Candid photos - legality?

SolaresLarrave said:
Restaurants are private spaces, so I'd never think of taking a picture inside one... unless I were taking a photo of the decor (which I've done).

(...)

It'll be easier for you to ask the restaurant owner/manager if they mind your taking photos of the place (not the customers). And, if you see people who might make a nice pic, ask if they don't mind having their photo taken. That'll save you oodles of trouble.

I really think this depends not only on the culture but the country, of course. First of all, what about those people that are taking pictures of their own table? I never see them asking permission from the other tables if they mind showing up in their pictures. I also never see the owners minding that their incredibly distracting flash goes off without their express permission.

There is also a little thing called discretion and common courtesy; I have in the past been so overwhelmed by the decor of a restaurant or a cafe, that I do go to the owner and ask if they mind if I take a picture; they have been very happy to accomodate me...as long as I don't disturb the customers.

Asking is always a sensible courtesy; sometimes it's just impossible to do it at every single click. I find that the people who are incredibly annoyed or offended that you took their picture without you asking them first are really not worth having had their picture taken (the body language comes across, obviously because they usually have been aware of you before you've been aware of them being aware of you).

This is not the turn of the 19th Century to 20th Century, when photography was exciting and only a few carried such insanely expensive (and insanely heavy) gadgets around, and there was a sort of photo innocence. Many morons have poo-pooed the reputation of what it means to walk around with a camera in hand and take a candid picture (i.e. papparazi, stalkers, etc.)

What I don't understand is when some people react so violently to having their picture taken, as if you were sucking their soul and were to exploit it somehow in some voodoo ritual at your secret black magic shrine; my suggestion would be to never go out to be seen by anybody; there are way too many cameras around already on the highways, elevators, ATMs, heck even the restrooms; don't take it out on the honest guy showing you he's taking one. Perro que ladra no muerde.
 
kiev4a said:
That’s why I expect there will be more restrictive laws governing photography. I’m not saying it’s right. I saying the tenor of the times will drive such legislation.

All the more reason to object and resist. If we all had sat down and let Nazism become the dominant policy in the world because it was the "tenor of times" I'm wondering what the world would have come to.


You say you will fight to the bitter end for your right to take pictures wherever you please? Well, I suspect there are a growing number of people out there, who feel just as strongly that they have a right to try to protect what seems to be their dwindling privacy.

Interesting read on this presumed dwindling privacy: http://savageminds.org/2005/07/31/insideoutside-troubles/


And it will only take a few more highly-publicized incidents of someone caught shooting photos on the street for criminal (or sleazy) purposes for the legislatures to start passing more restrictive laws governing what can and can’t be photographed on the street. And the pleas of relatively small group of amateur (or professional) photographers to protect their artistic rights aren’t going to be considered for more than a couple of seconds.

Artistic right? There are more prevalent rights at stake here, those laid down in the Constitution. Not just the one in the USA but in any other country as well.


I’ve been involved in photography, as both a professional and an amateur, for about fifty years. I have shot my share of “people pictures” in the past. But the older I get the less inclined I am to point a camera at someone who is simply minding their own business on a street. And the older I get the easier it is for me to understand the attitude of the man in the restaurant – “You are invading my space – If I want to share my life with the world I’ll sign up to be an idiot on a reality TV show!” It’s hard to blame him.

You don't get to choose. The invasion of assumed private space is everywhere. Surveillance cameras galore. Do you know what these pics are used for? I don't, and no-one can tell me for sure they're only used when the occassion arises.
 
This is one reason why I like Eastern Europe so much. People regard having their picture taken as a bit of a lark, as they used to in the UK 20 or 30 years ago.

Rural France is pretty relaxed too. I once asked someone if it was OK to publish some pictures I had taken at his circus, insidee the tent -- performing wild boar! -- and he looked at me in surprise and said, "Of course -- they are your photos!"

Cheers,

Roger
 
Thanks for the comments and the useful links. I've learned a lot and it was immensely helpful to learn about my rights as a photographer.

I'm female. Yes, the guy was much bigger than me. He was confrontational, abusive and aggressive from the word "Go". He didn't even give me a chance to explain myself, and was even suspicious about why I was in that restaurant in the first place. His paranoia gave me cause to think that he had something to hide - perhaps an extra marital affair? The mind can speculate endlessly. Whatever it was, sweet talking was not going to help in this case. He seemed convinced I was "out to get him".

I can understand asking for permission, but this was no swank restaurant, it was like a diner, waitresses come and go, and are too harried to take your orders let alone give you permission to shoot. It was crowded and noisy. If I were making someone "interesting" the subject of my photograph, then I'd ask their permission. As it was, I was shooting a picture of something else, the guy happened to be in the background, and he took serious offense. He certainly wasn't the only guy to be in the background either.

We get photographed by people every day, walking past tourist landmarks, even walking in the street. There was nothing furtive in my actions, that I was going to take the picture surreptitiously. I was standing in the queue holding my camera for some time, for all to see. The guy had some reason to be paranoid; either he was a minor celebrity thinking I was paparazzi (I still have no idea who he is) or he's having an affair, and afraid that I might have been hired by his wife. Even after explaining myself as best as I could, his rudeness was simply breathtaking.

In my mind, he has just called attention to himself... from being a shadowy, anonymous and most uninteresting figure in a "street photograph", now I think that he's an individual with a most serious attitude problem!

Jin
 
TPPhotog said:
Jeesh the world becomes more insane with each phase of the moon :bang:



I think it becomes more insane with everynew Lawyer
 
I'm slowly discovering a handy thing... being a type of person that everyone ignores is handy...

I'm a bike courier, and have a lot of free time in the city. So I'm using that free time to use up some TriX and HP5 in an Oly XA2. Seems most people think it's a radio, or something. So I'm ignored entirely! Bike couriers, mailmen and the like are practically invisible on the city streets.
 
its important to remember that the world "village" has become smaller because of the (visual) communication of the few people who were (and are) carrying cameras and using them. times have changed somewhat and i suspect that to get a similar reaction to a handheld camera pre `60 you would need a tv or movie camera.
the whole thing has become so everyday and mundane that those who are likely to become upset at any and every situation have an excuse to do just that if they see a camera pointed in their general direction / at their building have an excuse to do just that.
there is little point discussing with such people, but as previously mentioned courtesy and politeness are seldom out of place. as long as you have your picture, apologise, smile and leave.
just my theory 🙂

kevin, try this link: http://user.cs.tu-berlin.de/~uzadow/recht/raebild.html (in german) most things seem to be covered.
just found another: http://www.sakowski.de/skripte/eig_bild.html
 
Last edited:
We have stricter laws on that matter in Norway.
Private places are under the rule of owners, but public places are protected by a law that states that photography taken of people MUST have the subjects approval.
This law goes everywhere, but it is excluded when there are public gatherings (like a demonstration, strike or whatever) that is of public interest.

THe police or other law authorities can not act on their own if someone breaks this rule. They have to act on the subjects (and only him/her) report.

Sivert.
 
I've seen satellite photos and high altitude photos that would astound you - you can street signs, recognize faces. Do the governments who take these photos get permission to do so? Seems like that would be a lot of model releases.

One thing I wanted to mention - and please, I am not being critical or negative about anyone's government or country - is that in the US, rights are not 'granted' but rather, the government is forbidden from infringing on certain rights. It is a very different way of looking at things.

Under the system where specific rights are granted to citizens, if you haven't been granted a right, you don't have it.

Under a system where the government is denied permission to infringe on certain rights, citizens have ALL POSSIBLE rights, including rights that haven't been invented yet. Only those rights which the government is allowed to control can be curtailed.

When people say things like "Show me in the Constitution where you have the right to XYZ," I respond by explaining that on the contrary, they have to show me the law where I'm forbidden to XYZ, or the assumption is that I *do* have that right.

In the US, the government does not grant us rights. On the contrary, we give the government permission to restrict certain rights so that we can all live together in a big semi-happy and semi-peaceful society. But they can restrict ONLY those rights we give them permission to.

Even in the US, many citizens either do not know or have forgotten that. I've corrected journalists who have said things like "The Bill of Rights grants us the right to..." The Bill of Rights grants NOTHING. It is a list of things the federal government is forbidden to do, not a list of things that citizens are allowed to do.

Why is this important? Well, as Kiev4a said - we are slowly losing our right to practice candid public photography. He argues that this change is coming due to situations beyond our control, sexual predators, national security, terrorism, and so on. And I don't mean to pick on him - he has many valid points.

But in the US, we are losing our rights because we are failing to stand up for them, to challenge those in power when the pretend that they have the legal means to curtail a protected right. When we roll over, the government assumes more power. All governments eventually become corrupt - there has never been one that has not, post mortem. Why would we find that acceptable? Do we believe car salesmen who say they won't lie to us? No? Why would we believe government officials who say they only want extra power temporarily, or just until the emergency is over, or that they won't abuse their new powers by using them against ordinary citizens. My presumption is always that they WILL abuse us in every way possible. Not because 'the government' is some big monolithic malevolent entity, but because it is made up of many little men with little egos and little power trips and it only take one bad one in a group of thousands of good ones to harm our freedoms irrepairably.

Sorry to drag this on - I'll stop now.

Peace to everyone - my full respect to every system of government - I hope we can all practice our photography without harming anyone, and without being harmed in return.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
Last edited:
OT, and I'm sorry but it must be said.

OT, and I'm sorry but it must be said.

Dear Bill,

I just want to illuminate a philosophical point I think is germaine: We tend to think of government as this 'entity' with which we must deal. We say 'The government did this' or 'The government did that' or 'The government has taken this or that right away.' We seem to forget that WE are the government - we govern ourselves and, therefore, we have done and continue to do these things to ourselves.

Thomas Jefferson expressed a political idea which, at the time, was so radical it caused several revolutions - the right to govern comes from the consent of the governed. 'We the people' was and is the basis of power in this country. When the people of the United States of America wake up and remember that, the country and the world will be better for it. I just hope it doesn't take too long.

Now, back to talk of cameras and pictures.

Lou
 
stet said:
Basically, I'm saying there must be better ways to handle these situations without invoking the extremes of legal footing on right to shoot/right to privacy. I'm not saying some kumbaya crap, just that a little sweet talk might help the situation more. Granted a lot of people may not have the time or be unwilling to hear an explanation. It's an instance where you have 10 seconds to explain yourself. But any cues on how to make that 10 seconds sing are surely welcome.


Civility is the key. You are correct. If a photographer's only response is "The law says I can shoot anything I please" the conversation will go nowhere but downhill from there. The subject will translate that as "I have no respect for you or your rights."
 
Lou, while it is true that the governments in democratic countries are people-controlled (or at least were designed as such), in practice the governmental power attracts all sorts of control freaks who come after, well, power. They use various legal loopholes, imperfections in electoral process, bold populism and other means to get there, and once in power they employ indifference, people's furstration and fear, to expand it, often going as far as to provoking crises justifying their deeds.

Indeed if you look back into history, very few politicians/rulers became famous for being sane, wise and altruistic.

The laws and governments evolve over decades, and more often than not they do in direction of seizing control from public. Granted, the USA have had a great and robust Constitution to start with, but countless minor tweaks, amendments, and accompanying laws can turn it into something other than what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

Eventually a government can remain democratic only on paper with no real control by general population; often it the process isn't delicate enough and can be noticed by the voters. In that case, it makes sense of referring to those in power as 'them'.

And in this light standing for your photographer's rights (which are part of more general civillian rights) is important, even if it looks futile. I'm with Bill here: people's action can thwart a lot of insanity, and while they can't cancel the change in the world they at least may alter its direction.
 
Very interesting thread and being handled very well by everyone. Thanks to all for that. This is a good example of why we like to pat ourselves on the back for being sometimes almost overly polite and respectful. It allows a thread like this to go on, for any of us to vent, and all of us to learn. Three cheers to RFF.

Now that said, Bill, I have a lot of respect for you and everyone else on this forum. I agree with all posts here, inclucluding the fact that there are two sides to this issue. But I gotta get you on the below quotes.

"You mentioned many reasons why a person might not want a photo taken of their child by a stranger - paedophiles might put his or her photo on the internet, do God knows what with it. I am not mocking your concern, I understand the sympathize. What to do?

People drink and drive. Then do terrible things when they drive DUI. Shall we then ban cars?

People beat their wives and husbands. Shall we then ban marriage?

People have children and then abuse them in horrible ways. Shall we then regulate the having of children?

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."

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.

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. 😀

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?

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?

This subject is one I think of often. Often I have passed on photos as I didn't want to chance offending someone. I don't normally want my photo taken unless I know the person and know the use to which it will be put. 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.

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.

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."

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. I think it is my business. 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. 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.

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. 🙂
 
I was shooting a wedding some months ago, when a young man in a T-Shirt (everyone else in dress-clothes) came up to me and told me NOT to take HIS photo as he was an ex-SEAL (US Navy special forces), he was a poser. My own uncle, 33 years as a REAL Navy UDT/SEAL, never had a problem with me or anyone taking his photo and he was never "comprimised" by it. Some people are full of their own self importantance and should realise that the people who would do you harm WON'T be seen and you wouldn't know you'd been photographed.
The CIA doesn't send geeks carrying RF's, standing in line at McD's, to catch Bin Laden.
 
nwcanonman said:
I was shooting a wedding some months ago, when a young man in a T-Shirt (everyone else in dress-clothes) came up to me and told me NOT to take HIS photo as he was an ex-SEAL (US Navy special forces), he was a poser. My own uncle, 33 years as a REAL Navy UDT/SEAL, never had a problem with me or anyone taking his photo and he was never "comprimised" by it. Some people are full of their own self importantance and should realise that the people who would do you harm WON'T be seen and you wouldn't know you'd been photographed.
The CIA doesn't send geeks carrying RF's, standing in line at McD's, to catch Bin Laden.

Well, I would never tell anyone who had or was trying to take my photo, any reason, beyond my own desire for privacy, why I don't like to have my photo taken. That would sound foolish besides making some even more desirous of getting my photo. I don't mean to imply that what I did was saving the world, or that I was in constant danger. Not so, but some didn't apprecate my role in life. And don't get me wrong, I don't walk around in constant fear of being photographed or done in if I were. Even though all that is very long in the past, old habits die hard I guess.

Still there may be many other reasons: Of course, there are nefarious reasons such as stepping out on one's spouse. But how about a PI who might be in the employ of a spouse being cheated on? Is is valid for a PI not to want to be photographed for concern over where the photograph might end up, and how it might effect his or her ability to earn a livig? Or a business person trying to conclude a business deal without effecting the value of the company stock? You might not consider that a valid reason, but I expect the shareholders of one or both companies might. Whatever a person's desire for privacy is based on, it deserves some consideration. Mind you, I am not talking about a photographer's legal rights. Merely a person's desire for privacy and a photographer's obligation to respect that.
 
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
 
I generally have a policy where this is concerned for just these types of occasions.

I am yet another person who would rather be behind the lens than in front of it usually, so I know how people feel. Some people just don't like having their picture taken and some others have legitimate reasons why. My policy is this: if I want to shoot a portrait of someone where the person is going to be the focus of the shot, I ask them permission. If I want to shoot a portrait of someone else and they're going to be in focus enough that they could be recognised, I ask permission. If a person is in the frame, in focus, and I don't know who they are, I ask permission. The only time I wouldn't ask permission is if the people are going to be blurred out in the background beyond recognition.

This has worked for me so far. I don't take that many portraits or street shots with people in them at the moment, so it's not that much of a problem for me. I can see it becoming a problem now, though, since I have a camera that can handle those situations well.

It is very important, for me, to respect people's wishes in this regard. I don't want them to get irate on me and call the police, so I generally play it safe. Living in the US, even in Iowa, people are getting worried. I'm lucky enough that, in this town, people know me enough that they don't question my motives often. When I go out of town, though, I find it much better to be on the safe side.

I take a camera with me everywhere. I don't always shoot it, but I always have one with me. People in town are getting used to the idea; "There's Stephanie. Wonder what she's photographing today?" I've also found that I get much better reception when I'm carrying a 'strange' old camera such as the Canonet or the Voigtlander or, even better yet, the Bosley B2. People have come up to me and asked about the cameras. It opens up a door that I can walk into. They aren't as nervous about getting their photos taken anymore. 🙂
 
Stephanie,

If you ask someone for permission to take their photograph, what will you do if they say no? If you respect their wishes and move on - that person now believes that they have the 'right' to refuse to have their photograph taken anytime they wish. This does a disservice to all photographers (my opinion), although of course it is your choice how you approach photography.

You mention 'reasons' that a person has for not wanting their photo taken. Some, you say, may have legitimate reasons. Reasons for not 'wanting' their photo taken? Yes. Reasons for attempting to stop you taking their photo? No. 'Want' is a strong word in the US these days - it seems to equate to 'right'. I want a new car. I have some really good reasons why I want one - very legitimate. I have no definable 'right' to a new car.

If it sounds strong and even rude, so mote it be. A photographic subject's 'need' is not my problem, and I won't respect it in general terms. To do otherwise is to put strange ideas in their noggins.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
Back
Top Bottom