I previously said: "The solution, it seems to me, has never been to ban the lawful activities of a class of people in order to 'protect' another class of people."
oftheherd said:
No, we ban drinking and driving, damaging property, injuring or killing people; we ban assaults/abuse whether commited against a spouse, child, or not, and maybe increase the penalties if it is against someone who may feel obligated to submit; and we don't indeed ban lawful activities, because if one law attempts to change other "lawful" conduct, courts will strike them down. Or, caring people (as in the posters in this thread) will begin to lobby against bad laws.
My first thought was to disagree with you, but on reflection, I see your point, and I could have made my point better - mea culpa.
Let me say this - if we ban photography 'of children in public' to supposedly protect children from the depradations of paedophiles, we have banned something that is altogether legal - an expression of freedom of speech and/or the press when stripped down to basics - in order to stop a tiny fraction of a minority from doing something that we could not stop them from doing in any case - that is, being paedophiles. It's the old 'if it protects even one child' argument, and although I should have said it better, I reject it on its face as a valid argument.
Any way Bill, you can, and even in this thread, have made better arguments, and I just wanted to point out that our emotions often get us in difficult to defend positions. And I certainly don't mean that you ahve said anything untowards, just no a defensible position imho. Now that you feel throughly chastised, I will let that alone. 😀
Everybody thinks I am more emotionally wrapped around these things than I am. I never understand that. I usually only get emotional when posting while drinking, which I admit to doing from time to time.
Not many people feel more strongly about protection of rights than I do. However, where does common decency and respect for individual preferences stand? Now I may come to you and tell you I didn't want you to take a photo of me and that I don't want you to have any photos of me, and that you had no right to do that. Did I mean a legal right or a moral right? Is there a difference, between us?
In my opinion, rights outweigh concepts such as 'decency' and 'politeness' every time. I will make a post in another thread on the topic of 'civility' which I feel is a pantsload in general.
Well, of course if I want to take legal action there is. But how about if I just don't want you to have any photos of me? Let's put the shoe on the other foot. Suppose at some outdoor venue, in public, every other time you look up you see me taking a photo that includes you or your wife in it and you think I must be doing that on purpose. Now what? How will you react?
I would react with anger, as movie stars often do to paparazzi. I might react by confronting you (the photographer) and asking you what you thought you were doing. However, I would have no legal right to ask you to stop - or to demand it, and you'd be entirely within their rights to continue snapping away. My anger, shock, dismay, embarrassment, etc, do not in any way diminish your right to continue taking photos.
Now, if you engage in harassment, that's a different story - it's a crime. If I can convince a cop that you're harassing me, I might succeed in getting you nicked.
I understand the emotion of being photographed against one's will. I am angrier everytime I look up at a baseball game and see the cold dead eye of a video camera operated by the stadium, and know that the government can demand that video under the Patriot Act without a warrant, and that the stadium is forbidden by gag order of even admitting that it has been done. You want righteous indignation? There's some.
This subject is one I think of often. Often I have passed on photos as I didn't want to chance offending someone.
I have passed on photos because I didn't want to get shot or stabbed. But that's my loss as a photographer, and I have to deal with that.
I don't normally want my photo taken unless I know the person and know the use to which it will be put.
May I say in the most polite manner - too bad for you. Your wants do not override my rights - and vice-versa, of course.
Part of that is that in a past life, I had to be alert for people taking my photo to use in a way that would have at least been detrimental to my being able to do my job, and could have put my life at risk. There are people in the world I would not wish to be able to guess where I was even now. We never know the reason a person objects to having their photo taken. They may be just a jerk, or they may have some reason that they think is quite important.
It is not the job of the photographer to determine the danger, or the relative discomfort level, of their subjects in public photography. There be dragons down that path.
To engage people in discourse over their level of comfort with my taking of their photos is to imply that they have a right to say no, which they do not. I can only lose such a discussion, so I don't engage in them in general.
Just yesterday as I left a subway stop, I spotted two individual taking photos of people exiting the stop. One of them pointed the camera at me or someone in a line between them and me. My normal reaction is to do something to prevent my face from being recognized, such as covering it or looking away. I was unable to do so. Normally I would not confront the person. Yesterday, as I was also with my daughter, I did. I simply asked the person to explain why they were taking my photo.
I would've refused. Then what?
The photographer's first reaction was denial (possible, since a zoom lens was being used, but it sure was close on straight at me). Then the person told me he was a US Navy photographer and when I asked for ID, actually produced same. Now that was interesting, but I was there for other reasons and didn't want to continue. As I told my daughter, my first reaction was to write down his name and find out if his supervisor liked his IDing himself that way when he was photographing on his own, not for the Navy. I think that wouldn't have gone over well. But, I left him alone and went on about my business. I was in fact "in the public."
Interesting story. I'd be more concerned that the military was taking photos of people exiting a subway. The military has prohibitions against performing law enforcement (including intelligence gathering) activities against civilians - it is called the Posse Comitatus Act.
But, I still don't like my photo being taken unless I know the person and what the photo will be used for. Am I wrong? Maybe.
Are you wrong to feel the way you do? Heavens, no. I feel the same way. I just realize I have no right to stop it from happening if I am in public.
I think it is my business.
The control over how your recognizable likeness is used is your business. The rest may be of interest to you - and it would be to me as well - but it is not 'your business', no.
But also as I said, I don't normally confront people, just make if difficult or impossible to get a likeness of me that is recognizable.
While that *is* your right. If you want to ruin the shot by holding up a middle finger or a newspaper in front of your face or whatever, that's your business. The photographer has no right to expect you'll cooperate with his photography.
I don't know even now why I confronted him other than perhaps something about his demeanor as he was doing it. I certainly would never have gotten physical with him, because I was in a public place and even if not, he under most circumstances would have a legal right to take his photo. Like I said, that just isn't me, and my reasons may be somewhat unique.
Implied cloak-n-dagger doesn't get it for me. People in public are people in public. 'Shaken, not stirred' and all that aside, it's just the movies. Anyone who goes out of their way to avoid having their photo taken in public also draws attention to themselves.
Sorry for the long post. I will now get off the soapbox and quickly don my slings and arrows protective suit, but welcome others opinions on anything I have said. 🙂
No need, as I think you've made some excellent points, and your objection to my analogy is well spoken - and you're right.
As to your musings about comfort levels and being polite - one is always free to be polite, and it is generally to be encouraged. However, being polite does not mean being forced by some ill-defined topic such as a person's discomfort, their sneak-n-peak background, or their general antipathy towards photography to choose not to take a photograph. It merely means say 'no' with a smile and a kind 'thank you' at the end.
"Be polite" is interpreted as 'do what I want you to do', or even 'do what I believe you would want done in my place'. I am not in your place - therefore, I respectfully decline. One might 'be polite' and do what *I* want them to do, which is to smile for the birdie.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks