ANOTHER threat to photographers' rights!

Paul T.

Paul T.

Veteran
Local time
3:33 PM
Joined
Mar 30, 2005
Messages
2,011
We have all seen the onward march of busy-bodies trying to restrict the ordinary photographer looking for that special shot.

It's particularly bad in Europe, where the Socialist powers-that-be are imposing new rules on privacy, restricting access to 'senstiive' sights and generally victimising the photographer engaged in an obviously harmless pursuit.

Now another photographer who is obviously an expert in his trade has been arrested! if we do not protest on his behalf, will we be next?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7397426.stm
 
Roger, I am pleased to see you on the front line! Your vigilance on behalf of the community is appreciated, sir.
 
This is always going to be a vexed question, as rights exist only to the extent that they are protected at law. Where it becomes blurred is in weighing up say a photographers right to take a photo, against an individual's right to privacy and the right not to be photographed. Rights and obligations go together. Whether an act is criminal or not depends on whether there is of a breach of a statutory obligation to do something or not do something. Rights change with time, and the law seems to be moving towards a more restrictive practice, perhaps driven in part by the technological change in photography itself and its more widespread practice than in the past.
 
hugivza said:
This is always going to be a vexed question, as rights exist only to the extent that they are protected at law. Where it becomes blurred is in weighing up say a photographers right to take a photo, against an individual's right to privacy and the right not to be photographed. Rights and obligations go together. Whether an act is criminal or not depends on whether there is of a breach of a statutory obligation to do something or not do something. Rights change with time, and the law seems to be moving towards a more restrictive practice, perhaps driven in part by the technological change in photography itself and its more widespread practice than in the past.
Click to expand...

That’s true here in the UK but in the US some things are fixed by a constitution, I don’t know how that works under these circumstances, do you have a written constitution in Aus?
 
Yes we have written constitution similarly to the US. The Constitution is the legal platform on which all other laws are based. Whereas in the US there have been several amendments to the Constitution such as the right to bear arms, remain silent etc; the Australian Constitution has only been around for a little over 100 years and was amended to give native aboriginal Australians the right to vote in 1967. A major question of late is whether basic human rights should be entrenched within the Constitution in a bill of rights. This would need a vote in both houses of the parliament, and referendum with a majority vote which is not an easy task. Israel is the only other democracy without a bill of rights. the UK Bill of Rights was enacted in 1688 so we have a fair way to go!
 
How do you feel about the hidden camera photos of the people in the subway that Walker Evans took? Is it the furtive quality of the photos that is offensive or that it this is sexual in nature?
 
Paul T. said:
We have all seen the onward march of busy-bodies trying to restrict the ordinary photographer looking for that special shot.
Click to expand...

Ok, not to be a total b*tch here, but this is not a slippery-slope photographers' rights thing. This is a case of law enforcement going after a blatant perv!

The officers had become suspicious when they realised he was only following women with short skirts. When they stopped or bent down to pick something up, he was clearly trying to angle the bag behind them.
Click to expand...

Jumping on the bandwagon for this case does not reflect very well on photographers in general. :(
 
dmr said:
Ok, not to be a total b*tch here, but this is not a slippery-slope photographers' rights thing. This is a case of law enforcement going after a blatant perv!



Jumping on the bandwagon for this case does not reflect very well on photographers in general. :(
Click to expand...

I took the OP as being ironic; was it not do you think?
 
sirius said:
How do you feel about the hidden camera photos of the people in the subway that Walker Evans took? Is it the furtive quality of the photos that is offensive or that it this is sexual in nature?
Click to expand...

I don’t see why art should not be sexual, or offensive for that matter.

Personally I find the chaps actions repugnant, and for all I know illegal in Italy but then again you could only sell Goya’s clothed Maja in Saudi, taste and Art are different beasts

:)
 
Last edited:
dmr said:
Ok, not to be a total b*tch here, but this is not a slippery-slope photographers' rights thing. This is a case of law enforcement going after a blatant perv!



Jumping on the bandwagon for this case does not reflect very well on photographers in general. :(
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's guys like this that give photographers a bad name.
 
Sparrow said:
I took the OP as being ironic; was it not do you think?
Click to expand...

I don't know.

So many times I've tuned in to one of these boards and read yet another report of some photographer getting hassled and such, followed by a "jump on the bandwagon" plea and an "ain't it awful" diatribe with slippery slope remarks and such!

I kind of assume any report such as this will be along these lines.
 
The guy had hidden a camera in him bag and was following woman and filming their behinds. He was also wearing a hoodie in classic pervert fashion which got him noticed. The article said he was filming which means he was using a camcorder.

I'm absolutely for jailing creeps like that.
 
Quote: "Personally I find the chaps actions repugnant, and for all I know illegal in Italy but then again you could only sell Goya’s clothed Maja in Saudi, taste and Art are different beasts"

Taste an art are clearly different beasts. I note in today's Singapore Business Times that a Lucian Freud painting of a nude, seriously obese woman, has just been bought for $US 33 million, apparently the highest price for a living artist.
 
Yes I saw that, and there’s no denying that it’s art, however not very comfortable art. I’ve not seen that actual painting but there’s no denying Lucian Freud’s observational and representational skill.

In common with the rest of his work it has that peculiar detachment, like a painted surface without the person inside I find that a challenge, unsettling some how.

I’m sure I wouldn’t feel that about that same subject photographed, it would be interesting to know if photography plays any part in his work, a still of that same pose would make an interesting comparison.
 
i also think that the O.P. was ironic. Pretty funny post, actually:) and even more funny to read serious reactions.

This case has NOTHING to do with photographers' right by the way.
 
Would he have been arrested if he openly shot their butts? I'd need to see the images. I wonder if a woman would be arrested for shooting man's butts.

This July I intend to use my xpan to shoot people's mid-sections on fire Island - bellies, butts and some heads and legs; disembodied body parts in bathing suits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom