Camera Phobic Silliness

Roger Hicks said:
If on the other hand he's a normal person -- such as I take you to be -- then it would be hard for him to prove 'material harm' merely from being photographed.
Click to expand...
Some cultures (American Indian, Aborigines, and Mayan descendants) or religions (Amish, Mennonite, Hasidim and Orthodox Jews) do not allow photographs takes for various reasons. I guess the main one for culture is that the photograph can trap the soul or take a piece of it (same for mirrors). For Jews it is against the Second Commandment - graven images. Even if you do not agree with their beliefs, they do believe they can be 'harmed' by the taking of a photo. There are also immigrants who sometimes have good reasons not to have their picture taken - not being 'legal' or ingrained fear from former countries.

Now this applies to a minor percent of people, I would guess. If I go out of my way to not be photographed it would be reasonable to respect my wishes. And you probably will not know this unless you ask first.

Steve
 
If one wishes not to be photographed than one should stay home. I live in the middle of nowhere here, I am caught on security cameras every day- every gas station, every supermarket has them. How does NY's stalking law apply to this? I'm much more bothered by having my every transaction at the local gas station recorded than I am about the rare chance I'd end up in a photograph made on the street.

The right to photograph in public places here in the US must be protected- otherwise we all will be reduced to photographing in our own homes ONLY. Think about that- if photography in a public place is no longer allowed where will we work?
 
sjw617 said:
. If I go out of my way to not be photographed it would be reasonable to respect my wishes. And you probably will not know this unless you ask first
Click to expand...


Imagine I'm a tourist taking a photograph in your hometown, how do I know that it is you walking in front of the monument I try do get a picture from?
 
Granted, a bar is not a public place, and when asked by the owner of a place not to make photographs when inside that place I don't. But when in a public place whatever one sees should be considered fair game. There are documented limits to this- military installation fences for example are off limits even if not publicly documented as such, as are apparently federal buildings if one is of middle eastern descent.

As to religious reasons for not being photographed- our security concious society here in the US surely doesn't allow that to stand in the way of recording every coming and going from the minimart.
 
Socke said:
Imagine I'm a tourist taking a photograph in your hometown, how do I know that it is you walking in front of the monument I try do get a picture from?
Click to expand...

Figure it is me and ask first.
 
Uncle Bill said:
I for one don't fear my picture being taken because I don't act like a dumb ass.
Click to expand...

That's a good start... and one I agree with!

But sometimes I worry about getting to the Pearly Gates only to find that my soul has been taken by some "street photographer" I don't even know.
 
sjw617 said:
Figure it is me and ask first.
Click to expand...
Ah no, could be too many people to ask.

I think I leave my camera at home, less hassle, saves film too.
 
Gumby said:
...But sometimes I worry about getting to the Pearly Gates only to find that my soul has been taken by some "street photographer" I don't even know.
Click to expand...

sjw617 said:
Figure it is me and ask first.
Click to expand...

I'm curious how you handle security cameras, they surely don't ask first. ATM machines, every bank, every gas station, likely every subway platform nowadays.
 
Last edited:
sjw617 said:
Some cultures (American Indian, Aborigines, and Mayan descendants) or religions (Amish, Mennonite, Hasidim and Orthodox Jews) do not allow photographs...
Click to expand...

Can't speak for the other groups, but I have/had distant Mennonite relatives and on the few occasions I saw them they did not seem averse to being photographed.

I think we have a legitimate right to take pictures of anyone or anything that's out in public. I also think that we also have a legitimate obligation to consider the request, or demand, of anyone not to be photographed.

But, if someone in public is photographed against their expressed wishes, I'm not certain they can make a case that their privacy was invaded based solely on that expressed wish. That is, I don't believe I have a legal obligation to heed your request to avoid photographing you if you are in a public place. If looking at someone in public is not an invasion of privacy, why would photographing them be considered so?

As for stalking or harassing, well, they are different. I can stalk you for days with or without a camera in my hand. Jumping in front of you on a sidewalk and taking your picture, however, can hardly be considered stalking. Is it harassment? I don't know. If I'm 5 feet away from you, is it harassment? How about 6 feet, or 4? How long do I need to stand there?
 
I take a lot of photos in the few bars / coffee shops I usually go. In the beginning, I asked for permission and was allowed to do so, especially when there was some life event or so. Usually I print some of the better photos and give these as a present to the owner or staff. If I now come to these places without any camera they ask me what happened ...

Taking somebody's photo without explicit permission is problematic in Japan. If I take photos of friends in bars or public places, usually no problem but taking a photo of a stranger could be considered as stalking, be it in a public place (street) or bar.
 
Yea, private property is private property; the OP needs to build rapport with the owner of the bar, or move on. Simple.

As for the issue of surveillance in public (and private) spaces, sometimes we take for granted that this is happening, as it's (usually) a passive activity that doesn't seem to directly affect us. If we let this bother us, as it seems to bother Steve, we will end up staying at home all the time with tinfoil over our heads. Actually, tinfoil doesn't help; you've got to use gold-plated copper foil, with an all-body faraday shield grounded to your water pipes.

I have found an interesting phenomenon in the observation that, as surveillance has become ubiquitous in our culture, and more often adopted by the state as a means of official control, there seems to be a desire to control all unofficial uses of surveillance. Thus, there are more and more corporate and government security cameras in use, while simultaneously the act of making images in public by private individuals is deemed an act of terrorism, or stalking. Pick you metaphor of the week.

Here's an experiment we should all participate in: we could all take a sketch pad to a large, publically accessed private property, like a Mall, and try impromptu sketching of people in their daily activities. Also be sure, while heading home afterwards, to stop by a local government or military facility and do the same, while standing on the public sidewalk outside said property. Then see if the same reaction is achieved as one would expect if using a 'pro-looking' camera. If someone then tries to take your sketch pad away, just tell them you have a photographic memory, and are going home to make more sketches.

Ultimate we have to come to the place of understanding that 'terrorism' is a state of mind, and nothing more. It is, at its extreme, paranoia. Unfortunately, we live in an age when this paranoia, this psychosis, is now official policy.

~Joe
 
I think the request was reasonable. There is a fundamental difference between a group of people in a bar shooting cell phone pics of each other, and a guy in a bar taking pictures of strangers.

That said, a bar is a semi-public place and patrons do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. However I for one have been thankful in bars on occasion for the owner's and my fellow patrons', ummm.... discretion. The bar is private property and it is the owner's right and responsibility to maintain a comfort zone for all patrons.

IMO the attitude expressed by sjw617 is just wrong. If I am in a public place working with my camera, John Q. has no more right to tell, or ask, me to stop than the jumped-up security guard who assaulted RFF member colyn in Ft. Worth several weeks ago.

If JQP asks nicely I would consider not photographing him, and being a reasonable guy I might - or not.

I saw a shot recently - maybe here - of a group of observent Hassidic men on a street corner. One had turned his back to the camera, one had stepped behind a pole and the third had removed his hat to put it between his face and the camera. It was a great shot IMO, and spoke volumes to the question of how to act if one does not want ones picture taken in public.

- John
 
JoeV said:
Yea, private property is private property; the OP needs to build rapport with the owner of the bar, or move on. Simple.

<snip>

Here's an experiment we should all participate in: we could all take a sketch pad to a large, publically accessed private property, like a Mall, and try impromptu sketching of people in their daily activities. Also be sure, while heading home afterwards, to stop by a local government or military facility and do the same, while standing on the public sidewalk outside said property. Then see if the same reaction is achieved as one would expect if using a 'pro-looking' camera. If someone then tries to take your sketch pad away, just tell them you have a photographic memory, and are going home to make more sketches.

Ultimate we have to come to the place of understanding that 'terrorism' is a state of mind, and nothing more. It is, at its extreme, paranoia. Unfortunately, we live in an age when this paranoia, this psychosis, is now official policy.

~Joe
Click to expand...

I'd join you in your experiment as long as you have the number of a good lawyer and bail bondsman with you when we try it....

I do wonder what kind of terrorist draws stick figure people though. 😉

I'm thinking we go up to Santa Fe and sketch the state office buildings. I usually pass though Santa Fe on my way to Chama anyway, although I'd probably schedule this event for AFTER my trip to Chama.
 
What do they do with people who have photographic memory? Do they confiscate their memory? To be really sure, they should put a big black cloth on the buildings.

Also, I've been asked in some restaurants not to take photos. I've learned to ask the owner or servers first if there are a lot of people. It all depends on the situation. Otherwise, I just snap away if I'm comfortable enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom