Camera Phobic Silliness

Luckily we have some places where people expect to have their photo taken. If you enter one of those places with a camera, sometimes people stand in a row waiting to pose. And then they ask on what website they'll find it.
 
sitemistic said:
sjw, what right to privacy do people on the street have? I mean, it's a public place. If you want privacy, you probably should stay home.

You don't need releases for non-commercial use of photos.
Click to expand...

On the street I expect to be left alone and not be harassed by someone taking my picture. I do go out of my way to avoid cameras. I have a reasonable expectation of privacy while going about my daily business. The invasion of privace takes place when the shutter is tripped, publication is not necessary.
In New York State you may well violate Stalking laws simply by taking my picture.
"the new stalking laws focus specifically on the state of mind of the stalking victim and the fear that the stalker’s behavior is likely to cause the victim." All unwanted communication is considered stalking in NYS.
I guess you do more about releases that I since you are a professional. Sites such as this and many personal sites sell advertising. Either straight out as here or Google ads on personal sites and blogs. Ads then make the site commercial.

Steve
 
The bar I was talking about is called 'Rei das Bifanas' (King of Bifanas). A bifana is sort of like a burger, but it's a thin pork steak in a bread roll. Fried in pork fat, the steak, and then the roll is dipped in the fat too.

Very popular with people who are drunk. Especially at 05.00 when they tumble out of the nightclubs and need somewhere to sit until the bus and taxi services start working.
 
The invasion of privace takes place when the shutter is tripped...you may well violate Stalking laws simply by taking my picture.
Click to expand...

Baloney. This is your own personal paranoia, and you're fluffing it up with legalese to make it sound legitimate.
 
I wore my 1953 Leica into the nice grocery store in my home town. The manager wanted to know if I was taking pictures for their competition. I said 'with a 1953 camera.'
 
sitemistic said:
You don't need releases for non-commercial use of photos.
Click to expand...

Yes, but how are the subjects going to know if the images will or will not be used commercially? They've no reason to take the photographer's word on faith.

Most posting on the web is, ultimately, to someone's commercial advantage. Images posted to Flickr, for example, may be noncommercial from the photographer's point of view, but they are certainly commercial from Flickr's point of view. It's not a charity. So, it gets fuzzy.

I agree that expectations of privacy in public -- at least in the sense that we can control when someone or something takes our picture -- are seriously exaggerated. Odds are, for example, that this bar owner has at least one security camera running all the time.

I think an awareness that someone is usually watching increases, rather than decreases, wariness about being photographed by strangers.
 
Call it the rise of 21st Century paranioa. Having worked in retail in the past, I know pictures get taken all the time for promotional purpose by head office, by suppliers documenting thier displays and employees during special events.

Considering the rise of CCTV cameras in urban areas and that your internet activity can be tracked, the concept of privacy in this day and age is a quaint one with the over arching mantra of security counts.

I for one don't fear my picture being taken because I don't act like a dumb ass.
 
kevin m said:
Baloney. This is your own personal paranoia, and you're fluffing it up with legalese to make it sound legitimate.
Click to expand...
Seconded.

Also, an immense amount depends on the interpretation of 'reasonable expectation' and you could also argue about 'privacy' (I have a law degree...)

R.
 
Last edited:
All this 'right to privacy' and 'corporate spying' blather is just nonsense. It's a simple matter of control, that's it. People who increasingly feel that they lack any degree of control over their own lives, particularly in the workplace, due to IT departments reading every email, employers testing urine, etc., lash out at a visible, and, most important, solitary figure: some guy with a camera. They can't do anything about corporations reading their email and making them pee in a cup, but, dammit, this f*cker ain't takin' my picture!

And "corporate spying?" Please! There is no public space at the mall, or at WalMart. They own everything lock, stock and barrel. They tell you to put away your camera simply because they can.
 
It's funny that some people don 't want to be anywhere in front of a camera, but others- or maybe the same ones- do everything they can to get into the view of a TV camera on location, or scanning the crowd at a sporting event.

Ed
 
sjw617 said:
Sites such as this and many personal sites sell advertising. Either straight out as here or Google ads on personal sites and blogs. Ads then make the site commercial.

Steve
Click to expand...

That's not what commercial use means. You can take a picture of somebody and put it up for display in a coffee shop and even sell it but that isn't commercial use. Even though it on display in a location that is a commercial venture and you are trying to make money from it.

Now if you were to take a picture of someone wearing an iPod and use it for an ad for Apple then that's commercial use.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin m
Baloney. This is your own personal paranoia, and you're fluffing it up with legalese to make it sound legitimate.


Roger Hicks said:
Seconded.
Click to expand...
Roger Hicks said:
Also, an immense amount depends on the interpretation of 'reasonable expectation' and you could also argue about 'privacy' (I have a law degree...)
Click to expand...


The NY State anti stalking law of 1999 prohibits contact even if there is no physical threat just "elements of the crime of stalking if such behaviors cause material harm to a person’s mental or emotional health" is enough.

Reasonable expectation? I am not a public figure, I do not make my living being in the public eye therefore it is reasonable to expect to be left alone.

Steve
 
sjw617 said:
On the street I expect to be left alone and not be harassed by someone taking my picture. I do go out of my way to avoid cameras. I have a reasonable expectation of privacy while going about my daily business. The invasion of privace takes place when the shutter is tripped, publication is not necessary.
Click to expand...

I like to travel and I like to take pictures, especialy in NY it was nearly impossible to take a picture of anything without people in front of it. Buildings too big and lens to narrow :)

So what's the solution? Banning photography?

And another question, how much privacy do you expect in public places?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you're on the street you can be photographed.

Britney, Madonna, and Princess Bea. They are all photographed but not stalked necessarily.
 
sjw617 said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin m
Baloney. This is your own personal paranoia, and you're fluffing it up with legalese to make it sound legitimate.




The NY State anti stalking law of 1999 prohibits contact even if there is no physical threat just "elements of the crime of stalking if such behaviors cause material harm to a person’s mental or emotional health" is enough.

Reasonable expectation? I am not a public figure, I do not make my living being in the public eye therefore it is reasonable to expect to be left alone.

Steve
Click to expand...


Taking a picture of a random stranger is not stalking. The "elements of the crime of stalking" is what you are leaving out. The crime of stalking in New York State may not require a physical threat against the victim. It does, however, require the actual stalking of the victim.

Legally, in the United States, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy from cameras when in public places, except in certain exceptional places, like bathrooms or locker rooms. Being a public figure has nothing to do with it.
 
sjw617 said:
Quote:
The NY State anti stalking law of 1999 prohibits contact even if there is no physical threat just "elements of the crime of stalking if such behaviors cause material harm to a person’s mental or emotional health" is enough
Click to expand...

Dear Steve,

This still brings us back to the 'reasonable man' test. If the person who is complaining that his mental health has been harmed has staring eyes and wears a tinfoil helmet to ward off the Martian brain-control waves, the court might reasonably conclude that his mental health couldn't be materially harmed a lot more by having his picture taken.

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.

Is the trial in such cases normally by jury or in front of a judge sitting alone?

Cheers,

Roger
 
Last edited:
I was taking a photo in a bar. There was a man with a girl young enough to be his daughter. He asked me not to include them in the photo as he knew my photos often end up in the newspaper. And his wife would not like it.
 
Hmm if the owner asks in a civil way why not comply to his wishes or why not giving him a print and have a converstion with him?
On the other hand....
About one year ago I saw a group of men some playing cards and some watching the game....it was a perfect composition on the ground glass of my Yash'mat 124....but I went to the group and asked politely. I had mixed reactions in no time: a categoric no then a friendly guy asking for my reasons and others chatting.
They were immigrants from former Yugolsavia.The friendy guy struck me as he told me that they feard I might "smuggle" the pics. I have a similar background and I recognized that he was possessed of the same fear of everything as my parents were in Austria the home of Angst, Viennese Walts and Depression. For a short moment it looked as if I could make the pic....but then I noticed the talk they were having among themselves thinking that I couldn't understand them.....
Bad moment as it ended my streak of magic when I was a warde with a "yes" everytime I asked.
I am pretty sure had I asked the same men somewhere in Serbia, in Montenegro or in Bosnia they would have allowed it.
So my contribution... and yes I've made more "grabshots" than I had before since that moment...
 
In Italy the problem arose with the mob phones which made easy to put photo in internet and too many people (probably) have been found in a place different than the one where they were supposed to be, which could have been quite embarassing (in a bar with a girl instead of in office making extra work...). Now the law forbid to publish any photo without an explicit permission of people in it. And if you are taken it can be very expensive. But you are allowed to take pic tures in public places (if no m inor in it). Strange times, there are video cameras everywhere, in front of post offices, at petrol station, supermarket, bank...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom