"Photographers Reportedly Harassed and Detained by Mob"

http://petapixel.com …ssed-and-detained-by-mob/

http://www.americanpho​tomag.com …graphers-looking-out-town

There are always three sides to a story. But at first glance I would say the photog should be looking at legal action against the people who detained her (if it can be proved they were detained) and the police department for not allowing charges to be filed against the people detaining them (again, if there is evidence they were detained)

Fact is most people don't understand the legal rights of photographers, hell even more police don't. People acting stupid, threading, and illegally detaining someone under the guise of being a "concerned parent" does not make their actions any less illegal.

This entire issue says more about what our society has become than it does photographer or parent right or fears -- we don't know the whole story from both sides, so it usually runs somewhere in the middle of each party...

But the issue that parents are so frightened about the kids says volumes about our social structure today, and the fears inherent in the way we interact with one another as professionals and as parents.

Good.

The elitist mentality of street photographers more than defines the meaning of arrogance: "Hey! It's a public place I can take pictures of anybody I want!"

But opposite that is a response just as strong: "I don't want my picture taken, and I have a right not to have my picture taken." *

Each belief is as valid as the other.

If you're taking pictures of people who do not what their pictures taken, be prepared to be confronted because of it. Don't want to suffer that confrontation? Simple enough. Don't take pictures of people who do not want their picture taken.

In this case, the suspicion was they were taking pictures of children. Even worse. Only those who are truly ignorant do not understand why, and how strongly, a parent would protect their child.

(* - This is usually followed by the typical "Hey, dude! You're in a public place. If you don't want your picture taken, don't go out in public..." blah, blah, blah which only emphasizes the insufferable arrogance and ignorance of street photographers)

Picture North Carolina wrote in post #17499076
Good.

Seriously? I get that you don't appreciate street photography, and I'll not argue with your opinion on that. But, assuming the facts as presented, the townspeople unlawfully detained the photographers, and one menaced/threatened them by referencing a gun. I don't call that good.

I'll be leaving this thread now, because it's sure to spiral out of control.

Picture North Carolina wrote in post #17499076
Good.

The elitist mentality of street photographers more than defines the meaning of arrogance: "Hey! It's a public place I can take pictures of anybody I want!"

But opposite that is a response just as strong: "I don't want my picture taken, and I have a right not to have my picture taken." *

Each belief is as valid as the other.

If you're taking pictures of people who do not what their pictures taken, be prepared to be confronted because of it. Don't want to suffer that confrontation? Simple enough. Don't take pictures of people who do not want their picture taken.

In this case, the suspicion was they were taking pictures of children. Even worse. Only those who are truly ignorant do not understand why, and how strongly, a parent would protect their child.

(* - This is usually followed by the typical "Hey, dude! You're in a public place. If you don't want your picture taken, don't go out in public..." blah, blah, blah which only emphasizes the insufferable arrogance and ignorance of street photographers)

Except they were taking pictures of people who were okay with it. The people who freaked out were across the street and they had no photos of those people.

I have no great love for street photography, but:

Picture North Carolina wrote in post #17499076
The elitist mentality of street photographers more than defines the meaning of arrogance: "Hey! It's a public place I can take pictures of anybody I want!"

Correct, arrogant or not.

Picture North Carolina wrote in post #17499076
But opposite that is a response just as strong: "I don't want my picture taken, and I have a right not to have my picture taken."

Actually, you don't.

Picture North Carolina wrote in post #17499076
Each belief is as valid as the other.

Not according to the law. You can also have the "belief" that it's your right to shoot people in the head. What you believe is irrelevant.

Picture North Carolina wrote in post #17499076
If you're taking pictures of people who do not what their pictures taken, be prepared to be confronted because of it. Don't want to suffer that confrontation? Simple enough. Don't take pictures of people who do not want their picture taken.

True dat

Had something like that happen to me while in Tenerife. Off a cruise ship and saw a pickup football (soccer) game in a public square. Kids were really in to it and I got some nice action shots with good expressions. It was happening next to a outdoor cafe where the wife and I were eating. In the meantime a British woman came along and asked a girl of about 11 or so to come over to the side where she posed her for several snaps sitting and standing, fascinated I suspect, by the girls looks. I have no idea what she was after but it seemed innocent enough. Not regular street photography, however, no spontaneity.
After we finished eating and we are just watching the kids play while drinking a coffee, a local lady comes around the corner steaming. She accosted me, wanting to know what I was photographing. My camera being obvious, she must have though I was the one who had shot the girl. I showed her my shots, but she still was mad and went off about photography without permission. I had to just leave to get rid of her. Others in the cafe did not get involved, so no interference with our leaving.
As it turned out, the European Union had just passed a personal privacy law giving people more rights to their own image, making street photography way more difficult. I ran into an attitude at least once every trip over three years over "I have me rights to me own image"--as one British fellow told me.

Interesting avatar. It reminds me of this:

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Don't know the REAL story but I feel like if you don't want them taking your photo, just ask them not to. And if someone asks you not to take their photo, then don't. I don't see why it has to be such a big deal. But I do see how it could be difficult to take candids if you are asking permission or notifying them BEFORE you take the photo. Seems like a fine line you have to walk being a street photographer.

advaitin wrote in post #17499158
Interesting avatar. It reminds me of this:

lol wow. It does! What is that?
I designed this logo in 4th grade and won 1st place in the county fair. Not sure I like it a ton but it's got sentimental value. I've been meaning to work it into a new design to update it while still keeping it somewhat original.

Stylized Sanskrit. It is the word "OM" somewhat akin to "I AM" and a symbol of religious purpose in Hinduism, Sikhism and some forms of Buddhism.

If the writer of the AmericanPhotoMag article is going to try to inform about what is legal or not to photograph then they need to correct this statement:

"In the United States, it is not unlawful to photograph children in public, or anything for that matter open to public view as long as it can be seen without the aid of a telephoto lens."

With that statement anyone who reads it may go after someone for photographing in their general direction with a long lens.

The safest blanket statement is that anyone can photograph anything they want from public property.

And even that isn't as broad as the law often allows (the case of the NY photographer, photographing from a private property high-rise who photographed into other people's apartment windows with a super-telephoto lens and displayed them in a gallery, was sued, photographer won, no assumption of privacy with the blinds open).

koala yummies wrote in post #17499264
The safest blanket statement is that anyone can photograph anything they want from public property.

That's not a true statement either..it doesn't apply to certain govt buildings/installation​s, people who have an expectation of privacy
i.e. inside a private establishment etc...

digirebelva wrote in post #17499274
That's not a true statement either..it doesn't apply to certain govt buildings/installation​s, people who have an expectation of privacy
i.e. inside a private establishment etc...

There's no reasonable expectation of privacy in public. What government buildings can't be photographed from public property?