A question of ethics

[surfer dude]

So, as I've already taken a photo before someone says "no photos" does that mean I should destroy the photo I have, or dramatically rip the film out of my camera? Or does the "rule" exist only after it has been verbalized as an objection?

I once got a smack in the back of the head from some bloke in Alexandria, Egypt because I took a photo of a train that had passengers gathered on the roof. Not sure why I got the whack - perhaps he thought that I'd come to make some political point about something. Which I didn't - I took the photo because it was one of those sights that travel gives you that are outside your normal experience. This was back in the 80's - I don't think there were any rules against it. Anyway, I do try to be careful and respectful, as do most photographers who want to get good photographs and also remain good human beings. At Taos pueblo you sign a form to say that you won't take pictures of people without their permission. I took a picture of a doorway and ladder and a stall vendor told the people he was serving that I'd taken a picture of him without permission. I explained to him in reasonable terms that I'd never do that (and I meant it) but of course he didn't believe me. What do you do?

There are so many gray areas. You are more visible when you lift your camera and therefore more susceptible to being the blunt end of somebody's ire, no matter how ill-conceived, mistaken or ill-mannered that ire might be.

I guess landscapes are safe - for now.

 

[wgerrard]

So, as I've already taken a photo before someone says "no photos" does that mean I should destroy the photo I have, or dramatically rip the film out of my camera? Or does the "rule" exist only after it has been verbalized as an objection?

I don't believe anyone has suggested that. What I've said is that the "rules" are often ill-defined or undefined, leaving both photographer and potential subject free to feel offended. In particular, private facilities that welcome the public have an obligation to act to make sure those visitors have been shown the house rules. Posting them at the doors should work. American malls, for example, commonly post signs telling people with no shirts or shoes to stay out. A "No photography" line could easily be added. Or, perhaps a longer line like this: "No photography except by parents of their own children in the food court area." 🙂

 

[Roger Hicks]

I don't believe anyone has suggested that. What I've said is that the "rules" are often ill-defined or undefined, leaving both photographer and potential subject free to feel offended. In particular, private facilities that welcome the public have an obligation to act to make sure those visitors have been shown the house rules. Posting them at the doors should work. American malls, for example, commonly post signs telling people with no shirts or shoes to stay out. A "No photography" line could easily be added. Or, perhaps a longer line like this: "No photography except by parents of their own children in the food court area." 🙂

There is (or was) a bar in Mokelumne Hill, California, with a sign saying,

NO SHOES -- NO SHIRT -- NO PROBLEM

Cheers,

R.

 

[bmattock]

There is (or was) a bar in Mokelumne Hill, California, with a sign saying,

NO SHOES -- NO SHIRT -- NO PROBLEM

Cheers,

R.

It's also a popular country music song. Oh...but you wouldn't know that, eh? 😉

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbMoFYtZ6o8

 

[Roger Hicks]

It's also a popular country music song. Oh...but you wouldn't know that, eh? 😉

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbMoFYtZ6o8

Dear Bill,

True. How old is the song? Because this was some time before 1992 (when I left California). Who borrowed from whom?

Cheers,

R.

 

[bmattock]

Dear Bill,

True. How old is the song? Because this was some time before 1992 (when I left California). Who borrowed from whom?

Cheers,

R.

Oh, the song came later, of course. Many songs pick up on popular memes. I'm sure you're aware that the original "no shirt, no shoes, no problem" was a reaction to local health laws that prohibit restaurants from serving people who are not wearing shoes or shirts. I suspect that it's been kicking around since the 1980's or so in the US.

 

[George S.]

I knew it when I posted it that it would draw some fire. Just suffice it to say that my comment comes from my own personal involvement in child molestation cases during my law enforcement career, and some not personal involvement from other's cases. In the majority of the crimes, the actor holds onto a keepsake of their "interaction" with the child, and in a few cases it was a photo taken BEFORE the "interaction". I'm certainly not saying that all people who photograph children are going to molest one, but that a parent's or teacher's right to tell a stranger "No Photos" should and must be respected.

If you disagree with me, then take your M9 and stand outside the kindergarten fence at recess and shoot away. Let me know how that goes for you.

 

[shiro_kuro]

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.

Maybe we should all make T-shirst that say " Photography is allowed in this area .Being in close proximity to me,you consent to being photographed . "

I think its funny that an old woman would like sitting around a statue of a naked woman with her students ... I mean whats up with that ? kinda of odd if you ask me ... even funnier is the model who posed nude for this statue should have been warned about her fate ..as this is probably more horrifying than ending up on Flik-R ... standing immortalized in a public gallery ...

Great shot by the way ...walk away .. stand your ground ..keep shooting ,there really is no right answer ..do what you got to do as an artist .. thing is not to let people affect you and take you out of the zone while shooting ... If you feel like **** or come to some understanding of your own about shooting certain situations then let that be your own guide .

 

[Roger Hicks]

I knew it when I posted it that it would draw some fire. Just suffice it to say that my comment comes from my own personal involvement in child molestation cases during my law enforcement career, and some not personal involvement from other's cases. In the majority of the crimes, the actor holds onto a keepsake of their "interaction" with the child, and in a few cases it was a photo taken BEFORE the "interaction". I'm certainly not saying that all people who photograph children are going to molest one, but that a parent's or teacher's right to tell a stranger "No Photos" should and must be respected.

If you disagree with me, then take your M9 and stand outside the kindergarten fence at recess and shoot away. Let me know how that goes for you.

Dear George,

First highlighted quote: that's a bit self-selecting. A murder investigator sees lots of murders. This does not mean that murder is normal behaviour, or even something that most of us need to worry about, most of the time.

Second highlighted quote: should, not must.

Cheers,

R.

 

[pakeha]

quote
I knew it when I posted it that it would draw some fire. Just suffice it to say that my comment comes from my own personal involvement in child molestation cases during my law enforcement career, and some not personal involvement from other's cases. In the majority of the crimes, the actor holds onto a keepsake of their "interaction" with the child, and in a few cases it was a photo taken BEFORE the "interaction". I'm certainly not saying that all people who photograph children are going to molest one, but that a parent's or teacher's right to tell a stranger "No Photos" should and must be respected.

If you disagree with me, then take your M9 and stand outside the kindergarten fence at recess and shoot away. Let me know how that goes for you

Well done! another anglo saxon failing - the ability to link child molestation to ANY given situation:bang:

 

[Beemermark]

Generally pictures taken of people at a public event do not violate any laws and no model release is required (if it was how could you photograph or televise a sporting event!). Tell the instructor your sorry and she should wear a burka so she can't be identified in public.

 

[wgerrard]

... take your M9 and stand outside the kindergarten fence at recess and shoot away. Let me know how that goes for you.

I would expect to be challenged. Such situations, however, do not seem to be typical of those in which photographers are, in fact, challenged. Few photographers would ignore the law or parental wishes in the case of children. Being denied the right to take a picture while standing on public property is another matter entirely. Photographers have been verbally and physically abused and threatened with arrest while standing on a public street trying to take pictures of something in clear view.

If people are within their legal rights to prohibit photography either on their property or of their property from an adjacent public space, then they have an obligation to make those restrictions known. Otherwise, my view is that if it is in public and I can see it, it is fair game.

 

[D.O'K.]

"... take your M9 and stand outside the kindergarten fence at recess and shoot away. Let me know how that goes for you".

It doesn't always go as one might expect.

Last year I witnessed this very scenario and the reaction was (given the climate of paranoia) very surprising.

A friend living 300 miles away but who was brought up near me visited and wanted to tour old haunts, including his former primary school in a small town a few miles away. We happened to get there as the children were pouring out.

He duly took out his Spotmatic and stood right amongst the waiting mothers at the gate, snapping away at the school, the children, and everything else in sight. I admit I was very uneasy about it. Two men aged 47 at the school gate, one taking picutres of the children...

But, amazingly, no one appeared to take any particular notice. There were one or two half-curious (not hostile) glances from some of the mothers, and no comments at all save from one of the few other males present, a young chap who wandered up to ask whether there was any trouble getting film for "an old camera like that"...

What reasons for this lack of reaction? Was it because my friend was "respectably dressed" in a jacket and tie (unlikely)? or (as I suspect) because he was very open in his actions, making no attempt at concealment, and so did not appear to have furtive motives? Or is the anti-photographer paranoia in fact more localized than some suggest? I really don't know: but it was an intriguing incident.

Regards,
D.

 

[sanmich]

My bet is that if he did that from the other side of the street, alone, the reaction would have been completely different.

 

[MartinL]

I'm certainly not saying that all people who photograph children are going to molest one, but that a parent's or teacher's right to tell a stranger "No Photos" should and must be respected.

I agree with your conclusion, but not with your tortured rationale.

As an ethical matter, I'd suggest that respect not be contingent on whether we think there are good arguments, applicable laws, or empirical evidence for someone deserving it.

We might, in our wisdom and momentary glance, determine that a total stranger is ignorant and controlling----but even then let's err in the direction of respect rather than judgment and confrontation. Just my 2 whatevers.

 

[summaron]

We might, in our wisdom and momentary glance, determine that a total stranger is ignorant and controlling

I know I'm taking this out of context and perhaps am misunderstanding the tone, but it's not a "total stranger" in this case but one of the subjects of the photograph, and as photographers we're the one who are more often the "controlling" types. I've been doing this off and on for forty or so years -- I was in the press corps in California in the very intense year of 1968 and and I've pushed the line -- but I've really come to think the subject is entitled to some say. It's after all a collaboration -- they're the actors we've cast in a little play -- they're doing some of the major work.

Even an aggressive photographer like Gary Winogrand in a bygone era with different rules used to nod and acknowledge the subject, albeit a bit sheepishly.

And again Museums are often private entities -- NY Museum of Modern Art is -- and when we pay a price of admission it is a contract and both sides have their obligations.

Jim

 

[MartinL]

I know I'm taking this out of context and perhaps am misunderstanding the tone,
Jim

Then, putting it back into the context, 1) I agree with your conclusion; and 2) let me try this regarding tone:
Yes, it's annoying to address what I see as the central ethical issue as having anything in particular to do with photography, laws, the character of the complainer, individual rights, the first amendment, fear of molesters, and so forth. The issue is, as the song goes
R-E-S-P-E-C-T.
Be mindful of the wishes of others even when they are acting weird, and we avoid many other wheel-spinning conflicts. Sometimes it's important to take a big ethical stand; doesn't seem essential here.

 

[Pherdinand]

Yea, taking shots of children of our own society is soo bad, we should all respect their privacy and protect them by any means necessary
and in the meanwhile it is perfectly O.K., even brave and applaudable, to take shots of disabled, crippled or orphaned children of the third world and publish them worldwide (and earn prizes and money with it).

What a load of hipocricy.

 

[MartinL]

Yea, taking shots of children of our own society is soo bad, we should all respect their privacy and protect them by any means necessary
and in the meanwhile it is perfectly O.K., even brave and applaudable, to take shots of disabled, crippled or orphaned children of the third world and publish them worldwide (and earn prizes and money with it).

What a load of hipocricy.

You conflate two issues that I've been trying to separate. And then you add a third.

1) Protecting privacy: I have to look to sometimes vague law on this one, since a "right" to privacy in a public space can't be left for individuals to decide. I spend lots of time working for legal and social change, but avoid on-the-spot legal debates and I avoid asserting my interpretation. Besides, from time-to-time I'm wrong.

2) Respecting others in a public space. IMO, this is most relevant point regarding the OP's "ethics" post. For me, it trumps my legal right or even my sense of logic or propriety. A decent and civil society (especially densely-populated areas) requires that we defer to others wishes when personal preferences are in conflict--just to get along and through a crowded day.

3) Hypocrisy. This seems to adds a new "straw-man" dimension to the thread. Maybe you can start a new thread on practices (or whole societies) that you find hypocritical, or reference (with quotes?) the "load of hypocrisy" you find in this thread or wherever.

 

[Pherdinand]

You conflate two issues that I've been trying to separate. And then you add a third.
Blablabla.

I don't conflate anything, esp. related to you. Where do you see your name mentioned? I haven't read the whole 5 pages. I got stuck somewhere on the first or second page. You wrote something probably later on, which i have not read but i will. (After this reply- just to keep myself unbiased and civil).
I commented on the original post and on some pro-let's-be-understanding-and-respectful and protect-the-children-from-weirdoes type replies which i consider totally out of place in this thread and in general paranoid on an unperceivable level. And hypocritical.

And i think i am totally right (does not happen often, but this time i am ).