A question of ethics

[surfer dude]

I took the photograph below this week, in the National Gallery of Victoria - a public gallery in Melbourne, Australia. Entry to this part is free, and one can wander around at will. Photography is allowed.

I'd taken a few earlier pictures of the statue, trying to contectualize it in an interesting way, but without much success. Walking back towards it later, I noticed this circle of students around it and my mind immediately went into "the zone" - great context now, graphic possibilities etc and walked briskly towards a point that I thought would embrace all that I wanted. However once I raised the camera to my eye, the teacher (or whatever she was) out front of the class turned her attention to me, raised her arms (see picture) and called to me "no students - you can take pictures of the statue ("Circe" by Bertram Mackennal 1893) but not the students".

I didn't take any other pictures (by that time all the students and most of the other people around had turned to look at me), muttered "no worries" or something and wandered off. I heard her explain to the students something along the lines that "you never know what some people are going to use photographs of you for". Made me feel just bloody wonderful!

I have checked the websites of the applicable state laws and the gallery and I don't seem to have contravened any laws. If I had, we wouldn't be having this discussion a I would have destroyed the negative.

It's not a great photo, but I quite like it - much as I'd previsualized and even better with the juxtaposition of the arms of the two "ladies".

Over to you - should I have asked permission first? Should I have taken it at all? Was I in the wrong? Am I in the wrong to post the photo here?

More broadly, where does this leave street/candid photography?

 

[ZeissFan]

There is a growing presumption among many nonphotographers that a photographer has nefarious intentions when in fact most of us are just taking photos and looking for interesting compositions.

In many ways, today's wired society of camera phones, social networking and instant everything has made many people suspicious. The fact that you've named your portfolio "Filthy6" can't help matters.

By the way, I think you really captured the moment, and I like the photo quite a bit.

 

[dee]

Political Correctness wiping out Common Sense - Ridiculous - but arms waving makes the shot LOL .

 

[kzim56]

I like the picture a lot. In addition to the statue and the woman, I like the repetition of students all sitting round it on identical stools. It's a fun, interesting photo. And for cryin' out loud, you certainly would be hard pressed to identify any of the students with their backs turned toward the camera. I think you were smart to take your shot and move on. Too bad she had to call you out like that. I see nothing unethical here. Paranoia strikes deep.

Karl

 

[payasam]

No law broken, no contravention of ethics. Many people are paranoid. Little one can do about it. But you got a good picture.

 

[Dave Wilkinson]

I like that shot!...don't really know why - but do!, I would have thought that if photography is definitely permitted in that gallery, then nobody can complain about being included in shot, but will stand correcting!. Nowadays there are so many fuss-ass's making these protestations, the temptation to give them instant travel advice is great!.
Cheers Dave

 

[Richard G]

Indeed, almost politically correct with none of the students identifiable. Good shot.

 

[arseniii]

F**k Ethics,

Do what you've gotta do, if they try beat you up - run. You cannot ask people before taking each shot - this is altering the reality and most likely people would even pose(which is BAD IMHO). What I do, I find a person who takes some sort of position at the place i.e. managers, security e.t.c. and I ask them if I can stick around with my camera here, if I get YES then I just don't bother asking anymore and do whatever I want with the camera. Most people are cool but some are privacy-obsessed a**holes like myself 🙂

Great photograph, BTW

 

[Pickett Wilson]

I think it ironic that at a time in history when we are under constant surveillance by cameras every day, folks are suddenly camera shy. There was likely a security camera recording everything in that room.

 

[robklurfield]

what's the world coming to? keep shooting.

I should be more careful with that word "shooting." here in the US, or at least in some parts of the country, its seems that folks are more scared of cameras and photographs than they are of guns and bullets.

also, I've noticed that more "innocent bystanders" will object to a camera pointed at them by someone who actually holds the camera up to their eye to focus and frame than they do to the old P&S digital held at arm's length or even a the cellphone cam. what's that all about? using the lcd makes one innocent while using a regular optical vf makes one's motives somehow nefarious?

what's especially troubling about this lady's reaction is that she is presumably an art teacher or a museum docent -- someone who, by their very role, one would expect to be defending the rights of artists. I wonder, would she have said the same thing if you sketching what you saw rather than photographing it?

 

[robklurfield]

oh, ps, I really like the shot. especially the arms, both the statue's and the ranting lady's arms. nice work.

 

[kywong]

Some people just want to be irritating.

 

[Roger Hicks]

You're dealing with idiots. Ignore 'em.

Cheers,

R.

 

[kshapero]

I was in a Shopping Mall in the USA, taking a candid shot here and there, when a security guard (about 12 inches smaller than me) came up and said that I could not take pictures at the mall. Since I was indoors on private property I assumed she was right and stopped. yes, no?

 

[Pickett Wilson]

Right. You have no legal right to take photos on private property.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

I was in a Shopping Mall in the USA, taking a candid shot here and there, when a security guard (about 12 inches smaller than me) came up and said that I could not take pictures at the mall. Since I was indoors on private property I assumed she was right and stopped. yes, no?

She's right. But you should do it anyway. I actually got harrassed once for taking a photo of a truck in a mall PARKING LOT!

Phil, that's a great shot. Perhaps she's technically right, but don't worry about it--you got your shot and it's a good one, and no harm was done.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

One thing about malls though--if you, say, have your kid's birthday party at one, and you're all eating pizza in the food court or taking them all to the movies or whatever, and you take pictures of the party, nobody is going to stop you. The reason they don't want photography is that it theoretically distracts people from buying stuff--if your photography is, as with the party, intimately connected to your spending, it's fine. A mall is a small authoritarian temporary society; you can be kicked out for wearing a tee shirt that espouses a particular political view.

Thus, it's fun to bend the rules.

 

[BillP]

Phil,

Unfortunately, by stopping and walking away, you have reinforced in 14 young minds that the teacher was right...

Simply stepping closer and stating in a calm and reasonable manner that she and her students made the picture, and that you were within your rights - preferably backed up with handing her a business card - may have helped.

Regards,

Bill

 

[oftheherd]

I like the shot as well. Especially the similarity of the woman's with the statue's arms. Nice.

 

[bmattock]

"you never know what some people are going to use photographs of you for"

The obvious question to ask at that time is "What is it you suppose I will do with my photographs?"

Followed by, "And in what way can that harm you or your charges?"

The parting shot, "Even primitive societies no longer believe a person's soul is stolen by a camera."

The fear is that 'something' (presumably something awful) will be done with a photograph of some person. The reality is - what can a person do to a photograph that harms anyone else in any way?

"Honi Soit Qui Mal Pense," as they say...