A question of ethics

[former member]

The main lobby of Children's Hospital in Washington DC had a sign up during the months that we were there that states photography is allowed in the area, and that often publicity photographs and events take place in the area. It stated that use of the lobby area was consent to be in such photographs.

Maybe more places need to inform people that photography is allowed, and their presence in the location means they will be photographed as a consequence.

 

[MartinL]

The main lobby of Children's Hospital in Washington DC had a sign up during the months that we were there that states photography is allowed in the area, and that often publicity photographs and events take place in the area. It stated that use of the lobby area was consent to be in such photographs.

Maybe more places need to inform people that photography is allowed, and their presence in the location means they will be photographed as a consequence.

I think it's a case-by-case issue. As a general rule, we are probably better off not posting these signs or, as above, designating the area.

I used signs like this when taking photos of groups where there were some people without legal immigration status. Then, one day an organizer suggested that the people I wanted to communicate with probably could not read my notice. Duh😱 So I wrote a brief script and asked that she announce that participants should either ask or give me some sign not to take their photos.

 

[Carlsen Highway]

There is no point talking to this woman; I recognise her from your description and your photo. She is the know is all controlling type - the kind that joins The local Orchid Society not because she likes flowers, but so she can run it.

She did that to dominate you in front of the kids...It was nothing to do with photography.

I would have walked up and taken a CU of her and the got the kids faces too.

I am a quiet chap, but I tend to do that you know....if I have a disagreeement with a shop assistant, or the supervisor at Macdonalds argue with me, I take their picture. The other day I got a guy practisiing some road rage on me becasue I flashed my brake lights at him because he was tail gating me. The bugger followed me back where I live and tried to block me in to remonstrate, so I took his picture a couple of times.

The camera is a weapon. They can wail and cry all they like afterwards, but I have their souls in a box....


I agree with another poster who said do it and run. If you know your in the right, and a person like this tries to limit your freedoms, then you have an obligation to the rest of us to challenge her.
Naturally suprise can stop you so that you loose the opportunity, as in this case I think, but next time you will know what your dealing with.

Right now, she still thinks she's right and can tell people what to photograph.

 

[wgerrard]

If you know your in the right, and a person like this tries to limit your freedoms, then you have an obligation to the rest of us to challenge her.

Why? Do you really expect challenging someone in public who thinks they are right is going to change their mind? Especially people who are paid to tell you "no". Tney will say "no" as long as their job depends on it.

 

[chilohm]

I'm on two sides here. As a photographer, I want to take the picture, but as a teacher of 6-7 year olds I am of a different view. Several of the children in my class are either in the care system or on the child protection register for one reason or another. I cannot allow photographs of these children to be taken as it could compromise their safety. This is not about weirdo photographers but about the people who might see the photos. It is fun to make this a political issue (which it may be in this instance) but there might also be practical issues to consider. As for her being rude - well we're not all like that!

 

[BillP]

This form of argument is known as 'argument to Peer Pressure,' and it is fallacious on its face. It means that if I do not 'give in' and 'act like a grown-up' (by your definition), then I am wrong.

The reason it is fallacious is because you are not an authority on what is 'grown-up' behavior, nor can you show that my behavior is or is not 'grown-up'.

I've not been following this thread closely because I have a life, but I have just revisited and noticed this response. You are wrong, Bill, not because I say so, but because your stance will make matters worse - for all of us. It matters not one jot or iota whether you agree with me - I really could care less. But you advocate an irresponsible approach.

Regards,

Bill

 

[Roger Hicks]

some people (teacher in this case) feel compelled to say something even if stupid. Here it had nothing to do with the students. This was a control issue. Take the shot quickly, move on.

EDIT: I wouldnt get into explanations. You were within your ethical/legal boundries, nothing to explain.

Highlighted part: exactly.

The less power someone has, the more control they want to grab -- especially if they're not too bright.

I'm a qualified teacher, though I've not taught in 30 years. Unless teachers have changed A LOT, I suspect that at least half ain't too bright. But they do love being in control.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Carlsen Highway]

Yes I think people like this should be challenged; otherwise, de facto, they become actually right.
If we all skulk around like we arn't allowed to take photos, we soon wont be.

And the students would have learnt something interesting either way😀

 

[chilohm]

Easy now! There's no need for teacher bashing is there? It sounds like this woman acted rudely towards the op, but her profession is not the issue. In fact, you are doing to her precisely what she did in the first place- Assuming the worst of someone and using stereotype to back up your claim.

 

[bmattock]

Easy now! There's no need for teacher bashing is there? It sounds like this woman acted rudely towards the op, but her profession is not the issue. In fact, you are doing to her precisely what she did in the first place- Assuming the worst of someone and using stereotype to back up your claim.

I think he was blowing your skirt up.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Easy now! There's no need for teacher bashing is there? It sounds like this woman acted rudely towards the op, but her profession is not the issue. In fact, you are doing to her precisely what she did in the first place- Assuming the worst of someone and using stereotype to back up your claim.

Dear Jack,

Not really. Control freakery and limited experience/intelligence are distressingly common characteristics among bad teachers -- and distressingly many teachers are bad. They/we are not all like that. As I said, I'm a qualified teacher, so I've had plenty of chance to judge, regardless of my own ability. My late mother was also a teacher. So was my late mother-in-law. So are several of my friends. Most would agree (or would have agreed) that there are quite a lot of authoritarian teachers about -- and that the most authoritarian are rarely the most intelligent or best educated.

Cheers,

R.

 

[aniMal]

...and what they would hate the most, is certainly being lectured on what is the law in front of their students!

The students probably know more about the laws on photography than her, and anyway they would know how to google afterwards, if it had turned into a discussion!

 

[Carlsen Highway]

...and yet if that museum room had been an internet forum chatroom; we none of us would have dared miss an opportunity to explain to someone that they were WRONG DAMMIT...😀

(And in my experience also, with a wife and sister in law as teachers and two kids in primary school, I tend to agree with Roger, and this is on the other side of the world, some occupations draw certain people types.)

 

[wgerrard]

Highlighted part: exactly.


R.

Agreed. The OP got a shot. That's what photographers do.

 

[wgerrard]

Yes I think people like this should be challenged; otherwise, de facto, they become actually right.
If we all skulk around like we arn't allowed to take photos, we soon wont be.

And the students would have learnt something interesting either way😀

I just disagree. Challenging someone in public is probably the worst way to get them to change their mind. And, left unchallenged, their position certainly does not become right. Otherwise, ethics would be rooted in who can yell the loudest.

As I said above, the OP got the shot. Regardless of the law, the woman had a right to stand up and open her mouth.

 

[MartinL]

I'm a qualified teacher, though I've not taught in 30 years. Unless teachers have changed A LOT, I suspect that at least half ain't too bright. But they do love being in control. R.

I began teaching 43 years ago and continued until 10 years ago at which time I started full-time writing, editing, and publishing for teachers. My experience is very different from yours. It's too bad that you missed the intelligence and dignity of that "other" half. In regard to "being in control," consider that teachers have enormous, non-stop responsibility for their students. In fact, they rarely have control that is commensurate with those responsibilities. Don't expect a teacher in the middle of a discussion to respond instantaneously with a nuanced "reading" of privacy law when a camera is pointed her way.

 

[former member]

Did you try asking her to instruct the students to pick up their chairs and move out of you way so you could get a picture of the statue? If you asked nicely, maybe they would have.

If they refused to comply, just take the pictures and let them know you'll try to shoot around them.

Would have been worth seeing the look on her face to ask them to please move, they were ruining the shot.

 

[summaron]

This was a class in session in a quiet semi-private place and I would have quietly moved by, as I usually do when there are any intense docent discussions going on.

We live in a completely different world than that of Cartier Bresson or even that of Gary Winogrand. People's sense of their private sphere seems harder edged now and their general sense of self-consciousness in public is more more sensitized. The seem to want to see everything, but no longer want to be seen. And because they no longer are "playing a part in life," they're not as interesting as they once were.

In 40 years of taking pictures in San Francisco, at one time in old cafeterias and long gone south of market neighborhoods, I have really toned down my approach -- with the exception of Halloween and Day of the Dead. I try to have people appear peripherally, concentrating on the objects or spaces between them. There used to be a student project at Chicago ID called evidences of people and i guess I've taken it up again at this stage of life.

 

[surfer dude]

The main issue is, I think, that in a situation like this, the photographer can appear to some people as a VISIBLE potential blip on the moral radar. An armed and dangerous one.

In other words, anybody who feels that some line is being transgressed when someone raises a camera towards them or the perceived "victim" has someone they can point at and say "that person is out of line / breaking the law / acting inappropriately / whatever". The photographer's defense is either to argue or discuss the point, continue regardless or walk away. I walked away because I had the shot and I didn't at that moment feel like talking to her about her point of view, as I sensed it wouldn't have made much difference and I wasn't in a particularly confrontational mood at that time. In some ways though, I now somewhat regret not bringing it up with her when I saw her and the students later.

There are laws that prevent the capture of photographs of people without there consent, but these didn't apply on this occasion.

If I had have been just some guy (and there were others) standing back and looking past the students to the sculpture, it probably would not even have occurred to the lady to say anything. Nor, even if it did occur to her, would she have had any grounds to confront me ("No - you can look at this statue but not past the students"????). Aha, but throw the evil contraption that can capture souls into the equation, and you suddenly have a potential creep stealing images for God knows what purpose and thus a reason to stand on your moral soapbox.

To me, this was just a promising picture opportunity and once I recognized it as such I busied myself with the logistics of getting the shot. Part of that decision was that the students would have their backs to me from my shooting point so there would be no ethical issue.

The fact that the authority figure pointed and said "No" and then carried on with a bunch of bs to the students didn't overly worry me because I knew I was on steady legal/ethical ground, had done no wrong, and already had the shot I wanted.

I like the idea of insisting she move the students and chairs though! Ah well, next time...

 

[wgerrard]

Many people are indeed more protective of their privacy, a feeling fueled by stories of identify theft, Internet crime, etc. While those activities have little to do with photography, they do prompt people to defend their privacy when and where they can, like telling a photographer to go away.

In this and other similar situations, I think it is important to point out that getting a shot and afterwards doing missionary work with the subject are two very different objectives. Regardless of my rights as a photographer, if someone asks me not to take their picture, I'm very likely not going to take their picture, and I'm not going to argue the point with them. It's just not worth the hassle and I will almost certainly not convince them that I have a right to take that picture. Besides, even if they know I have that right, they can still ask or demand that I not take the picture. That kind of request seems to me a normal part of our social exchange.