Candid by Hard Rock Pool (NWS)

I dont mean to dig up this thread, but I dont want to seem like the bad guy here. I have no problems with any of the picures, but I do have a problem with the thread starters attitude. It seems that he has the attitude that he can take pictures of whoever he wants. I got the impression that if the boyfriend didnt ask nicely, he wouldnt have stopped.

He stated that he simply didnt care if a stranger got upset with him for taking pictures of them, claiming that they were subject to getting their picture taken because they were in public. You guys are right though, if the someone is in public, it is generally your right to take pictures, as you are protected by the freedom of speech.

The hotel may very well be open to the public, but it is not a public place. I dont see how any of you can think that private property is a public place. Sometimes what you think is a public place, really is not. Mall, hospital, restaurants, hotels are all privately owned businesses.

I know these pictures are harmless, and I wouldnt want the thread starter to take down the pictures because of this, but what if a photographer decided that he was just going to hang out by the pool side all day, and take candid shots of woman, and post them on the internet. What if one of those women didnt want to be on the internet. What if they somehow found out, and notified the Hard Rock. How do you think the Hard Rock might respond? A photographer upset one of their guests and took pictures without their permission. Perhaps they would make a new rule about cameras by the pool side, and that in turn, would ruin it for everyone.

Again, I didnt want to be the bad guy here, but I was just playing out the senarios. We have many rights as photographers, lets not step over our bounderies.

Megatron, as Titus said above, Maybe it's not my attitude you should concern yourself with. It's really not a big deal in the scheme of things. And nobody is saying you're a bad guy.

mark

I'd like to hear what you think about the paparazzi. I personally think they're ruthless. And to be honest, I respect them more than any other photographers.

It is a public way. If it is open to the public, it is considered a public way. If you are at home, drunk as a skunk, and climb in your car you can drive all you want around your yard.

If you do the same at the mall parking lot, you can be arrested. Despite both of these being privately owned, the mall parking lot has an expectation of public access.

Had Hard Rock been closed, the situation would have been different. The expectation for public access would no longer be there. But they were open, and so were their doors. Mark isn't selling the images, profiting from them, nor portraying Hard Rock as a bad place to go. Theres no problem here.

Just like you said, these pictures ARE harmless. He ISNT running a candid non-nude peeper site. Thats why these images are fine. Whether we are all punished by those that choose to do what you mention, or not, isn't decided by the respectful photography Mark does. Just because some fathers are molesters, doesnt mean I should have my daughter taken away because I'm a father and I hug my daughter. Intent makes all the difference, and there will always be the people out there that make us all regarded in a poor light. Shame on those people. But this situation is not like the situation that you suggest. Not that they don't exist, but we DO pay for those people's wrongdoings, every day. In fact, if those people did not exist, it is very possible that the man may haven't ever motioned for Mark to stop. So in effect, Mark's experience serves only as an example of what we PAY FOR by those people you mention. Not as one of the people that cause it.

I don't think you were a bad guy at all. You had very well reasoned points, and delivered them respectfully. If it weren't for debate, noone would see two sides to an issue and we'd probably never learn anything. I encourage discussion like this. We all stand to get more worldly when we consider other opinions, even if we disagree with them.

Bruce

You are right, its not a big deal right now, but as you can see, nearly everyone in this thread was practically cheering you on, and everyone seemed to think that it was ok because you were out in public. You didnt cross the line this time, but if you continue to have this attitude, you may eat a big right hand from some womans boyfriend one day. Just wanted you to see it from another point of view thats all.

Anyway, thats the reason why some of us are making a "big" deal out of this. Looking out for you, and photographers in general.

Thats pretty much all I have to say. Have a good day.

Even though he said that he had already stopped before the boyfriend showed any kind of objection to the camera? Sounds like you missed something.

As for the technicality of it being a public place, you're right... a hotel is not a public place when you get down to the letter of the law. It also doesn't matter that much when it comes to taking photos of strangers, at least according to this excerpt which does a very good job of explaining the law in the US when it comes to photographing various things... including people.

There are two legal rights of the subject mentioned there... one of privacy and one of publicity. As I can see it, neither of those apply. Being at a pool that absolutely anyone in the vicinity (a guest of the hotel or not) can walk up to doesn't exactly carry a guarantee of privacy for anyone there, and there doesn't seem to be any desire of commercial gain from this photo either.

While looking around for an article like the one above, I also found this which puts an interesting spin on the story about the guy being arrested in relation to photographing someone in public in Australia:

Public places photo ban under review

I sincerely hope no one in power gets the bright idea in their head to do anything like that over here, or even suggest it.

A "pubic" figure?? Too funny.

Servod wrote:
=Servo'd]might want to fix that typo

Sorry, Ben, but SERVO "D" picked that up a week ago. But you're right it is

Just wondering whether it really was a typo or not.

mark

Ok, I'll bite. Why?

As a hobbyist, I have a certain point of view on each type of professional photographer. From what I see, which could easily be from a skewed perspective, the paparazzi will do whatever it takes to get that million dollar cover shot. Of course, don't we all do whatever it takes to get that shot? But do all pros have to sit outside a house all night? Do all pros have to chase after their subjects, pushing and shoving everything that gets in their way just to get their camera in the action? Do all pros have to be absolutely ruthless, not only personally but physically as well just to get in the way?

Doing that for a living, to me, is mind blowing, when compared to sports photographers that can sit down and let the action come to them. Again, this comes from a pure hobbyist who never runs after a shot.

These discussions are interesting. They show the broad range of different people's perspectives.

When I first got my (wife's) 300D, we took it on vacation and visited a few public places such as a large aquarium and a beach. I saw a drop-dead gorgeous young lady at the aquarium and I managed to get a few good 300mm shots of her. I doubt she noticed me. Same thing at the beach. I didn't go chasing every bikini with my camera, but if a sexy young woman happened to walk by, I grabbed a few shots.

But afterward, I had a bit of an uneasy feeling. I knew I was within my rights, but I also knew that most people don't appreciate being the photographic target of strangers, especially when they're wearing a bikini. I realized that I was basically exploiting these people for my own enjoyment. After all, I had no interest in shooting old guys with beer guts. I was specifically targeting subjects that I found sexually attractive.

I make no moral judgments toward the OP here. The shots he has posted are pretty harmless. But what I have come to realize is that there is a vast area in between what is legal and what is honorable. And while I will support and defend the right to take pictures in public, there are situations where it is just not a polite thing to do.

It's not easy to know just where to draw the line. Last week I was at a high school football game and took a few shots of a cheerleader whose mother is a friend of mine. Since my intent was to give some prints to the girl's mother, I had no hesitation. But I generally stop short of taking pictures of pretty girls just so I can look at pictures of pretty girls.

This is an area where we all need to use our own moral compass. Hopefully some measure of respect for our subject's sensibilities is part of the decision-making process.

Curtis this is the most considered comment I've seen on this thread, very well put.
Roger.

I don't think it was cheering him on. I just don't see him being too wrong. She isn't doing anything to hurt her integrity. She's not bending over and giving him an opportunity for an upskirt shot. She's wearing something perfectly acceptable out in public. He stopped shooting and when the BF motioned to stop, he did. I would assume he would have stopped if he asked and still was shooting. Those are my reasons, aside from being a public place.

But then of course you run the risk of getting a bf who would want to kick your butt. That's the risk you run, when you do that or photograph kids. There are always possibilities. Heck, there was that PJ who got beat up with his own camera, because he wasn't in the safest area. Always a risk.

I too am enjoying the discussion here, especially as the OP, who is being both supported and attacked.

Curtis, your post is both insightful and respective.

Let me add a bit to it. Right before I took these three shots of this woman, I was walking around the pool area, which is over an acre in size, photographing whatever and whomever caught my eye. There was one lovely, dark skinned woman walking right at me, and I raised my camera and took her picture. I use it as a type of introduction. As she came up to me, I was about to show her the picture and ask her if she liked it. If she had, I would have emailed it to her, or even printed it, for free, and mailed it to her as I've done many times before.

In fact, before I could say a word, she said to me, "Let me see that," in a very sexy Latin voice.
I said, "I was just about to show it to you."
She looked at it and I asked her if she liked it. She said, "It's not good. My mouth is open."
I said, "Shall we try it again?"
She said, "Yes," and she posed for me.
If anyone is interested, I'll post those "before" and "after" shots.

I've made many friends in this manner, as I am a basically shy person. I've yet to make an enemy or have anyone get angry at me. Taking a person's picture, be they a stranger or not, is a great conversation starter.

This past weekend in Times Square there were two young ladies from Germany that I encountered while taking photographs of the Naked Cowgirl getting Arrested (posted in Glamour & Nude.) I took their P&S and photographed them together. I then asked then photographed them with my camera. We spoke a while, and they immediately gave me their email addresses.

The "attitude" I supposedly possess, according to some posters here, is certainly not displayed by me when I'm out and about. I immediately smile or wink at someone whose photo I take and I've never not gotten a smile back. If someone were to not like the fact I took their photo, I'd be happy to erase it.

Opinions are what make the world go 'round. Let's encourage discussion, not stifle it.

mark

No, I am a shy person.