Bob Michaels
nobody special
It is completely a function of the subject's "reasonable expectation of privacy". If they thought they were hidden inside their house or in a fenced back yard, it is flat out wrong. If the subject was at a clothing optional beach, the only problem is the photographer's lack of confidence to get closer.
Melvin
Flim Forever!
There's a Zen Koan that goes: Twenty monks and one nun, named Eshun, were studying at a temple. A monk, who was in love with Eshun, tried to arrange a secret meeting. She ignored his letter, but the next day she stood up in front of all the people at the temple and said: "if you love me, why don't you say it now?"
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Did this woman have "reasonable expectation of privacy? I think not since this was Bike Week on Main Street at Daytona Beach. I did not ask permission but it was shot with a 35mm lens, so she probably heard the shutter fire several times. I am a dirty old man because of the way I framed the photo? Or was I just documenting some of the icons of Bike Week?
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
I serious doubt that the average woman in Europe sunning herself on the nude beach expects some pervert to sneak crotch shoots from 100 yards away. Much less post them on the Internet.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Al, I gained some insight about photographing at nude beaches when researching a potential documentary project several years ago. We are fortunate in having a very nice clothing optional beach here in FL. It is part of the Canaveral National Seashore and about 2 1/2 miles from launch pad 39A where the shuttle went off yesterday. I am an infrequent visitor but spent time discussing a project focusing on the independent views of those who are regulars there.
The initial reaction to someone carrying a camera is strongly negative. Just too many voyeurs have preceded you to take a photo of the "naked people." But once an individual understood my motivation and the fact that I cared nothing about their lack of clothing, most had no real problems with me photographing. However each took a very lengthy confidence building session. Eventually I concluded that this long time frame to build individual confidence made the project impractical, considering my already existing problems with skin cancer from a lifetime in the FL sun.
So most people at nude beaches have no problems being photographed if (big IF) if they are convinced it is for valid reasons. And they are irate at someone who they believe is photographing for the wrong reasons.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
I don't think it crosses their minds. And not knowing the laws there I don't know if it is illegal. Here in the US there was something a while back about a nude beach and a long zoom lens (I can't find the thread here that mentioned it)- there are people that do take it too far. But this thread has gone more towards "you can't take a picture of my wife"- which is perfectly legal where I'm writing from, and where the photog in question is. Taste is subjective, you might not like my wife, should I take offense if you're shooting my buddies wife but not mine? Not liking somebody's photographs does not make all photographs of that subject verboten. Taken to an extreme then posting pictures of your own wife, daughter, son or husband could be seen as "creepy". And some idea that the masses will decide what is acceptable is unacceptable- look at most of American TV, or the contents of a grocery store- should only those things be acceptable as entertainment or food?
Photographing in the street freely is something we need to keep acceptable or else we're SOL when it comes to being able to make photographs in public. If you can't make pictures that have pedestrians in them for fear of being called a creep who ends up on some list of morality offenders when all you're out to do is get a shot of a bike or a shop window or some sexy guy on the corner we all lose.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Once she got back to her hotel room yes, on the sidewalk? No.
I am a dirty old man because of the way I framed the photo?
Not at all. You've provided a great illustration of the question this thread is pondering. This is on the sidewalk. Should this image never be seen? Is it that offensive that it should be banned? Is it at all offensive? Not to me. But I'm a product of the 60's and 70's. Perhaps this is a generational thing?
Papercut
Well-known
Roger, I have -- not as badly as it could have gone, but I have been jabbed in the back of my neck several times with a small (6-8" metal truncheon) and mace fired at my face (fortunately for me it was expired or used and I ended up with "only" some chemical "burns" where several drops hit my arm). Don't want to clog up the thread with the whole story, but I made the mistake of firing on instinct at a scruffy looking character and then compounded my error by stupidly saying "yes" when he asked if I had taken his picture. Truth is not always the best policy! 
Many lessons learned from that experience.
EDIT: by and large I agree with sepia on the thread issue. Just because I/we/most find the pictures artless, doesn't give any justification for prohibition. On the other hand, however, people have a right to question photographers about their intentions and even to register their objections or feelings about being photographed, so long as they themselves do not resort to violence or illegal actions. As a photographer, I do not mind it when people I photograph interact with me about why I took their photo -- even if, or perhaps, especially when they are upset with it. It gives me a chance to show them what sort of photography I do (I almost always carry around a small blurb book of my photos for precisely this purpose) and to explain my understanding of the legal issues, as well as remind them that in many cities and places their image is being recorded frequently, sometimes constantly, already. Dialog is good.
Many lessons learned from that experience. EDIT: by and large I agree with sepia on the thread issue. Just because I/we/most find the pictures artless, doesn't give any justification for prohibition. On the other hand, however, people have a right to question photographers about their intentions and even to register their objections or feelings about being photographed, so long as they themselves do not resort to violence or illegal actions. As a photographer, I do not mind it when people I photograph interact with me about why I took their photo -- even if, or perhaps, especially when they are upset with it. It gives me a chance to show them what sort of photography I do (I almost always carry around a small blurb book of my photos for precisely this purpose) and to explain my understanding of the legal issues, as well as remind them that in many cities and places their image is being recorded frequently, sometimes constantly, already. Dialog is good.
Last edited:
kermaier
Well-known
I'm struck by an apparent communication failure here: A number of people are saying the equivalent of "these photos are disturbing" and a number of others are hearing "this type of photography should be banned". Is that some form of strawman argument, or do those disapproving opinions really feel like a potential threat to artistic freedom?
::Ari
::Ari
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
So, you are OK with a pervert hiding over the dunes taking crotch shots with a superzoom and posting them on the internet?
Maybe I should post a link or two and see if you defend the chicken sh!t lowlife "photograhers" to whom I am referring.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
It's strange how accident of location and demographics gives me a completely different experience. I know a dozen or so young women in their late teens and very early twenties well enough to chat to semi-regularly. (They are daughters of friends, and staff at my local book shop / coffe shop. Strangely enough, I barely know any young men in this age range, though I know a number of young men who are younger or older.)
I've found this particular set of young women to be universally bright, well educated, and quite interested in the world around them - current events, politics etc. They're even well aware of the pop-culture references you mention: after all, those are the kinds of records, movies etc. their parents inflict on them. (I said they're aware of them; I didn't say they necessarily have any great liking for them.) They're even interested in my old mechanical cameras - or polite enough to feign interest and look at my photos.
Different places, different experiences I guess. But based on my experience of these young people "the youth of today" are in pretty good shape.
...Mike
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Al, the point I was trying to make was that many visitors to nude beaches do not mind being photographed unless the photographer's intentions are sensational. Yes, many would object to the scenario you portrayed.
Myself, I refuse to set any limits on personal freedoms of expression, including photography. People setting any sort of limits on what others can do, based on their own personal views is a very dangerous thing. Are we to decide that a photo shot in public with a 600mm lens is inappropriate while one shot with a 35mm lens is OK? Is one place OK but not another? Who decides?
At times we have to support others rights even when we find their actions distasteful. Simply because we know that beginning to set limits based on personal value judgments opens the door to where we don't want to go.
T
Todd.Hanz
Guest
I spent the last few minutes looking for a link to the photogs offending photos, did I miss something? How can this discussion be so long winded without the evidence
Todd
Todd
oldoc
oldoc
Unfortunately, although most photographers exhibit concern for others, and, to a large extent, their work can be seen as an expression of this, the....individuals to which Al refers (and I agree completely with Al's characterization of them completely) are the reason for the number of postings here. I believe firmly that your rights, as we choose to call them, end where they intrude on mine. That determination is best made by me, when posting to the internet or publication. There is no implied right to convert someone who is OK going to the beach with several dozen people near enough to tell they are IN a swimsuit to the close-up fodder for the ogling eyes of millions.
kermaier
Well-known
Is it just the prurient aspect that you think limits the photographer's rights, or is it a broader question of the rights of the subject to consent before mass publication of his/her likeness?
If the former, then I think that's a dangerous precedent. One person might be disturbed by the idea that unknown millions may be drooling over close-ups of her buttocks. Another would be more disturbed to think that millions of strangers might be laughing uproariously at photos of him picking his nose. Your personal reaction to the sexual objectification represented in bikini pictures of strangers shouldn't be be the basis for curtailing photographers' rights in the public sphere.
If the latter is your concern, then are you advocating some form of model-release law for all people photographed in public, whether the dissemination of the photo is for commercial gain or not? That also sounds, to me, like an unreasonably broad (and completely unenforceable) curtailment of photographers' rights.
In either case, I think it's absolutely incorrect to state that the determination of the limits of one person's rights is best made by the person potentially impacted by those rights. As an example, consider the beach: I have the right to enjoy the beach by cavorting in the sun wearing a thong bathing "suit"; this undeniably impinges on the right of, say, a deeply religious family to enjoy the beach without having their sensibilities ravaged by the sight. Who's rights end where, and who gets to decide?
::Ari
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
I'll admit to having been well puzzled by more than a few things in this thread. But what confuses me most is the view that people are entitled to some kind of right to "privacy" when they're out in public. It seems to me that the public/private distinction matters and that if it is broken down - even in a "well meaning" attempt to extend "privacy" into the public sphere - the most likely thing to suffer will be the right to privacy in places that should properly be private.
...Mike
...Mike
Last edited:
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
We started off having to imagine (through lack of an acutal link) pleasant images of lovely young women - and now you force us to imagine thisI'm off to wash my eyes with borax to get those images out of my mind
(I've not pictured Bob, but the "borax" thing is giving me ideas.) Now I'll have to :bang::bang: for a while to achieve clarity....Mike
djonesii
Well-known
I just did a quick count of one of my candid galleries ... +1 for each picture of a single female ( or group of females) -1 for men, couples, general street scene .. The count came out to -15 for the set. That said, there are some shots of single females in the mix. The set shows intent, taken out of context, there are enough shots that show I take pictures of pretty young French girls .....
http://www.jonesii.net/2008 08 01 Daves Trip No Kids/index.html
To me, this thread shows that importance of situational ethics ....
Dave
http://www.jonesii.net/2008 08 01 Daves Trip No Kids/index.html
To me, this thread shows that importance of situational ethics ....
Dave
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Dave,
I followed the link (nice set of photos, BTW). But you have photos of human brains in jars in that set. Yes, I assume they're in an appropriate museum context. But still: human brains in jars! And people think taking photos of attractive young ladies is creepy
....Mike
(Dave, this isn't any reflection on you or your photos. Rather it is about what some people choose to see as "creepy".)
Last edited:
oldoc
oldoc
Not determination of rights violation here: the rights here are, I think best described as a freedom from intrusion. If my intention is to display your image on the internet, is it not ethical to know whether or not it's OK with you, if you are in a swimsuit, thong, whatever? Do you have the right to obtain my image by any means, and post it in whatever way you wish, whether I like it or not? If those we are paying to pose have to release their image in such a manner have to release them, don't those whose image is obtained by other means have rights? Is that truely about our freedom of expression?