyone their permission?

I do applaud your moral standards, but some comments made have nothing to do with the posted pics. Had they been of a more sinister nature, I would be the first to complain and support your thoughts.

I am going to rest it here, you may get the pics removed as you may win that valid point about permission to post on this forum. I would have thought that the Lady and partner in question would probably realised they may have been on camera, and obviously didn't protest, maybe they didn't who knows?

Steve - I can see what you mean - there are times when it is completely impractical to seek permission - and no, I for one don't want to see the pictures removed - what I do want is to protect both the photographer and the subject from unnecessary litigation or harm - As she is the focal point in these images then a mere 'I should have tried for permission - or it was just impractical' would have gone a long way to re-assuring folks who think like Fotofairy and I obviously do, that moral standards in photography are not something left behind when the camera gets picked up.

There are other more serious considerations to be made - one of which is the genuine exploitation of a woman's image. Is she divorced? Does her ex know where she lives and works? If not he may very well have a clue now.

The pictures are located on the internet - and whilst the original poster and photgrapher of them may indeed have the highest moral standards and just happened to 'not manage to meet pefection' on this occassion the fact remains, her images are on the internet without her knowledge - it does not need the original photographer to now defame her - anyone who can download and save her image can abuse it - and she may never know how or what she is being portrayed as on the internet - all because she was never aware of the pictures in the first place - can you see what I mean? That is why permission is so fundamental. If she says 'yes' then whatever happens from then on is something she relinquished control over voluntarily.

OzScot

[Foto Fairy]

Couldn't stay away! Oz and Foto...I think you guys are mixing your personal opinion with what's legal and not. These photos have nothing illegal about them. I agree that there is a fine line when taking candid photos, but that line was not crossed here. As for the permission argument, the threads I've read only pertain to someone else using their photos for commercial profit. Apples and oranges here.

I read up on it and did read that it wasn't illegal, and said so in an earlier post, but what I've been arguing all along is that we, as photographers, should have some kind of moral code that stops us from encroaching on someone's privacy. Princess Diana died because photographers didn't give a damn about whether she wanted her photo taken or not. I always ask if someone minds me taking their pic. If they say yes, they're someone who's pretty flattered that you want to photograph them. If they say no, I think 'phew, lucky I asked', because I wouldn't want to do something to someone that they didn't want - that's stepping over their boundaries.

[steveathome]

You make some fair points OzScot, of which I morally agree.
But...........
what If the lady in question had given permission, but the lady or Gentleman in the background wanted privacy, where would the photographer stand then?

Everyone has the right to walk about freely, and rightly so, however, if I were in a situation where I needed to stay out of the limelight, I wouldn't be up the front of the crowd.
Not wishing to continue this argument, as said I morally agree with you.
so fair comments made by all (or most) maybe this thread has given us all something to think about in future.

[Skippy29]

You obviously don't understand what was meant by Fotofairy's comment about Pamela Anderson - she courts publicity - The woman in this picture MAY not (we'll never know because she was never asked).

OzScot



You're wrong, I know :lol: I can tell you just by looking at these pictures that she 100% does court publicity. Shame that a few others here can't see that.

It amazes me how fragile people are nowadays. Public is public, and if it happens in public, then it is absolutely able to be photographed and displayed without consent. Myself and my family included. That's why we have laws about peeping toms and such, to protect people when there is a expected level of privacy in the situation, like bedroom windows, public changing areas, bathrooms, etc. That expected level of privacy definitely does not include walking down the street in NYC with no bra, and a very sheer top on so her breasts are easily visable.
Just my $.02 of course.

[Moonracer]

You're wrong, I know :lol: I can tell you just by looking at these pictures that she 100% does court publicity. Shame that a few others here can't see that.

It amazes me how fragile people are nowadays. Public is public, and if it happens in public, then it is absolutely able to be photographed and displayed without consent. Myself and my family included. That's why we have laws about peeping toms and such, to protect people when there is a expected level of privacy in the situation, like bedroom windows, public changing areas, bathrooms, etc. That expected level of privacy definitely does not include walking down the street in NYC with no bra, and a very sheer top on so her breasts are easily visable.
Just my $.02 of course.

I agree with you 100%, if i'm walking down the street then i'm fair game. Whether or not any of you like it, we are captured on cameras many times per day already anyway. Sooner or later we will all end up on the internet via somebodys cell phone pic, with you in the background or whatever. Whoever doesn't want their pic taken in public either turn away if they see it or just don't go out!

Anyway I like the candid shots posted and she certainly looks like she is looking for attention dressed like that. :)

[seemaya]

i've read all the comments posted.
the disapproving comments are based on personal morals (for lack of a better word)
and NOT based in Fact or Law.
which is absolutely your right to express!
but please, get your facts straight. dont mix or combine
your opinion with the law. you're doing an injustice to yourself
and to others, by making uneducated statements.

but do continue to express your opinion.
and did you read The Photographer's Right link i provided in an earlier post??

and fyi....the woman DID KNOW i was taking her picture (not that it matters legaly or otherwise)
as evidenced by these 2 shots. i didnt originaly include them
due to there IQ and the limit of 8 pics in a post...

http://sporty.freeservers.com/images/3br_250x164.jpg (http://sporty.freeservers.com/images/3br.jpg)

[momof2boys]

I like the shots. from a girl perspective who is probably the same age as her, it really depends on the person's personality if it is offensive to them or not that somebody is taking pictures of them. If that were me and I saw the photographer doing it, I would probably be a little weirded out and ask him why he's taking my picture. But then once he told me the reason, It's flattering and a compliment. Now I'll skip the nipple comments lol but anyone who isn't wearing a bra in public knows what they are doing -eyes will be looking! I'm a big fan of bras. lol because of that. She's obviously one outgoing gal.

great pics!

[momof2boys]

i've read all the comments posted.
the disapproving comments are based on personal morals (for lack of a better word)
and NOT based in Fact or Law.
which is absolutely your right to express!
but please, get your facts straight. dont mix or combine
your opinion with the law. you're doing an injustice to yourself
and to others, by making uneducated statements.

but do continue to express your opinion.
and did you read The Photographer's Right link i provided in an earlier post??

and fyi....the woman DID KNOW i was taking her picture (not that it matters legaly or otherwise)
as evidenced by these 2 shots. i didnt originaly include them
due to there IQ and the limit of 8 pics in a post...

http://sporty.freeservers.com/images/3br_250x164.jpg (http://sporty.freeservers.com/images/3br.jpg)
those are cute! she's beautiful and knows it ! LOL

[TXLEBER]

I like the shots. from a girl perspective who is probably the same age as her, it really depends on the person's personality if it is offensive to them or not that somebody is taking pictures of them. If that were me and I saw the photographer doing it, I would probably be a little weirded out and ask him why he's taking my picture. But then once he told me the reason, It's flattering and a compliment. Now I'll skip the nipple comments lol but anyone who isn't wearing a bra in public knows what they are doing -eyes will be looking! I'm a big fan of bras. lol because of that. She's obviously one outgoing gal.

great pics!


I totally disagree!! I don't really care for bras in public. :lol:

[martinsjc]

I think Fotofairy makes an exceedingly good point to be honest - One only has to look at the litigation following the shot done in public called 'the kiss' in Paris France - That cost the photographer one and a half million francs. Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Holland, Italy and all the Scandinavian countries outlaw taking peoples pictures unsuspectingly unless it can be shown to be in the 'public interest' - it is a contravention of their human rights.

IMO There's absolutely nothing wrong with taking pics of people in public places (except from a moral point of view and that's down to each individual to decide) but publishing them is another matter. It can prove very costly indeed.

OzScot

I checked into that just out of curiosity. And if it was true than one such as fotofairy would have a point. Here is the result of my research:


The heroine of Robert Doisneau's Baiser de l'Hôtel de Ville, the archetypal photograph of Paris's most archetypal open-air activity, has decided to sell her original print at auction half a century after it was taken.
Françoise Bornet, a former actor who performed the kiss with her real-life then boyfriend, Jacques Carteaud, 55 years ago, said the print, which bears the photographer's stamp, would go under the hammer on August 25.

She said Doisneau, who died in 1994, had sent it to her a few days after taking the photograph as part of an assignment for America's Life magazine, which had asked him for pictures of young lovers in Paris.
The picture of a young, tousle-haired man planting a kiss on the lips of a slender girl became a global symbol of Paris romance in 1986, when it came out as a poster, selling 410,000 copies in the next five years.
Le Baiser (The Kiss) was thought to have been unposed until another couple, Jean and Denise Lavergne, told the magazine L'Express in 1992 that they were its unwitting subjects and that they now wanted compensation.
Doisneau was forced to reveal that the picture had been posed: he had seen the young couple kissing passionately in a cafe, and they had agreed to return later for the shoot.
Ms Bornet and Ms Lavergne both subsequently sued Doisneau, and each other, both claiming to be the woman in the photo and both demanding a share in its substantial worldwide earnings.
A Paris court threw the cases out in 1993, ruling that a kiss was just a kiss and that 40 years on, Le Baiser "could not offer positive proof of identification".
Ms Bornet, who in 1950 was studying acting at a Paris drama school with Corteaud, never received any royalties from the reproduction, whose rights are owned by the Rapho agency, Doisneau's employer when he took the picture.
She can now hope to make between €15,000 and €20,000 (£10,200 to £13,700) from the sale of her sought-after original, a spokesman for Artcurial auction house said.
The former actor, now 75, revealed, rather disappointingly, that she and her student boyfriend - who became a winemaker in southern France and died last year - were lovers for only eight or nine months.
Despite being eternally linked by one of the world's best-known photos, they did not stay in touch after they split up, beyond a brief phone call some years ago.
"I now think of it as a picture that should never really have existed," Ms Bornet told French media yesterday. "That's why I'm getting rid of it."
She added, perhaps wistfully: "The photo was posed. But the kiss was real."



So in this case they only sought compesation because they had posed for the shot, and not because the shot was taken unwillingly. Either way they -did not- get the compesation. If that is not the story you're talking about I'm sorry.. Ill research better next time.

Now My opinion in the matter has already been expressed by others here so i wont go into it again.. but the laws as I know them are simple.. you are in a public place, you are susceptible to being photographed, as you are being filmed in malls, restaurants, seven elevens etc.. and say a robbery occurs in a seven eleven while you are there that image will end up in the news, the whole country will see you, for years in a roll, the network who bought the image will make lots of money off of it, you think you are entitled to compesation just because you happened to be there with your pretty self?

Anyway sorry for helping your thread get hijacked.. Pictures are simple and cute.. The girl is beautiful, and she came out in the streets of NY showing her nipples i have no problem appreciating them.. as it was said, i would guess she would be flattered or otherwise she would have wore a bra.

gday

[MDJAK]

I was at a public pool at the Hard Rock Hotel in Vegas back in August and was taking pictures. This particular pool is open to the public during the week as they have swim-up blackjack and so encourage outsiders to come.

I posted a few shots of a partly clad lady and some people here went ballistic, inferring that I was infringing on her rights, etc.

I fully support your right to take these photos and post them here.

As to model releases, the limited amount I know says that as long as the picture is not being used for commercial purposes or monetary gain, they're not required.

What's the harm, really? There is none.

The only harm is that the OP didn't give her my number. :lol:
mark

[MDJAK]

This is the thread to which I have reference:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=209085&highlight=hard+rock+pool

[steveathome]

MDJAK, if thats you in your avitar, and you took a picture of my wife
I would give her to you. - not that I have anything against you ;)

Edit: At the end of the day - Common sense should rule.

[gkuenning]

Ah, the old 'if women dress in a certain way they should expect to be ogled' argument!

That might be a valid point if it were in fact the original argument.

But the argument I made was different. My point was that the attention she received on the Internet is no different from the attention she received on the street. I take no position (for the purposes of this discussion) on whether that attention is appropriate. I merely claim that the person who took the picture is in the same moral position as a person who walked by her on the street and admired how she looked.

Take that a bit further and you can add 'if women act sexily they shouldn't be surprised if they are to raped'. I'm not even getting into that.

Except that I didn't take that a bit further, nor did I make the original statement alleged, and I'll thank you to not attribute positions to me that I never stated in the first place.

[gkuenning]

Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Holland, Italy and all the Scandinavian countries outlaw taking peoples pictures unsuspectingly unless it can be shown to be in the 'public interest' - it is a contravention of their human rights.

IMO There's absolutely nothing wrong with taking pics of people in public places (except from a moral point of view and that's down to each individual to decide) but publishing them is another matter. It can prove very costly indeed.

Different strokes for different folks--or in this case, different countries. France is very aggressive about protecting personal privacy in a lot of different ways; in fact, my understanding is that in France it's illegal to take a stranger's photo even if you never publish. The U.S. goes to the other extreme, reasoning that the public good of free expression outweighs the public good of the privacy right.

I think I could argue for either position. The French approach has a number of very strong advantages. However, as an American who strongly believes in the virtues of our system, I'm biased toward freedom of expression in this case. If I go out in public, there are anywhere from dozens to thousands of people who can potentially see me. I don't really see the harm in turning that number into millions or billions via the Internet, even if I'm caught in an unflattering or downright embarrassing situation. My attitude is that facts are facts, and it's silly to pretend that I can make them go away by making somebody delete a picture.

...but I am going to be much more careful about my framing the next time I visit France. That's too bad, really. Some of the best candids I ever took were at a cafe in Paris.

[Skip Souza]

In the US there is NO reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place or venue. In fact, contrary to the beliefs of many, there is NO Constitutional Right to Privacy.
The Constitution of the United States of America was written to protect the citizens from the government, not from other citizens. :shock:

[gkuenning]

Princess Diana died because photographers didn't give a damn about whether she wanted her photo taken or not.

Sorry, but that's a false and distorted statement. Diana died because (a) the photographers chasing her were willing to take wild risks in their attempt to get pictures, and (b) her own driver was willing to take wild risks in his attempt to get away. Had either party had the sense to realize that a picture isn't worth a life, she'd be alive today.

[gkuenning]

Actually I'm taken aback - more so given that there is thread after thread here where photographers are complaining bitterly that their work is being used by others WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION - They demand everything from acknowledgement to financial restitution.....

Seems permission is a one-way street.

OzScot

OzScot, I'm afraid you're confusing two quite different things. Financial restitution for the use of artistic works is enshrined in the law--in the U.S., it's explicitly listed in the Consitution, the highest law of the land. There is an explicit reason for that law, which is also in the Constitution: "To promote the useful Arts and Sciences" (quoted from memory, so please don't pick on me if I got it a bit wrong). The idea is that we all benefit from art, art won't happen unless the artists have a way to get paid, and they can't get paid except through the legal monopoly called copyright. It's much more complex than that, but those are the basics.

Permission to photograph a person is a question of privacy, which is very different from economic right to exploit artistic creativity. In the U.S. (though not in all other countries), privacy is relatively poorly protected.

A photographer who says "You have to do A, which is the law, but I don't have to do B, which is not the law" is hardly a hypocrite.

[Collin85]

Princess Diana died because photographers didn't give a damn about whether she wanted her photo taken or not.

That's a preposterous conclusion to make; it really doesn't add credibility to your argument when you're willing to assert such things.

[OzScot]

That's a preposterous conclusion to make; it really doesn't add credibility to your argument when you're willing to assert such things.

So preposterous it was only one of the findings of the official French inquest into her death. Which is why the biggest 'white fiat' search in France ever undertaken went ahead - it was suspected to be a photographer's and suspected to have made contact with her vehicle at one point......

A few people pointed out the situation in America (which I really know little about) and of course some have touched on the law - fact is each nation has it's own laws in relation to invasion of privacy although there are good precedents in Britain for building in the assumption it's a 'No-no' - one case in point would be the whopping sum Merseyside Police had to pay for releasing the images of a man in a public place causing a scene - turned out he was mentally ill and therefore his 'illness' had been made public by the Police - that cost them a Five figure sum. Of course in the EU countries, Human rights legislation overrides much of what went before and that is still very much up for grabs when it comes to interpretation....

But I guess the bottom line is the moral aspect more than the legal - Just because something is legal isn't a green light to do it or a justification in itself - It's perfectly legal to fart in a crowded elevator but I still wouldn't do it.

OzScot

Ps Thanks to the Mod or Admin for splitting it and keeping the discussion alive!

[Collin85]

So preposterous it was only one of the findings of the official French inquest into her death. Which is why the biggest 'white fiat' search in France ever undertaken went ahead - it was suspected to be a photographer's and suspected to have made contact with her vehicle at one point......


As a matter of fact, the French inquest found Paul was driving at excessive speeds and was on drugs. None of the photographers arrested after the crash was charged with manslaughter either.

Then the UK did their own inquest, and concluded it was an accident - with the main cause again being Paul's speeding and the fact that he was on drugs.

I think I've proved my point sufficiently. However I'm not finished yet, so let's assume that some photographers were actually a factor to the crash.

Then that's exactly why it's preposterous. You don't draw a sole conclusion based on one of the findings of a credited inquest and that particular finding alone. Such lack of acknowledgement for other accepted possibilities demonstrates argumentative bias - hence my remark on debating credibility.

What about the two blood analysis which showed Henri Paul was drunk and on anti-depressants?

Then we have Mr. Francois Levistre (sp?) who claims to have accidentally caused the accident by cutting off Diana's Merc.

There's also the possibility that her two bodyguards "caused the crash through their incompetence and unprofessional practice", according to Fayad.

Then there's claims that Prince Philip masterminded her death and that Paul was a secret service agent!

The point is unless there is a conclusion irrefutably proven beyond reasonable doubt that a single particular cause was responsible, one should not just selectively pick one particular contributor from a list of several as the sole possible cause for their personal arguments' benefit. That's called bias.

In this case, there isn't even concrete ground for you to stand your argument on, since:

1) You imply the French inquest claims that photographers chasing Diana's Mercedes caused her crash, when as a matter of fact, both the French & English inquests emphasise Paul's drunkness and state of being on drugs as the primary contributor, not the notion that they were being pursued aggressively by photographers.

2) The reasoning of photographers being in pursuit of Diana's vehicle wasn't the sole contributor anyway.


But I guess the bottom line is the moral aspect more than the legal - Just because something is legal isn't a green light to do it or a justification in itself - It's perfectly legal to fart in a crowded elevator but I still wouldn't do it.

Morals often go hand-in-hand with legality. Emphasis: often, not always. Photographing children seems pretty high on the morality alert scale, hence laws are implemented to prohibit such actions. In other words, I'm sure if this issue was such a moral crime, there would be some pretty tough laws everywhere preventing it already.

Secondly, your point regarding morals vs. legality brings out the essence of this whole argument - that is, YES, it isn't legal, but many simply don't find photographing candid street subjects without permission as that morally corrupt in the first place.

Collin

[steveathome]

I did try to leave this thread diplomatically, but cant help but make a final comment.

FotoFairy and OzScot, you have both put your opinions across, and at times made some pretty low references to try and get your point across. Whilst trying to do so with your moral high ground giving no thought about naming people, and therefore giving no consideration for their privacy and respect to them, alive or dead or to their families.

You had both assumed "wrongly" that the lady in question in the original thread
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=266198
was not aware of these pictures being taken, but since then the OP has informed us, with evidence that she was aware. A moderator has also stated the law, and has not seen fit to remove the said images.
Do you not think it is time to put this one to bed now?
I do assure you I have high moral standards as well, two of my three children are now both young woman, they also dress how they see fit.
I do notice though FotoFairy that on another of your threads that you have included some beautiful images of your children.
Did you ask their permission to post these on the internet??????
Good day

[CyberDyneSystems]

IMHO, if one is somehow morally opposed to taking images of others in a public space, I suggest that you don't do it then.

However don't expect others to have the same beliefs and moral positions as you do.
The same can be said of any belief, religion, politics, alcohol consumption. All are legal, yet many feel that one choice or another on such subjects and lifestyle choices is higher moral ground.

If it's legal, Make your choice, and don't judge others based on there choice.

Assuming that your decision provides some form of higher moral compass than the masses is the basis of most evils in this society today. (I'd love to get specific and bring up current events but the Forums Rules prohibit that ;) )

Meanwhile you see everyone on the road speeding all the time, an act which is not only illegal, but puts lives in danger. Somehow taking pictures in a public space gets more flak though.

[steveathome]

Thank you CDS for reinstating my sanity, I was beginning to doubt myself.

[Cybnew]

I completely agree with CDS, and all others that take that stand point. Foto Fairy, OzScot, you both bring up excellent arguements, however, morality which is defined as "concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct" (wordnet.princeton.edu), is open to interpretation. It is this openness that allows human life to continue on this planet. Were there not openness in interpretation, then there would be far more death and violence across the globe. If one is out in public, then they should have no say in whether or not they are photographed.
This thread has started to remind me of a Comedy Central Presents set by Jon Reep
"You wanna know somethin fun to do? Next time you're walkin around down town, and you see someone talkin on a cell phone, quietly sneek up on them, and put your ear next to theirs. When they say 'Excuse me, can I get some privacy?' you say 'No, Cuz your in public.'"
The point is, if you are in public, you stand to be subjected to the will of others that you do not know. If this bothers you, become a Dickenson, and stay inside all day. Life is too short to worry about such trivial things. People die every day all over the world. Some of natural causes, some from accidents, and others from malicious actions. Yet we sit here bickering over whether or not posting candid pictures of a subject on the internet is moraly responsible.

[Dante King]

It amazes me how fragile people are nowadays. Public is public, and if it happens in public, then it is absolutely able to be photographed and displayed without consent.

Hey man why do you sugar coat it? People have been neutered by the Political Correct Crowd. There is no accountability for self or moral grounds to speak of. currently the "the majority" run in fear of the "perverse minority" due to PC bull****. this lady is definitely seeking attention. IT IS NO CRIME TO PHOTOGRAPH PEOPLE in PUBLIC PLACES. The PC stormtroopers want it to be that way, and many countries across the pond are going that route, but look at their social system and look what PC has done to them.

So many people trying to take the moral high ground here in this thread it is SICKENING. So much "what if", "this could" and other interpretations of what has not happened I am laughing at all you holier than thous! Wake up. People with their tits hanging out in public dont want privacy. People in the witness protection program, dont tend to go out in public areas and if they do they can be photographed (So many terrorists check this forum for potential targets!!). BFD! I cant believe I wasted time reading or replying.

[Miyagi-san]

If it's legal, Make your choice, and don't judge others based on there choice.

Best statement I've read so far!

This is one of my favorite topics about photography, being primarily a candid shooter.

I am having to bite my tongue and rethink the things I want to say here. Because normally I try to convert people who think candids are morally wrong....I just need to make peace with the fact that it's never going to happen

Reading this thread a few times over I have actually learned a lot....everybody's morales stop and begin at different places, which is absolutely not a bad thing! What a boring world and boring hobby photography would be if that were not the case.

I personally think this thread/debate could go on for the next 5 years and it really won't go any further than page 2 in terms of discussion progression. But maybe that's not a bad thing either....provided we can all keep our composure lol. :D

Shoot on, candid fans :)

[theague]

I'm going to have to frequent the "Talk about Photography" forum more often.

[Mark_Cohran]

Very interesting thread - but a recurring and never ending debate. Suffice it to say, as a photographer, I'm glad I don't live in the EU.

Mark

[Dan-o]

I'm with Dante on this one. PC will be the end of us. Look around you when you are out in public, there are cameras everywhere!!

[Skip Souza]

The definition of Political Correctness

A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

:lol: :rolleyes: :p :rolleyes: :lol:

[DAMphyne]

I thought this thread was started because a moderator didn't approve of a comment made by one of the members, refering to a certain anotomical feature of a person in another thread.
I'd like to complain about the comment made about a naked baby in another thread.
"Cute lil butt cheeks"
What kind of talk is that?

[OzScot]

As a matter of fact, the French inquest found Paul was driving at excessive speeds and was on drugs. None of the photographers arrested after the crash was charged with manslaughter either.

Then the UK did their own inquest, and concluded it was an accident - with the main cause again being Paul's speeding and the fact that he was on drugs.

I think I've proved my point sufficiently. However I'm not finished yet, so let's assume that some photographers were actually a factor to the crash.


Collin


I'll give this one a miss given that the 'Official' British inquest into her death under Lady Elizabeth Butler-Sloss has not begun yet and is expected to commence in May - Yes a whole ten years we've had to wait.....but of course you can claim we've decided 'this, that or whatever'...I guess folks need to go check for themselves.....

OxScot

OzScot

[seemaya]

ahhhh, the endless debate of morals and candid photography.
i never intended or expected to kick up so much dirt at the bottom
of the pool, when i posted my pics.
this debate is almost as circular as, what is a candid photo?

first i want to re-post the link to The Photographers Right (http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm) that got deleted when this thread was moved.
and here (http://www.newslab.org/resources/photographersright.htm) is a broad outline of taking photos in public.
i suggest you read them....they pertain to the US of A, where the
pictures i took and posted here where taken.
and you may want to dl the Guide and carry it with you. i do.

all the opinions i read here interest me, whether or not i agree
or disagree with them. freedom of expression is a beautiful thing.
people have fought and died for it, so please continue to use it.

morals, as far as i'm concerned, are based in personal choice.
how you come to make those choices or form your morals
is determined by what you believe. i certainly am not out to
change anybodys beliefs.

that being said, i am curious, and would really like to know,
what you find imoral about taking someones picture.
some replies i have read say that taking someones picture without
their permission, is immoral. and even more immoral (if thats possible),
is to post it on the internet.
i dont consider myself a-moral, at all, but i have absolutely no
hesitation of doing either of the above. i dont see where morals enter into it.
it's photography.

so tell me, out of these 5 candid pics, which are immoral? and why?

click the thumbz...
http://sporty.freeservers.com/benchthm.jpg (http://sporty.freeservers.com/bench.jpg)

http://sporty.freeservers.com/dudethm.jpg (http://sporty.freeservers.com/dude.jpg)

http://sporty.freeservers.com/flagthm.jpg (http://sporty.freeservers.com/flag.jpg)

http://sporty.freeservers.com/bigfan2_small-thm.jpg (http://sporty.freeservers.com/bigfan2_small.jpg)

http://sporty.freeservers.com/images/9br_250x216.jpg (http://sporty.freeservers.com/images/9br.jpg)


and thanks Skip for moving and continuing this discussion. :cool:

[Skip Souza]

First of all the credit for this thread belongs to CyberDyneSystems.

To answer your question; Which are immoral?
I assume that you mean the capture of which (if any) photo is immoral as opposed the acts depicted in which photo is immoral. See ho complex this can get??? I digress.
My answer is that none of the photos, in and of themselves, is immoral.

Remember, just because we can doesn't mean we should, but that is a choice made by each individual and no one should make that choice for another.

[seemaya]

agreed Skip.

....ok. so is it the subject matter of a photo thats immoral
or
the taking of the picture without permission
or
both?

i would like to hear from the members that have a moral issue
with this....like oz or fairy since you have commented earlier...or anybody.

[steveathome]

I thought this thread was started because a moderator didn't approve of a comment made by one of the members, refering to a certain anotomical feature of a person in another thread.
I'd like to complain about the comment made about a naked baby in another thread.
"Cute lil butt cheeks"
What kind of talk is that?

You got that wrong, the moderator moved part of a thread (now this one) because it went way off track, started by someone complaining about the morals of some innocent images displayed.
(original thread) http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=266198
(from of which the comment has now been removed, its the one on top of this thread now)

Although it sounds like humour to me, I haven't seen the image or thread that you refer to regarding "Butt Cheeks" so therefore cannot comment on it, but if you do feel offended or think the post should be removed, or whatever, you have the choice to click the red triangle on that post and make your feelings known. If necessary action will then be taken.

[Foto Fairy]

I did try to leave this thread diplomatically, but cant help but make a final comment.

FotoFairy and OzScot, you have both put your opinions across, and at times made some pretty low references to try and get your point across. Whilst trying to do so with your moral high ground giving no thought about naming people, and therefore giving no consideration for their privacy and respect to them, alive or dead or to their families.

You had both assumed "wrongly" that the lady in question in the original thread
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=266198
was not aware of these pictures being taken, but since then the OP has informed us, with evidence that she was aware. A moderator has also stated the law, and has not seen fit to remove the said images.
Do you not think it is time to put this one to bed now?
I do assure you I have high moral standards as well, two of my three children are now both young woman, they also dress how they see fit.
I do notice though FotoFairy that on another of your threads that you have included some beautiful images of your children.
Did you ask their permission to post these on the internet??????
Good day

'Put this one to bed?' I haven't said anything on this for a couple of days - it is you guys who keep it up. I came to the conclusion that I won't convince anyone here that people have a right to privacy - it is flogging a dead horse, and so I bowed out, only to come back and find you talking about me making low references and then bringing my children into it. I am beyond furious about that.

In answer to your incredibly low question, YES - I did ask my children's permission to post their pics, and I also asked my friend who's baby photo I posted too if it was okay if I posted it for constructive criticism. I ALWAYS ask for permission first and wouldn't do it any other way because I'd feel guilty about doing it. I don't have double standards and I am not a hypocrit and your last sentence implying that I am is very insulting. I've taken all those images down now because I am disgusted with the libertine attitude of some posters here; it kind of taints the atmosphere. I brought up a legitimate issue, debated respectfully and honestly, and come back to this. I came here to learn, not to have my knuckles rapped and my family dragged into a debate as some kind of tool to win an argument, just because I dared to bring up a touchy subject. I'm out of here.

[Collin85]

I'll give this one a miss given that the 'Official' British inquest into her death under Lady Elizabeth Butler-Sloss has not begun yet and is expected to commence in May - Yes a whole ten years we've had to wait.....but of course you can claim we've decided 'this, that or whatever'...I guess folks need to go check for themselves.....

OxScot

OzScot

Actually, Butler-Sloss is taking over Michael Burgess who quit the existing inquest over Diana's death.

But that is still irrelevant. Foto concluded aggressive photographers to be the primary factor of Diana's death which is misleading because:

a) It's not proven.

b) All existing inquests so far has claimed multiple factors, with chasing photographers having always taken a back seat behind Paul's drugs and speeding.

c) Failure to acknowledge other factors.

Then you antagonise this point further by submitting your support to this futile argument.

It's called bias, and the way you continue to rebuttle this shows it.

Finally, does it matter what the conclusion of the UK inquest is in relation to Foto's original assertion? Right now the tilt is towards chasing photographers playing a less significant role, but even still.. chances are we will never be sure exactly what happened that day.

Hence my original point: It was preposterous to make such claims.

[OzScot]

I thought this thread was started because a moderator didn't approve of a comment made by one of the members, refering to a certain anotomical feature of a person in another thread.
I'd like to complain about the comment made about a naked baby in another thread.
"Cute lil butt cheeks"
What kind of talk is that?

It's precisely the kind of comment you'll find when people are only interested in photography because of the voyeuristic nature of it. Hence the earlier 'Nice nipples' comment. There can be little (IMO) more voyeuristic than photographing people unsuspectingly - as a Sociologist it comes as no surprise (I could have predicted it) that even allowing for factors which would lead to a bias the 'It's ok' crowd are overwhelmingly male....

In fact the nature of this discussion has been cheapened not by Fotofairy or I (I would only refer to you what a moderator presumably thinks was 'funny' as a definition of 'Political correctness').....

No-one here was trying to brow-beat anyone into a defined position - indeed we were really enjoying the discussion as the 'pro-candids' had made some very good points. Of course some of them were pretty bad points but hey you won't get to the good stuff without sifting the wheat from the Chaff.

OzScot.

[Collin85]

It's precisely the kind of comment you'll find when people are only interested in photography because of the voyeuristic nature of it. Hence the earlier 'Nice nipples' comment.

Perhaps I have misunderstood you, but are you implicitly asserting that I'm interested in photography due to the voyeuristic nature of it?

I would appreciate it if you could clarify that comment. If I have not misunderstood, then I must say that I find that remark slightly offensive and a little too harsh on the personal side.

Collin

[OzScot]

Apologies for the double post but I wondered how many of you who are bashing 'Political correctness' can explain away your use of Canon Products which produce 'Candids without permission' with the following - ?

"At the heart of Canon's commitment to the world community is the belief that we are building a better world for future generations."

–Yoroku Adachi, President and CEO, Canon U.S.A., Inc.

In the spirit of our corporate philosophy of kyosei – all people, regardless of race, religion or culture, harmoniously living and working together into the future – Canon takes an approach to business that is socially responsible and economically logical.

Socially responsible being the operative words....

OzScot

[OzScot]

Perhaps I have misunderstood you, but are you implicitly asserting that I'm interested in photography due to the voyeuristic nature of it?

I would appreciate it if you could clarify that comment. If I have not misunderstood, then I must say that I find that remark slightly offensive and a little too harsh on the personal side.

Collin

No I think you have misunderstood Colin - What I'm saying is that pictures taken without consent open a person up to voyeurism as has been testified to in this thread once already with the 'nice nipples' comment - There is no law on earth will ever stop people from taking pictures of unsuspecting people so in a sense I'd be a fool to argue the point for just such a thing to happen. What I am arguing against is the 'Publication' of such images - be it on the internet, magazines or otherwise where the subject matter is 'not in the public interest'....if it's not in the public interest then it is voyeuristic as there are no other justfications for distributing it.

Can you see what I mean?

OzScot

[Collin85]

Yes, I comprehend your point. Thanks for the clarification OzScot.

Regards,
Collin

[OzScot]

Incidentally almost as an aside - Two men were arrested in Australia this weekend for taking 'candids' - basically they were sitting at a tennis tournament with zoom lenses photgraphing women with their legs open seated on the other side of the court. Now I'm in no way suggesting that anyone in this thread is of that mindset but surely you can see where being able to 'point and shoot' at will with no consent leads? There has to be a happy medium?

OzScot

[Woolburr]

I can't help but wonder if there aren't a few of the PC people here that just hear the word "nipples" and find themselves embarrassingly excited. Perhaps that is the root of their problem...they can't control themselves.

Plain and simple...political correctness is a load of crap...dreamed up by a batch of namby-pamby weenies that are so worried about offending anyone that they let common sense fly out the window. Good grief...saying a short person is "vertically challenged" is just about as asinine as it gets...they are short...and calling them short is not denigrating, it is merely a statement of fact. Get over it already. When you go out in public...that is what you are...in public...and if your photo gets taken...big deal...however; if you are sitting in the privacy of your own home or other private property and someone decides to peep through your windows...you have opened a whole new can of worms. That is not only morally wrong...but it is legally wrong as well.

This talk of "witness protection" and safety of family and friends being compromised is just a sophomoric conspiracy theory. If you are that concerned, dress them up in burkas and ski masks. It almost reminds me of the nonsense of my youth when there were people hunting for a communist behind every bush. Not every photographer is a pervert, not every candid photograph was taken for perverted purposes nor are the people that view candid photographs voyeurs or perverts.

Zealots that feel it is necessary to force their views and will upon the masses are painfully reminiscent of a certain paper-hanger from Austria...one that decided to make the world his playground. When do the book and photo burnings begin?

[OzScot]

I can't help but wonder if there aren't a few of the PC people here that just hear the word "nipples" and find themselves embarrassingly excited. Perhaps that is the root of their problem...they can't control themselves.

Plain and simple...political correctness is a load of crap...dreamed up by a batch of namby-pamby weenies that are so worried about offending anyone that they let common sense fly out the window. Good grief...saying a short person is "vertically challenged" is just about as asinine as it gets...they are short...and calling them short is not denigrating, it is merely a statement of fact. Get over it already. When you go out in public...that is what you are...in public...and if your photo gets taken...big deal...however; if you are sitting in the privacy of your own home or other private property and someone decides to peep through your windows...you have opened a whole new can of worms. That is not only morally wrong...but it is legally wrong as well.

This talk of "witness protection" and safety of family and friends being compromised is just a sophomoric conspiracy theory. If you are that concerned, dress them up in burkas and ski masks. It almost reminds me of the nonsense of my youth when there were people hunting for a communist behind every bush. Not every photographer is a pervert, not every candid photograph was taken for perverted purposes nor are the people that view candid photographs voyeurs or perverts.

Zealots that feel it is necessary to force their views and will upon the masses are painfully reminiscent of a certain paper-hanger from Austria...one that decided to make the world his playground. When do the book and photo burnings begin?

I think that post does more for the point I am making than I ever could.....

OzScot

[seemaya]

Oz and Foto Fairy...
i really would appreciate an answer to my questions
that i posted in my last reply with the 5 pics....

i'm very curious to see your viewpoint on this...thanks

[theague]

What I am arguing against is the 'Publication' of such images - be it on the internet, magazines or otherwise where the subject matter is 'not in the public interest'....if it's not in the public interest then it is voyeuristic as there are no other justfications for distributing it.

Can you see what I mean?

OzScot

Incidentally almost as an aside - Two men were arrested in Australia this weekend for taking 'candids' - basically they were sitting at a tennis tournament with zoom lenses photgraphing women with their legs open seated on the other side of the court. Now I'm in no way suggesting that anyone in this thread is of that mindset but surely you can see where being able to 'point and shoot' at will with no consent leads? There has to be a happy medium?

OzScot

The word voyeurism has been thrown around a LOT in this discussion and I have had a problem with it the entire time. I wonder if the ones using it actually know it's meaning?

From Dictionary.com here are the list of definitions from top to bottom.

Voyeurism
1. the practice of obtaining sexual gratification by looking at sexual objects or acts, esp. secretively.

voyeur - American Heritage Dictionary
1. A person who derives sexual gratification from observing the naked bodies or sexual acts of others, especially from a secret vantage point.
2. An obsessive observer of sordid or sensational subjects.

voyeurism - WorldNet
1. a perversion in which a person receives sexual gratification from seeing the genitalia of others or witnessing others' sexual behavior

seemaya was never doing anything in secret. He was standing in a public area where his subject could clearly see him. The subject is not naked, is not engaged in a sexual act nor are her genetalia showing. Stop calling candid street photography voyeurism or voyeuristic.

What the two men were doing at the tennis match is clearly wrong and is NOTHING like what seemaya or anyone else on POTN is "publishing" on the internet. That is not candid street photography which is what we are discussing here. Why did you even bring that up?

I think part of the problem with this discussion is that people from different regions of the world are discussing a subject that is defined and enforced differently in their respective countries. The legality of the issue has already been discussed and we all know this form of photography is completely legal (at least in the USA).

"Publishing" this photo on the internet has not harmed the 'public' in any way. If the woman in question was so concerned about her appearance being displayed across the world she would dress more conservatively. As was already stated in previous comments. The fact is, she didn't or does not wear a bra, she noticed seemaya shooting and she didn't approach him to ask that he delete the photos, not publish them on the internet etc. This photo might be in the best interest of the public because it seems like it is a rather popular set of images. The public of POTN seems to appreciate seemaya's sharing them with us.

Oz and foto, I applaud you for having a higher moral compass than some other individuals. However, I would expect that higher morality to also encompass the ability to accept other peoples morals as well. You do not have the right to condemn others for acting within their legal and moral right. Morals cannot be enforced or dictated, that's why they're called morals and not laws.

Let the debate continue. :)

[thebugster1]

Amen my brotha!

[strmrdr]

...

[belmondo]

Amen my brotha!
Translation: I agree with theague.

...
Translation: Semper ubi sub ubi.

[theague]

what is semper ubi sub ubi? that needs translating too. :)

[belmondo]

what is semper ubi sub ubi? that needs translating too. :)

Literally.....Always where under where.

Phonetically....Always wear underwear.

It's gibberish, actually, but felt it was appropriate since some people were using Latin in their signatures. (Haven't a clue what they're saying, either.)

[theague]

lol - I had some other comments but I don't want to get too off topic.

[DAMphyne]

I stand corrected of the reason this thread was started. Also, I may have mis-stated that I have a "complaint" about the referral to the Baby's Butt, what I should have said was, I'd like to point out the comment about the "Cute Lil Butt".
I think I should apologize for my crude attempt at humor. I just thought it's ironic that pointing out the anatomy of one person would bring such discussion, while another passes without comment.
I understand that this discussion is about the moral concept of right/wrong doing of "candid photography".
The adult, in public, wearing what she wanted, and if she has any awareness of her surroundings, has to accept the possibility of others noticing her atributes. The photographer seems like he was just doing what photographers do, make images of interesting things and sharing them with his peers.
The baby, on the other hand, was photographed by someone close to him/her, and put on public display without any consent or opinion. I'm not sure how she/he might respond to this exposure at a later date when she realizes what was done.
Personally, I don't find either of the photos wrong.
I think in both cases the photographers just did what we in the USA find easy to do.[/U]Whatever We Want![/U]
The law in this country allows me to do this, with certain restrictions pertaining to injury of other parties. Morals are personal and private things, best to leave our judgements to Higher Authority.
Judge not lest ye be judged, is a pretty good guide.
If a car is speeding down the highway, putting others in danger, then we all recognize the "immoral act" that is occurring, and wish we could be a cop or something to stop the action.
If you see someone in a bar, getting drunk, and heading for their car to drive home. Should we stop the action or allow it to happen? Who is being immoral in this case, the driver or the witness to the possible catastrophe who watches without saying anything?
The point I'm trying to make is that we all have a sense of right and wrong. If it's not hurtfull to others, then let the dooer face his judgement.
By the way, the observations of both the photos were right.

[theague]

The point I'm trying to make is that we all have a sense of right and wrong. If it's not hurtfull to others, then let the dooer face his judgement.

Exaclty!

[Miyagi-san]

candids rule, morals drool

[hawk911]

Great debate- now I have a question.

We had a charitable event here at work. I was given permission to take pictures; we have a "no camera" policy at work for financial privacy issues. With said permission, I took a buncha pictures during our luncheon, and since I'm new to this I also posted a picture of a woman eating with co-workers. She was unique in that she was in very light colored clothing, and has platinum hair. The lighting was typical overhead flourescents.
I posted to see if the shot should have been taken differently- exposure and shutter speed, etc.

Was that wrong? I did not ask her for permission to post, and for what reasons I wanted to post.

[Skip Souza]

Just because someone doesn't like what someone else does, does not make the act wrong.
That's where the phrase; "There out to be a law," comes from.

[Thornfield]

When going out into a public place people would do well to remember they are in a PUBLIC place. Privacy basically goes out the window. Taking pictures of someone in a public place in my opinion is not the issue, the issue lies in what motivates the person to take the picture. Is the motivation based on social commentary (the relaxing attitudes of todays women regarding dress codes in public for example) or is it motivated by voyeuristic intent? These are moral issues, not legal issues.
Moral standards vary between Cultural/Race/socio economic groups etc etc.

I personaly have no problems with the pictures in question. Looking at the pictures I came to the conclusion that, had the photographer taken these pictures with voyeristic intent he would more than likely have known that posting them here would only open up a whole can of worms. These day we are programmed to take everyones feelings into account so as not to offend to the point where we have to ignore our own feelings in the process ( the reason for taking the picture?).

Taking a picture of a person (in a public place) should not lead us to questioning ourselves on should we ask permission as to taking the picture. It should lead us to ask 'why do I want to take THIS picture' getting the answer to that would be a lot more productive

Signed
A Fat, oops that should be horizontally challenged, short oops that should be vertically challenged, balding oops that should read follicaly challenged Dutchman, living in New Zealand.

And no I don't take offence to the term "Dutch courage"

[seemaya]

the reasons i took these pics are, i love candid photgraphy,
i love fashion, i love beauty, i love beautiful woman.

so you could say i love taking candid pics of fashion conscious beautiful woman. so am i going to hell for it?
what if i met my wife this way? by taking candid pics
of her,
then getting to know her, then marrying her?...is that ok?
or would i still go to hell?....would our kids be following right behind us
into the firey depths?

hey, i know thats a bit tongue in cheek, but not much. i'm half serious.
if you take this moralistic stuff to far, we might as well all stay home
and ask the moral majority if its ok to do x, y or z...

thats not the way i live my life, thank you very much.
but if you want to, thats cool.

i find it very, very intersting that no one has answered or commented
on the questions i asked about the 5 pics i posted.
it seems to me that SEX plays a big part in your moral viewpoint.

whats the difference between posting a pic of a beautiful woman
or a handsome man?
what if i was gay?...would you say my morals are corrupt for snapping
a pic of a hansome man?
you dont really know do you?

so live and let live...there are many, many things i wont do.
but taking pictures, like these, is not one of them.

[Skip Souza]

To answer the question in your sig. Without sufficient light your eyes can't discern the color.

One for you. If a man makes a statement and his wife is not there to correct him, is he still wrong? :-)

[seemaya]

To answer the question in your sig. Without sufficient light your eyes can't discern the color.

One for you. If a man makes a statement and his wife is not there to correct him, is he still wrong? :-)

part 1....ahh, but then how do you know the color is there?

part 2.....only if she finds out. and she usually does..ha!

:D

[Skip Souza]

part 1....ahh, but then how do you know the color is there?

part 2.....only if she finds out. and she usually does..ha!

:D
1. Faith, the belief in things unseen. A prime example used to be air but now days you can see the air and it is a dingy brown :p A good example is the far side of the moon. I have never seen it but I believe it exists.

2. You are oh so right :rolleyes:

[theague]

i find it very, very intersting that no one has answered or commented
on the questions i asked about the 5 pics i posted.
it seems to me that SEX plays a big part in your moral viewpoint.


I would answer, but I don't think you did anything wrong in the first place so my answers to the 5 wouldn't be much use either. lol :)

[OzScot]

Seemaya forgive me as I have a really heavy schedule right now - I will address the questions your raised but I'm struggling for time - Hopefully over Saturday Sunday I'll have time to give them my full attention.

Thanks

OzScot

PS Can I just add that at no time have I been arguing that 'candids' should be forbidden and yet folks seem to be replying as though they haven't got the ability to either read the posts or keep up with the discussion - I've been arguing that when and where practicable PERMISSION should be sought!

[gkuenning]

Sometimes procrastination can actually pay off: I was catching up on 6-month-old (literally!) e-mail, and found the following links:

First, here's
a 5-page PDF explaining the law in remarkable detail (http://www.kantor.com.nyud.net:8080/blog/Legal-Rights-of-Photographers.pdf).

Second, here's a handy quick reference (http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm) that includes a link to a downloadable one-page sheet advising you of your rights, and what to do if confronted.

The upshot: in the U.S., there is no crime in taking candids, as long as you're not violating a reasonable expectation of privacy. (Note that the tennis-match people listed above wouldn't meet that standard.)

Furthermore, you have the right to take photographs in any public place, including places like shopping malls. (However, the security guards can ask you to leave, and at that point you have to do so. But if they try to confiscate anything, you can prosecute them for theft.)

[seemaya]

Oz...cool man, look forward to it.

gkuenning...i posted them links about 3 pages back....hehe
thanks, getting the word out is always good.

theague....i figured as much for those that dont have a problem
with candids/morals...its meant more for the 'morally challenged' (jkng)
among us.

[SgWRX]

if i'm standing in public among 25 people, isn't it reasonable to expect privacy limited to those 25 people? as opposed to expecting that anyone other than those 25 people will be seeing me in whatever circumstance that i'm in? in fact, i'd expect that of those 25 people, 15 might not even notice me because they might be looking at something else so then i'd expect that my "privacy" is limited to 10 people.

[gkuenning]

if i'm standing in public among 25 people, isn't it reasonable to expect privacy limited to those 25 people? as opposed to expecting that anyone other than those 25 people will be seeing me in whatever circumstance that i'm in? in fact, i'd expect that of those 25 people, 15 might not even notice me because they might be looking at something else so then i'd expect that my "privacy" is limited to 10 people.

From a legal standpoint, in the U.S. the answer is quite simply "No."

There are two good reasons for taking this approach. The first is that it saves us from having to deal with a lot of tricky borderline cases. For example, suppose I'm taking a picture of my kid in front of some random landmark, and you happen to be in the shot. Should you be able to sue me if I post that picture on my Web site? Some people would say "Only if it's embarrassing to you," but that means I have to figure out whether you'd be embarrassed by (e.g.) having a bit of pigeon poop on your shoulder. The actual rule draws a simple bright line that anybody can figure out.

The second good reason is that in the U.S. we have always had a strong bias toward freedom of speech. Suppose I want to make an artistic or political comment via a photograph. For example, I might point out the ineffectiveness of a political rally by photographing your indifference to the protesters. If you could prevent publication of that photograph on the grounds that I was violating your privacy, it would be a significant restriction on the open debate that we cherish in this country.

Other countries have different value systems. France is repeatedly mentioned as a place where you can get into serious trouble for photographing strangers. I don't know what they do about the landmark problem; maybe they adjudicate every case separately. Nor do I know how they handle news photographs; maybe the photographers are required to blur out the face of anyone who isn't actively involved in the news (though that doesn't seem to be the case in the French news photos I've seen).

[MegaTron]

I dont have a problem with candid photography, but I do have a problem with the photographers that dont stop snapping when they are asked to stop (assuming that the person isnt famous). The "I can take pics of whoever I want to because they are in public" argument doesnt fly with me. I dont care what the law says. If you continue to snap after someone asks you to stop, to me, thats harassment.

I was at the 3rd Street Promenade in Santa Monica, and I saw a guy taking candids of people, so I stopped to watch him while my girlfriend was shopping in one of the stores. He had one of the 70-200L lenses on his camera, and he was snapping away at a very attractive girl. The girl was with her bf. The bf saw the guy snapping away, and walked up to him and asked him what he was doing. The bf was very calm, and appeared to be very polite. The photographer tried to play it off and act like he wasnt shooting them. The guy said fine, and walked away with his gf.

As they were walking away, the guy started snapping away again, the bf turned around, and walked up to the photographer guy again. Asked if he was taking pics of his gf, to which the photographer replied, "I can take pics of whoever I want man, shes in public.......... F*** off."

Bf: What?

Photographer: *shrugs* F*** off.

The BF then threw a well placed right cross that busted the photographers nose. Somehow, the BF wrestled the camera away from the photographer, and took his memory card out. He then carefully set his camera down, and walked off. The photographer was on the ground in pain.

No one helped the photographer, the cops got there a few minutes later. I could hear the photographer saying that someone punched him in the face and took his memory card.

Thats pretty much what I call street justice.

[gkuenning]

Thats pretty much what I call street justice.

That's what I (and the law) call assault and theft.

Let's boil this tale down to its essentials. Person A is being a jerk (in your opinion), but is doing nothing illegal. Person B objects, uses violence that will require a visit to the ER, and takes person A's property.

If I'd been there, I like to think that I would have chased the BF down and detained him until the police arrived. He appointed himself judge, jury, and executioner. Not my idea of good citizenship. (And we'll note that in your telling, the woman wasn't the one who objected. This guy sounds like a possessive, controlling, violent jerk himself. Anybody wanna bet which of the BF and the photographer is more likely to have a record?)

[Skip Souza]

I reiterate.
Just because someone doesn't like what someone else does, does not make the act wrong.
That's where the phrase; "There out to be a law," comes from.
Geoff is correct.
Street corner justice is not justice at all.

[MegaTron]

That's what I (and the law) call assault and theft.

Let's boil this tale down to its essentials. Person A is being a jerk (in your opinion), but is doing nothing illegal. Person B objects, uses violence that will require a visit to the ER, and takes person A's property.

If I'd been there, I like to think that I would have chased the BF down and detained him until the police arrived. He appointed himself judge, jury, and executioner. Not my idea of good citizenship. (And we'll note that in your telling, the woman wasn't the one who objected. This guy sounds like a possessive, controlling, violent jerk himself. Anybody wanna bet which of the BF and the photographer is more likely to have a record?)

Actually, the girl was objecting. She was annoyed, but it was the bf that told her to calm down and let him handle things. When the bf asked him to stop the first time, and walked away, you can tell that the photographer was prob shooting her backside. The bf was very calm, and he appeared to be very reasonable before he threw the punch. The photographer was very rude to him. As far as im concerned, the bf was just protecting his gf.

What if the guy took the pics and put her on some perv website and her future employer/ employer saw the pics? It actually happens all the time to people and they really cant do anything about it until its too late.

In no way am I saying that violence is the answer and the bf did the right thing by hitting the photographer, it was wrong, but stuff like that just happens, and the photographer couldve easily walked away from the situation without getting hurt.

If the photographer was being polite, and the bf was being a douche bag, it wouldve been a different story, I wouldve stepped in. Or if the bf continued to beat him after he was down, then I wouldve helped the photographer. The bf really was trying to be reasonable with the guy. He couldve taken the guys camera if he wanted to, but he carefully put it down near him, and just walked away.

I really think that the photographer got what he deserved. I really think I was being a good citizen to humanity by not stepping in. In some parts of the world, they could kill you over stuff like that. He should be greatful that he only suffered a broken nose, and he should take it as a lesson. He should really just learn to respect peoples wishes, the shot really isnt worth it.

[Woolburr]

Actually, the girl was objecting. She was annoyed, but it was the bf that told her to calm down and let him handle things. When the bf asked him to stop the first time, and walked away, you can tell that the photographer was prob shooting her backside. The bf was very calm, and he appeared to be very reasonable before he threw the punch. The photographer was very rude to him. As far as im concerned, the bf was just protecting his gf.

Protecting her from what? Protecting implies some sort of harm or damage is being done to the person to begin with. Having a random photo shot in public is going to be very hard to justify as being harmful or dangerous. Plus you have to prove that she was the intended target and that the photographer was intending to do some form of harm to her.

What if the guy took the pics and put her on some perv website and her future employer/ employer saw the pics? It actually happens all the time to people and they really cant do anything about it until its too late.

Please define "perv" website. And if it is a "perv" website...why on earth would they be interested of pictures of a fully clothed person standing on a street corner? I would also worry a bit about an employer that has nothing better to do with his time than to troll "perv" websites looking for photos of employees or future employees. As far as this happening all the time to people...could you please quote some specific cases? I can honestly say that I have never heard of a case of a person being photographed while standing on the street minding their own business that would generate a whole lot of interest within the "perv" community. Perhaps this goes back to you defining for us exactly what comprises a "perv" website.

In no way am I saying that violence is the answer and the bf did the right thing by hitting the photographer, it was wrong, but stuff like that just happens, and the photographer couldve easily walked away from the situation without getting hurt.

Most people on a photo outing do not expect someone to break their nose. Perhaps had the photographer known he was dealing with a psycho, he might have used better judgment.

If the photographer was being polite, and the bf was being a douche bag, it wouldve been a different story, I wouldve stepped in. Or if the bf continued to beat him after he was down, then I wouldve helped the photographer. The bf really was trying to be reasonable with the guy. He couldve taken the guys camera if he wanted to, but he carefully put it down near him, and just walked away.

And by taking the guys camera he would have upped the charges against him to a whole different level. Already looking at aggravated assault, aggravated battery, battery with intent to cause serious bodily harm, theft and possibly even grand theft depending on what was on that media card.

I really think that the photographer got what he deserved. I really think I was being a good citizen to humanity by not stepping in. In some parts of the world, they could kill you over stuff like that. He should be greatful that he only suffered a broken nose, and he should take it as a lesson. He should really just learn to respect peoples wishes, the shot really isnt worth it.

You are trying to pass this off as you taking some kind of moral high ground here and yet you stood by and watched actual crimes being committed and chose to do nothing. Regardless of what your personal opinion is, the photographer committed no crime. His behavior might be reprehensible and repulsive...and if someone asked him politely to stop...I would certainly hope he had some very compelling reason for continuing, because I agree that if a person doesn't wish to be photographed and asks politely, that their wishes should be honored if at all possible. On the other hand, the boyfriend/husband or whatever the male in question was, did commit a series of crimes. It is still illegal to walk up to someone and punch them and it certainly is a crime to walk off with their personal property. There is no way on the face of this good earth that you can justify the theft of personal property.

[MegaTron]

Protecting her from what? Protecting implies some sort of harm or damage is being done to the person to begin with. Having a random photo shot in public is going to be very hard to justify as being harmful or dangerous. Plus you have to prove that she was the intended target and that the photographer was intending to do some form of harm to her.

Who knows what hes going to do with the photos. He could have her face all over some porn website, doesnt matter if shes fully clothed or not, if her face is anywhere on the site, her reputation is ruined. What he was doing was arguably harassment. What if he was stalking her? Would that have been different? Is it ok to follow someone and continue to snap pictures of them? Is it ok wait outside someones house and snap pictures of them for no reason? What is the line drawn?


Please define "perv" website. And if it is a "perv" website...why on earth would they be interested of pictures of a fully clothed person standing on a street corner? I would also worry a bit about an employer that has nothing better to do with his time than to troll "perv" websites looking for photos of employees or future employees. As far as this happening all the time to people...could you please quote some specific cases? I can honestly say that I have never heard of a case of a person being photographed while standing on the street minding their own business that would generate a whole lot of interest within the "perv" community. Perhaps this goes back to you defining for us exactly what comprises a "perv" website.

The employer doesnt have to be trolling "perv" websites, he could just randomly be visiting one, or someone around the office couldve spotted her, and sent her picture around. There are many candid "perv" sites out there, im sure you can search google and find some. These photographers get pictures of unsuspecting girls, then do a crop on their cleavage and ass. I guess its a fetish, some people would rather leave it up to their imagination. Im not saying that what the photographer was going to do that, but like I said, who knows whats hes going to do with that photo.

Most people on a photo outing do not expect someone to break their nose. Perhaps had the photographer known he was dealing with a psycho, he might have used better judgment.

The photographer was acting like an idiot. Maybe if he was polite, and took the time to explain to the bf what he was doing, the bf may have understood. The photographer was using foul language for now reason. It seemed like he went out of his way to be a douche bag. He couldve used better judgment before the situation got out of hand. Whats the point of taking pictures of someone that doesnt want to be photographed? Doing it because you can and its not illegal isnt a good enough answer for me.

You are trying to pass this off as you taking some kind of moral high ground here and yet you stood by and watched actual crimes being committed and chose to do nothing. Regardless of what your personal opinion is, the photographer committed no crime. His behavior might be reprehensible and repulsive...and if someone asked him politely to stop...I would certainly hope he had some very compelling reason for continuing, because I agree that if a person doesn't wish to be photographed and asks politely, that their wishes should be honored if at all possible. On the other hand, the boyfriend/husband or whatever the male in question was, did commit a series of crimes. It is still illegal to walk up to someone and punch them and it certainly is a crime to walk off with their personal property. There is no way on the face of this good earth that you can justify the theft of personal property.

We make laws because of people like him, people like him cross the line and think that the law will protect him. All laws arent perfect, thats why they change all the time. I watched 2 crimes be committed as far as im concerned, I saw a guy harassing a couple, and a guy punching him in the face and taking his property, that piece of property happened to contain pictures of his gf/wife on it. Obviously he didnt want pictures of his wife/gf out, so he did what he had to do to get the pictures back. In my eyes, it worked itself out. I used my own judgment, juror do it all the time. There was about 20 other witnesses, and all that saw what happened didnt seem to feel sorry for the photographer either.

It was like 2 kids in a school yard. If a kid is up in your face, being annoying and cursing at you all throughout recess, what do you do? Go tell the teacher just to have him doing it again during lunch? Im not saying that violence is the answer, but if you continue to provoke and annoy someone and push their limits for no reason, you better expect the unexpected. The photographer didnt know that guy, and thats exactly why he shouldnt be pushing his buttons.

[StewartR]

But there is a difference between recognising that certain actions may lead to violence, and condoning that violence. You know, two-wrongs-don't-make-a-right and all that.

[Skip Souza]

Time for everyone to step back and take a breath. Neither will change the others mind. Unfortunately some will just have to learn the hard way from inside a jail cell.

[MegaTron]

Sorry Skip and everyone else. I didnt mean to take this debate that direction, just sharing a story that was relevant to the topic.

[seemaya]

well, i'm glad others have stepped in and voiced their opposing opinion
to MegaTron, i agree with them (Woolburr, gkuenning, etc) 100%.
they pretty much touched on all the points i would have made in
opposition to MT...

but i will say this to MegaTron..
you obviously do not know the laws around photography, candid photography,
and/or laws in general concerning assault and battery and theft.
or maybe you do, and you just choose to ignore them...
or maybe you just like to make laws up as you go, to suit your needs.
i dunno, but your argument here is completly ridiculous.

answer me this....if the bf was still around when the cops arrived,
who do you think would have been arrested?....who do you think
would have had grounds to press charges?
morals dont hold up in court, laws do.

i know photogs that have fought back, been questioned by the police,
been questioned by the subject, and the photog has always 'won'.
they were within their rights. if you dont cherish the rights of this
country, maybe you should find an island for sale on ebay, and move there.


and a ps....99.9% of the time when i am asked to not photograph someone
or to stop, i honor their wish. i dont have to, i choose to.


lol... i thought this thread was dead...ha!

[Miyagi-san]

You can't just go around hitting people who don't do what you want them to....lol. That's rediculous. Photographer should have called the cops himself and pressed assault, battery and theft charges.

[SgWRX]

that's a good explanation thanks. yeah what we really do in a lot of our social laws is provide for something that actually can go either way... what am i trying to say? like take the good with the bad so to speak. there's always the possibility of abusing a freedom perhaps.

i don't have a problem with people taking photographs, and actually it kind of sits ill with me that someone would tell someone else to stop taking photos when in fact, it's their right to do so.

i remember a while back that someone (maybe on another forum) was taking shots artistic shots of "industrial america" and the police were called and came to tell him to move on. this was of course because of 9-11. i remember think that was insane. however, the company i work for has strict guidelines that are recommended when it comes to different areas of security. for example we have a maritime guideline that says to immediately report strange or out of place people or behavior. what's interesting to me is, i might see a photographer just outside our property taking pictures of our docks and think nothing of it. another employee might think that very suspicious and report them!

it's a real sticky subject and can vary so much from person to person as to what's appropriate or not.

From a legal standpoint, in the U.S. the answer is quite simply "No."

There are two good reasons for taking this approach. The first is that it saves us from having to deal with a lot of tricky borderline cases. For example, suppose I'm taking a picture of my kid in front of some random landmark, and you happen to be in the shot. Should you be able to sue me if I post that picture on my Web site? Some people would say "Only if it's embarrassing to you," but that means I have to figure out whether you'd be embarrassed by (e.g.) having a bit of pigeon poop on your shoulder. The actual rule draws a simple bright line that anybody can figure out.

The second good reason is that in the U.S. we have always had a strong bias toward freedom of speech. Suppose I want to make an artistic or political comment via a photograph. For example, I might point out the ineffectiveness of a political rally by photographing your indifference to the protesters. If you could prevent publication of that photograph on the grounds that I was violating your privacy, it would be a significant restriction on the open debate that we cherish in this country.

Other countries have different value systems. France is repeatedly mentioned as a place where you can get into serious trouble for photographing strangers. I don't know what they do about the landmark problem; maybe they adjudicate every case separately. Nor do I know how they handle news photographs; maybe the photographers are required to blur out the face of anyone who isn't actively involved in the news (though that doesn't seem to be the case in the French news photos I've seen).

[MegaTron]

well, i'm glad others have stepped in and voiced their opposing opinion
to MegaTron, i agree with them (Woolburr, gkuenning, etc) 100%.
they pretty much touched on all the points i would have made in
opposition to MT...

but i will say this to MegaTron..
you obviously do not know the laws around photography, candid photography,
and/or laws in general concerning assault and battery and theft.
or maybe you do, and you just choose to ignore them...
or maybe you just like to make laws up as you go, to suit your needs.
i dunno, but your argument here is completly ridiculous.

answer me this....if the bf was still around when the cops arrived,
who do you think would have been arrested?....who do you think
would have had grounds to press charges?
morals dont hold up in court, laws do.


I know what the law is reguarding photography and candid photography. I also know what the law is concerning assault, batter, and theft, but this thread is also about morality. I dont make laws up as I go along, im not a congressman. Can you explain why my argument is rediculous? Im not a cop, its not my job to enforce laws. What if we were in an area where cops dont frequent? I grew up in a bad area, and if this happened in the neighborhood where I grew up, the cops would either, never come, or get there in about 3 hours. A cop isnt always going to be there to help you, so you need to use your own judgement sometimes when you are in a dispute like that. The photographer couldve