For what it's worth...

[squirrel$$$bandit]

A brief comment on my thread that was deleted from this forum. I respect Stephen and Fred's decision to pull it, and have no complaint about that. But I want to make it clear that I did not post that story and photo in order to deride the subject. I think that was fairly clear. My intention was only to share what I thought was a funny street-photography anecdote and post a picture I thought everyone would enjoy. I don't believe it differed from any other street photo posted here.

I'd welcome a discussion about the ethics of street photography in general--it's a perennially interesting subject. I'm not sure what was posted on that topic after my last post, as I was offline for a couple of hours (imagine that!), so feel free to pick it up and run with it.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

Is this what happened to the ATTACKED thread? How funny. I noticed it while the server was down, couldn't read it -- and just spent 20 minutes looking for it. Ah well . . . time to call it a week and shoot some film!

Ben Marks

 

[PlantedTao]

That was a interesting topic/story about streetphotography and some funny remarks were posted...
IF anything the picture should have been deleted, not the post... that way no individual would be singled out.

Oh well. Not my site.

 

[steffen]

.

.

If anything the comments ridiculing the fact that the person depicted was a cross dresser should have been deleted, not the picture. Seems to me from his posts that the intent of the photographer wasn't to ridicule.

Maybe I'm missing some nuance here, the picture was gone already when I got to see the thread so what do I know.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

I thought that was an interesting thread. Would be nice for an explanation of exactly why it was nuked.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Nothing sinister about it, it was just that there were a lot of comments about the androgyny of the subject, and it began to seem to the mods like a slander risk. This seems reasonable to me. I just wanted to mention that slander wasn't my aim, and that I liked where the discussion was going when the thread was pulled.

 

[snausages]

I was in the middle of posting when the thread was deleted. This is my first foray into a discussion on street photography, so I'm sure I'm covering over-tread ground, but, for the sake of keeping what was an interesting and thought-provoking thread going, here's where I was at when the original thread got killed:

all these people who are now defending the "victim" are not getting the point:
mabelsound would NOT have put the photo up had the person in question asked nicely. forget nice, how about civilized?

Why is the person on the street obligated to be well-mannered? He/she is reacting honestly to the situation and feels violated. Seems like a straight-forward case of self-defense.

The fact that the photographer is shooting from the hip implies an understanding that the actions may cause the subject discomfort. And it seems contradictory to say that you are interested in observing and documenting who these people 'really' are, but then ridicule them when they express who they really are, and demand that they fit to the mold of who you are, ie a person wanting to bring home celluloid trophies of human oddities.

Winogrand captured many amazing images, but I think his pictures of women on sidewalks are his weakest and least thoughtful, and, from what I've seen of him at work, I don't think he had much regard for the feelings of his subjects (though at least he does bring the camera to his eye - no sneaked shots). None of us are required to care about strangers, but I think you turn a corner when you attempt to profit (not just in the financial sense) from them - you have entered an unspoken partnership with the subject and it would be nice if they didn't leave feeling stripped. A person's appearance is as much their property as their ideas - would any of us not feel robbed if, while writing in a public space, a page of our notebook was taken from us by a person who merely wanted to capture 'who we are'?

I have, and still do shoot on the street, but I remain conflicted about its ethical boundaries. Given this uncertainty, I think it's reasonable to at least respect strangers' feelings and, if they're upset, look inward, because the cause and effect chain starts with the photographer.

I like the picture, Mabelsound, I just feel like putting him/her down for her reaction is a bit self-entitled...

 

[oftheherd]

I would suspect any time you ridicule a person about a status that is protected by law, you risk being sued. I think the courts have held that person's status protected. Of course I may be wrong. At any rate, too much ridicule about the person's status is perhaps in sufficiently bad taste if carried too far, to risk suit. I didn't see all the posts, but I suspect that may be the reason. If that is the case, I would rather see the thread pulled that see RFF go away.

Of course, I could be way of course and stand ready to be corrected.

 

[Peter_Jones]

How many CCTV's are there on Fifth Ave ? People don't seem too bothered by these (I've seen footage of what some security bods really zoom in on), and whenever there's a news crew many seem to go out of their way to be in the background. If you had been using a camcorder or mobile phone-cam, would the person in the deleted thread have behaved differently ?

 

[ruben]

hi Mabelsound,

In my view three things happened. First you misinterpreted the reaction of the person whom you photographed, according to my interpretation of the facts you presented.

Then you posted a photo at the thread, of the same person who explicitely, and with your own testimony added, requested you don't do that.

Finally, to my great regret, much of the posters identifiying with your view and interpretation of the facts, went a further step and made a circus male sexist thread mocking your photographed person.

In my opinion it would not have hurted, if vis a vis the photographed person on the spot you have taken a more high level attitude and promised the person not to make any public use of the picture.

Instead of that, behind your legalistic debate with the woman, you took advantage of being a male vis a vis a woman, and enforced your wish. Then you published a thread at RFF in which you presented yourself as the vyctim, and for a further vendetta towards the woman who dared to challenge your male privileges, you show here her face, legally compromising RFF.

Times are changing. Many women are becoming counscious of their right not to be photographed in the street by anyone. Are the streets their property ? Are they yours ? I don't know, but ceirtainly we should take care to respect people's wish that for any reason are weaker than us, and show our nails - if we want to - with people that are stronger than us. Policemen, for example (as I instinctively thought when I read your thread's title).

I do agree that too assertive women, or too assertive men, can be nasty and provoke our own nasty child within ourselves. But let's not ever forget: show good will towards the weaker, challenge the stronger.

If the deleted thread has had any real value, beyond our own shame, it has been in pointing that to be on the streets with a camera is not just an issue of f/stops.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[dazedgonebye]

hi Mabelsound,
Times are changing. Many women are becoming counscious of their right not to be photographed in the street by anyone. Are the streets their property ? Are they yours ?

Cheers,
Ruben

There is no such right in the US, yet, thank God.

 

[Al Patterson]

hi Mabelsound,

In my view three things happened. First you misinterpreted the reaction of the person whom you photographed, according to my interpretation of the facts you presented.

Then you posted a photo at the thread, of the same person who explicitely, and with your own testimony added, requested you don't do that.

Finally, to my great regret, much of the posters identifiying with your view and interpretation of the facts, went a further step and made a circus male chauvinist thread mocking your photographed person.

In my opinion it would not have hurted, if vis a vis the photographed person on the spot you have taken a more high level attitude and promised the person not to make any public use of the picture.

Instead of that, behind your legalistic debate with the woman, you took advantage of being a male vis a vis a woman, and enforced your wish in front of her. Then you published a thread at RFF in which you presented yourself as the vyctim, and for a further vendetta towards the woman who dared to challenge your male privilege rights, you showed here her face, legally compromising RFF.

Times are changing. Many women are becoming counscious of their right not to be photographed in the street by anyone. Are the streets their property ? Are they yours ? I don't know, but ceirtainly we should take care to respect people's wish that for any reason are weaker than us, and show our nails - if we want to - with people that are stronger than us. Policemen, for example (as I instinctively thought when I read your thread's title).

I do agree that too assertive women, or too assertive men, can be nasty and provoke our own nasty child within ourselves. But let's not ever forget: show good will towards the weaker, challenge the stronger.

Cheers,
Ruben

Except that there is no "right not to be photographed in the street". One may have an expectation that they won't be photographed while going about their daily business, but that doesn't mean their expectation is in line with reality.

 

[ruben]

Except that there is no "right not to be photographed in the street". ......

But still there is common sense, specially when a person asks you not to do it. And if you lack common sense, then appeal to your good manners.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[bmattock]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbsBJmx-m2s

 

[Micky D]

Except that there is no "right not to be photographed in the street". One may have an expectation that they won't be photographed while going about their daily business, but that doesn't mean their expectation is in line with reality.

You do not have the right to publish without permission.

Publishing without permission and then questioning the subject's gender and/or sexual preferences ........

 

[bmattock]

You do not have the right to publish without permission.

Sure you do. Just not 'commercially'. A street photographer recently won a court case against a man who sued him for taking a candid photo on a NYC street and then publishing it in a book. So even the book was not considered to be 'commercial' for the purposes of infringing on privacy rights. Now, if it had been used on a billboard, making it appear the man was selling or endorsing something he was not - that's commercial.

Publishing without permission and then questioning the subject's gender and/or sexual preferences ........

Everyone is allowed to have an opinion.

http://newsgrist.typepad.com/underbelly/2006/03/street_photogra.html

 

[ruben]

There is no such right in the US, yet, thank God.

That's a great interesting ethic issue for me. Do you have a legalistic approach to people around, or do you also have a scale of values of your own, by which you look to be fair.

Do you use to take advantage by seeking breaches in the Law, or do you have a dignifyied personality with a restricting moral code.

If you are in the legalistic stuff, then don't cry me a river when unjust laws restricting freedom of photography are passed and enforced by the brutal force of police stick.

If you are in the fairness ground, you will find friends to fight back for what common sense justice demands.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[Micky D]

Sure you do. Just not 'commercially'. A street photographer recently won a court case against a man who sued him for taking a candid photo on a NYC street and then publishing it in a book. So even the book was not considered to be 'commercial' for the purposes of infringing on privacy rights. Now, if it had been used on a billboard, making it appear the man was selling or endorsing something he was not - that's commercial.

Maybe in the states, but not where I live.

Everyone is allowed to have an opinion.

Same again. If you keep it to yourself. Where I live certain opinions voiced or published will land you in prison.

 

[bmattock]

Maybe in the states, but not where I live.

Glad I don't live where you live. Sounds icky.

Same again. If you keep it to yourself. Where I live certain opinions voiced or published will land you in prison.

Gotta love that Bill of Rights. That's why the USA is the best country in the whole darned world. We rock. We really, really, do.

 

[bmattock]

But still there is common sense, specially when a person asks you not to do it. And if you lack common sense, then appeal to your good manners.

Cheers,
Ruben

Well, I'm in trouble, then. I have neither.