kiev4a
Well-known
One of the arguments heard when talking about street shooting is “Well, if you don’t want you photo taken then don’t go out in public.”
That’s a pretty tall order.
I have no problem with photographers having the “right” to shoot at public events – rallies, sporting events (if photos aren’t banned by the organizers), annual or special community events, etc. No one is required to go to such events. And the person who is involved in an event likely to make the news also is fair game, as are people who hang around to see what’s happening. Absolutely no argument there.
But people going about regular day-to-day activites are different. Most of us, unless we own a farm, have to leave our homes to get groceries and to shop for other necessities. Most of us, unless we are independently wealthy (Leica owners) have to go to and from work and sometimes go out in public as part of our job duties. We may have to take kids to and from school (kids are required to go to school). We have no choice.
Obviously this gets complicated. Is it OK to shoot a photo of someone on their way to buy a new recreational vehicle (certainly not a mandatory trip) but not OK to photograph someone looking for a car that will be their only means of transportation?
Is it OK to photograph people riding downtown on the subway to go to the movies, but not if they are coming home from work?
As oftheherd pointed out, there are legal issues and moral issues here. I don’t have the answer—don’t think anybody does or will. But there are two sides to the argument, as far as I’m concerned.
A photographer believes he or she should be able to photograph any person who is out in public. More and more people believe they have the right to decided to some degree or another, who can record their image when they are out in public but not seeking to stand out from the crowd.
What makes the photographer’s beliefs any more important than those of the subject?—--not “legally”, but morally?
That’s a pretty tall order.
I have no problem with photographers having the “right” to shoot at public events – rallies, sporting events (if photos aren’t banned by the organizers), annual or special community events, etc. No one is required to go to such events. And the person who is involved in an event likely to make the news also is fair game, as are people who hang around to see what’s happening. Absolutely no argument there.
But people going about regular day-to-day activites are different. Most of us, unless we own a farm, have to leave our homes to get groceries and to shop for other necessities. Most of us, unless we are independently wealthy (Leica owners) have to go to and from work and sometimes go out in public as part of our job duties. We may have to take kids to and from school (kids are required to go to school). We have no choice.
Obviously this gets complicated. Is it OK to shoot a photo of someone on their way to buy a new recreational vehicle (certainly not a mandatory trip) but not OK to photograph someone looking for a car that will be their only means of transportation?
Is it OK to photograph people riding downtown on the subway to go to the movies, but not if they are coming home from work?
As oftheherd pointed out, there are legal issues and moral issues here. I don’t have the answer—don’t think anybody does or will. But there are two sides to the argument, as far as I’m concerned.
A photographer believes he or she should be able to photograph any person who is out in public. More and more people believe they have the right to decided to some degree or another, who can record their image when they are out in public but not seeking to stand out from the crowd.
What makes the photographer’s beliefs any more important than those of the subject?—--not “legally”, but morally?