robert blu
quiet photographer
The topic has already been discuss many times in this forum, I just desire to inform that in issue 76 (september) of Black&White Photograpy there is an article about the new photographic taboo, which is of interest for all of us who like street photography. I only quote a sentence "The nation that gave us Cartier Bresson and the Decisive Moment is in danger of losing its photographic soul" unfortunately not only that nation...
robert
robert
PetarDima
Well-known
Sorry friend, I don't have that pleasure to read '' Black&White Photograpy '' 
is there any web version of that magazine?
is there any web version of that magazine?
R
RML
Guest
Robert, I too do not read B&W Photography. Can you summarize the gist of the article? And perhaps expand on your thoughts?
robert blu
quiet photographer
unfortunately there is a web site (you can google Black&white photography) but without description of the article. Main point is that pictures like the ones we know from HCB, Robert Frank, Diane Arbus and Gary Winogrand just to mention a few names in today's mistrust climate probably could not be taken. And recent laws even if you are able to take forbid you to exhibit or publish them (italy is one of this country, you need a written permission of the portraited people). Probably we all know the situation as amateur, it is interesting to read how even professional have in some cases the same issues.
rob
rob
John Rountree
Nothing is what I want
Robert, thank you for pointing out this unfortunate circumstance. However, since these decisions have been made in the throes of hysteria and in no way diminish real world threats it is safe to assume they are the result of politics. Since we cannot make political statements on this board, I can offer no further comment.
R
rich815
Guest
Take the photos now, have them published 60-70 years from now when most of the subjects will be either dead or too old to care. By then people will find most of our street photos interesting because they show such old times....
x-ray
Veteran
All of my recent work involving faces has been backed up with a hand written note from the subject approiving my ise in exhibition and publisheing of their photo. Public events and people on the street bring up questions as to whether it is needed but private events and individuals in their environemnt are now secured with a release. I find hand writing a little paragraph or having them write it in their own hand writing and signing and dating it is better from a trust perspective than if i flip out a pre printed commercial release.
FrankS
Registered User
x-ray, what is the wording of the paragraph you have your subjects write/sign?
Last edited:
charjohncarter
Veteran
I agree with Rich815 (but he doesn't need time, just look at his FLICKR site), there is nothing like time to improve your images. (Even mine). Like I've said before, I don't like cars in my photos (unless the subject is cars). When I look back on the cars of Central and South America and even my home town Lake Oswego, Oregon (1954-69), I enjoy those photos now. But I didn't like them when I took them.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
In the USA no permission is needed to publish or exhibit or sell as fine art street photos. There was a court case last year that upheld this long-standing US law. A photographer in New York City was doing close-up face shots of random people on the streets through an extremely long lens, so the people did not know they were being photographed. The photographer exhibited and sold the prints as art at a very high price, several thousand dollars each. Some of the people who were pictured sued demanding a portion of the revenue. They lost. The court said they had NO right to control their image if they are photographed in public and no right to any money from it.
jan normandale
Film is the other way
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
I had followed the original situation and knew it went to court however I didn't ever hear the outcome. Do you have any links for that final decision. I'd like to read it through.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
jan normandale said:
No I don't. I read about it from a link someone on the dpreview.com forums posted several months ago when it happened. I didn't bother to bookmark it at the time.
jan normandale
Film is the other way
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
drat!
Oh well, thanks Chris. I'll google this and see if I can find something.
robert blu
quiet photographer
well, about DiCorcia story my question is : if instead of a well known artist, with possibiulities to hire good lawyers, it had been just a "normal" photographer for hobby, would the story have had the same "happy" end ? But probably John is right, this is going outside photography...
it s a complicated world...
rob
it s a complicated world...
rob
jbf
||||||
Personally I say take the photographs anyway and publish them anyway.
Sucess and fame are birthed from controversey.
Take a look at so many artists who have had their work become worth millions. It was all due to controversey over the art.
Marcel Duchamp, Pollock, etc... so many of these artists work was scoffed immediately for being not traditional art and of the such.
By creating an outrage or legal issues by taking your street photography and coming up with some outstanding images and publishing them, even if it is against the laws of a said country will give you fame and make your work worth millions.
If the photography is outstanding and you publish anyway, you are going to become famous or at least rich off of your own artwork.
Granted, there would obviously be some legal trouble but at the same time I believe that most of that could easily become overturned.
Keep in mind that having ethical practices as an artist (as far as consent, etc) applies obviously because we dont want to be exploiting people, etc...
Yet at the same time, there is a line that in my mind should be bent under certain circumstances. Take for example the artist who photographed people on the streets of NYC while using a concealed camera. While these people did not know they were being photographed, he provided artwork which honestly was breathtaking.
Judges here in the U.S. ruled in the artists favor saying that he did not need consent and that his images were art and that he could sell the portraits without the permission of said persons that were photographed. If it's public property shoot away and publish away. I'll be damned if I am going to let the law tell me i cannot take photos in a public place of people.
Sucess and fame are birthed from controversey.
Take a look at so many artists who have had their work become worth millions. It was all due to controversey over the art.
Marcel Duchamp, Pollock, etc... so many of these artists work was scoffed immediately for being not traditional art and of the such.
By creating an outrage or legal issues by taking your street photography and coming up with some outstanding images and publishing them, even if it is against the laws of a said country will give you fame and make your work worth millions.
If the photography is outstanding and you publish anyway, you are going to become famous or at least rich off of your own artwork.
Granted, there would obviously be some legal trouble but at the same time I believe that most of that could easily become overturned.
Keep in mind that having ethical practices as an artist (as far as consent, etc) applies obviously because we dont want to be exploiting people, etc...
Yet at the same time, there is a line that in my mind should be bent under certain circumstances. Take for example the artist who photographed people on the streets of NYC while using a concealed camera. While these people did not know they were being photographed, he provided artwork which honestly was breathtaking.
Judges here in the U.S. ruled in the artists favor saying that he did not need consent and that his images were art and that he could sell the portraits without the permission of said persons that were photographed. If it's public property shoot away and publish away. I'll be damned if I am going to let the law tell me i cannot take photos in a public place of people.
Last edited:
wyk_penguin
Well-known
rich815 said:
Yeah, they will be celebrating the work of "the heroes who risked prosecution to take photographs"
mike goldberg
The Peaceful Pacific
In Israel it's liberal in this regard; the situation is pretty much like in the USA. If I'm doing people shots and the subject objects, I put my camera down. Frank asked for the wording of a "model release" form. I'd like to see that as well.
R
ruben
Guest
Some two weeks ago I was walking with my camera in jerusalem, and I saw a young woman riding a bicycle in a line across me. It was late evening, I had a flash on my camera set at low speed, I panned my camera, shot, and after a second the young woman, while still riding her bicycle said/shouted backwards "Excuss me ?". She continued riding, leaving me as either a peep show fan, or I don't know what.
Now, I can make myself deafth and forget the incident. But I can also try to understand the meaning of that "Excuss me ?, and what I understand is: did I grant you any permission to photograph me ?. I happened to photograph a young woman very much aware of her rights. This seldom happens.
But I must admit, this case is keeping me thinking.
Because one issue, the easy one for me, is the authorities anywhere in the world forbidding me to photograph and/or publish, but another totally different one is a person questioning my right to invade his/her privacy.
Is street photography an invation of privacy ? I would say that it wasn't, but by the evolution of people's mind, it may be becomming.
Let's have it clear that due to the evolution of technology, we humans and photographers included, are being watched day and night wherever we are, even from satelites and not only at supermarkets. Our privacy is being invaded 24 hours a day. Therefore for me no authority has any rightfull right to tell me "no photos here".
But a single person in a street is a different case.
So am I going uderground for street photography ? In a country that forbiddens it I would. Here, since it is not, it will be ethically correct to do the contrary and giving the individual, as much as possible, the opportunity to disagree.
This is mostly not possible due to the nature of street photography, but next time I am confronted, and I calculate it may happen twice a year, I will have to be ready to substantiate myself, and satisfy the subject at the final instance. Ceirtanly I am not going to lean on the formal fact that in Israel it is not forbidden, but I will have to kindly argue my grounds.
I will continue to carry my camera (s) outside, and sneak the photo on most occasions. BTW, this technical approach makes a kind of Darwinist naturat selection, in which people prompt to dislike, or be afraid of, being photographed, show their tension as sign over their heads. Others, at the same spot, don't look at you.
Challenge the authorities, respect the people.
Cheers,
Ruben
Now, I can make myself deafth and forget the incident. But I can also try to understand the meaning of that "Excuss me ?, and what I understand is: did I grant you any permission to photograph me ?. I happened to photograph a young woman very much aware of her rights. This seldom happens.
But I must admit, this case is keeping me thinking.
Because one issue, the easy one for me, is the authorities anywhere in the world forbidding me to photograph and/or publish, but another totally different one is a person questioning my right to invade his/her privacy.
Is street photography an invation of privacy ? I would say that it wasn't, but by the evolution of people's mind, it may be becomming.
Let's have it clear that due to the evolution of technology, we humans and photographers included, are being watched day and night wherever we are, even from satelites and not only at supermarkets. Our privacy is being invaded 24 hours a day. Therefore for me no authority has any rightfull right to tell me "no photos here".
But a single person in a street is a different case.
So am I going uderground for street photography ? In a country that forbiddens it I would. Here, since it is not, it will be ethically correct to do the contrary and giving the individual, as much as possible, the opportunity to disagree.
This is mostly not possible due to the nature of street photography, but next time I am confronted, and I calculate it may happen twice a year, I will have to be ready to substantiate myself, and satisfy the subject at the final instance. Ceirtanly I am not going to lean on the formal fact that in Israel it is not forbidden, but I will have to kindly argue my grounds.
I will continue to carry my camera (s) outside, and sneak the photo on most occasions. BTW, this technical approach makes a kind of Darwinist naturat selection, in which people prompt to dislike, or be afraid of, being photographed, show their tension as sign over their heads. Others, at the same spot, don't look at you.
Challenge the authorities, respect the people.
Cheers,
Ruben
Last edited by a moderator:
robert blu
quiet photographer
Ruben says :Challenge the authorities, respect the people.
it seems me very wise and honest thinking., Times dictate the approache between media and people. Personally I try to switch from a "pure street photography" to what I call "street portaiture". I mean enter in relationship with the subject and make his gesture, his position be the photography. I mean I loose the magic natural moment, but people being aware and accepting to be photographed choice the expression, the position give an ulterior idea of their charachter. Unfortunately most of people refused it anyway. Just as curiosity I can add that when I try it with my father's 50 years old Rolleiflex people are more relaxed and accept much more. They look at me as a kind of fool...
robert
it seems me very wise and honest thinking., Times dictate the approache between media and people. Personally I try to switch from a "pure street photography" to what I call "street portaiture". I mean enter in relationship with the subject and make his gesture, his position be the photography. I mean I loose the magic natural moment, but people being aware and accepting to be photographed choice the expression, the position give an ulterior idea of their charachter. Unfortunately most of people refused it anyway. Just as curiosity I can add that when I try it with my father's 50 years old Rolleiflex people are more relaxed and accept much more. They look at me as a kind of fool...
robert