Don't be a creep!

[Rogier]

Almost every time I go into San Francisco I see guys with a black Leica M. Standing in a corner quickly snapping pictures and putting their camera back under their coats. As if they were a spy or on some sort of special mission.
I don't know in wat fantasy world they are caught up in but I think its very creepy and do understand if some gets upset when they discover that their have been photographed without their consent.

Today I was standing on curb waiting for our light to turn green to cross the street. Across from us a guy with a Canon slr with white tele lens on his knee taking pictures of Me, my wife and out dog. I clearly signaled to him that I did not wanted to have our pictures taken by holding out my hand in front of my face. He clearly reacted to my 😡. But get GOING AND TOOK MORE SHOTS. Then I increased by disapproval by using the international sign language using one of my fingers... He still kept going on. I yelled at him calling him a creep.

Lucky for him I had my wife with me. Otherwise that white tele would have ended up in his....

 

[lam]

The Leica M folks are just trying to reduce the chance of burning holes in their shutters :bang:; that Canon guy on the other hand, what a ..

 

[whited3]

that's an odd story indeed. Maybe video him for posterity next time?

 

[Pioneer]

Interesting story Rogier but if you are in a public place then you should have no expectation of privacy. I do agree that the way some people take pictures on the street can sometimes be odd, maybe creepy, and even somewhat obnoxious. But I also know that you have to be willing to accept the wierd, odd and obnoxious along with the good. The alternative is not an option in my opinion. I prefer to keep things the way they are and allow for individual expression.

Next time you see this you may want to walk right up to these people with your own camera and start taking pictures of them. It might turn into an interesting photo project. 🙂

 

[noisycheese]

The guy with the Canon and the telephoto lens was a jerk, IMHO. He should have not photographed you after the point when you made it known to him that you did not want to be photographed.

As a street photographer, I photograph people on the street a lot. I strive to capture the decisive moment, so I do not normally ask permission to photograph people beforehand; if you ask first, it is no longer street photography. It then becomes an environmental portrait. That is an entirely different matter and genre of photography.

A good street photographer does not hide his camera or hide the fact that he is photographing people. Photographing people in the public environment is not unlawful nor is it inherently unsavory, creepy, unethical or unseemly. What a street photographer does with the images afterword is the deciding factor in whether or not the photographer is a "creep."

That having been said, I do not photograph those who ask me not to or who indicate that they do not want to be photographed. There are thousands of other subjects to photograph without having to force the issue or impose yourself on a person who does not want o be photographed.

A good street photographer is able to get the images he wants without disturbing his subject or being discovered; as Henri Cartier-Bresson said:

"A velvet hand, a hawk’s eye - these we should all have."

 

[CCCPcamera]

In my opinion, there is a point where "street photography" (everyone's a street photographer nowadays) becomes rude. Most people's photos aren't good enough to warrant their rudeness. I generally ask people if I can take their pictures, or make some gesture to that effect if I don't speak their language. Most people are pretty happy to be photographed, especially by some young guy with an old clunker of a camera. I've frequently had people pose for the camera. I remember a man selling fish in Hong Kong, who after laughingly allowing me to take his picture, motioned at me to take pictures of all his fish. He was a nice guy. Anyway, sticking a camera in someone's face is pretty rude, and simply lazy - it doesn't take much to be courteous. Just smile, and act nice.

 

[Lss]

You would need to be one scary creep for me not to take a picture of you flipping me the bird. 😀

 

[Dan Daniel]

Get over yourself. You're in public. Go ahead, make any hand gesture you want, block your face, put your hand in front of the lens, whatever. In the same way, people can wear clothes I find offensive, people can use cameras in ways that I find offensive, on and on.

But touch the guy and it's assault. Be ready to face the consequences.

Now there is a true creep element to this kind of photography. I had a camera and took a couple of shots across the street into Union Square while waiting for a light. A guy sidled up to me and mumbled something about,' you bobbie joe?' or some such thing. He finally realized that I had no idea what he was talking about, and then he mentioned a web site and went off. I looked at the web site later- up-skirt shots, women leaning over on the street, pure voyeuristic creep land.

 

[Chris101]

Almost every time I go into San Francisco I see guys with a black Leica M. Standing in a corner quickly snapping pictures and putting their camera back under their coats. As if they were a spy or on some sort of special mission.
I don't know in wat fantasy world they are caught up in but I think its very creepy and do understand if some gets upset when they discover that their have been photographed without their consent.

Today I was standing on curb waiting for our light to turn green to cross the street. Across from us a guy with a Canon slr with white tele lens on his knee taking pictures of Me, my wife and out dog. I clearly signaled to him that I did not wanted to have our pictures taken by holding out my hand in front of my face. He clearly reacted to my 😡. But get GOING AND TOOK MORE SHOTS. Then I increased by disapproval by using the international sign language using one of my fingers... He still kept going on. I yelled at him calling him a creep.

Lucky for him I had my wife with me. Otherwise that white tele would have ended up in his....

I hear bird photography is quite popular.

 

[YYV_146]

Anyone who has to use an AF telephoto for street photography is, IMO, simply not doing street photography.

I use 75, the occasional 90mm shot of a street dancer and such, but the essence of street work is the environment, and one is excluding most of it by using a telephoto. There is nothing inherently "bad" with photographing strangers, though. If you want candid moments, scale focus and shoot from the hip or use a TLR.

 

[Thardy]

Oh Jeez, another thread where grown men are using the word creep👍.

 

[noisycheese]

Get over yourself. You're in public.

There are several court rulings which establish the precedent that when a person is in a public area such as on the street, at an outdoor public event, at a public venue, etc. they have no reasonable expectation of privacy and as such cannot lawfully prevent, prohibit, compel or coerce another person to not photograph them. The photo exhibit, "The Neighbors" resulted in one such court ruling:

Photographer Prevails In First Amendment vs. Privacy Case

August 5th, 2013 by Mickey Osterreicher

A New York City judge has ruled in favor of photographer Arne Svenson, who was being sued by the parents of minor children whose photographs appeared in an exhibit entitled “The Neighbors.” In May of this year, Martha and Matthew Foster filed a complaint alleging among other things that Mr. Svenson had violated New York State’s Civil Rights Law by using images of their children without permission for commercial and promotional purposes. They had also sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the dissemination, display and sale of those images.

Mr. Svenson, an artist and photographer, had taken the photos with a telephoto lens from his apartment of residents living across the street and included them in an exhibition at a Chelsea Gallery. That showing led to a number of news articles which in turn brought the issue to the attention of the Plaintiffs.

In dismissing the case, Judge Eileen A. Rakower, denied the Plaintiffs Order to Show Cause for their failure to establish a likelihood of success on the merits. Because she found the photos protected by the First Amendment as an art form and shielded from New York’s Civil Rights Law Sections 50 and 51. ”Through the photos, Defendant is communicating his thoughts and ideas to the public,” she wrote adding ”they serve more than just an advertising or trade purpose because they promote the enjoyment of art in the form of a displayed exhibition.” ”The value of artistic expression outweighs any sale that stems from the published photos,” she wrote.

The judge also found that because ”art is protected by the First Amendment, any advertising that is undertaken in connection with promoting that art is permitted.” She further found that "The Neighbors’ exhibition is a legitimate news item because cultural attractions are matters of public and consumer interest" and that news organizations and broadcasters “are entitled to use Defendant’s photographs of Plaintiffs, which have a direct relationship to the news items – the photos are the focus of the newsworthy content.”

Noting that it might make parents ”cringe to think their private lives and images of their small children can find their way into the public forum of an art exhibition, there is no redress under the current laws of the State of New York.” She then concluded by stating, “an individual’s right to privacy under the New York Civil Rights Law sections 50 and 51 yield to an artist’s protections under the First Amendment under the circumstances presented here.”

In a comment regarding the decision, Nancy E. Wolff, who helped represent Mr. Svenson said, “I have always maintained that photos are entitled to First Amendment protection as expressive works, irrespective of whether they are sold or if they are otherwise commercially exploited”

The Plaintiff was represented by Richard G. Menaker, Esq. of Menaker & Herrmann LLP. The Defendant was represented by Nancy E. Wolff, Esq. and Matthew A. Kaplan, Esq. of Cowan, Debaets, Abrahams & Sheppard, LLP

Link:http://blogs.nppa.org/advocacy/2013/08/05/photographer-prevails-in-first-amendment-vs-privacy-case/

And from the ACLU:

Know Your Rights: Photographers

When in public spaces where you are lawfully present you have the right to photograph anything that is in plain view. That includes pictures of federal buildings, transportation facilities, and police. Such photography is a form of public oversight over the government and is important in a free society.

Link: https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-your-rights-photographers

While not everyone will agree with or like the above, it is the law; laws are written based upon the provisions set forth in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Local (state, city and county) laws and ordinances are written based upon the prevailing moral standards of the community, within the constraints of the Bill of Rights.

Just sayin'...

 

[fireblade]

you, ya wife and dog weren't naked?

 

[FrozenInTime]

Sure it was not a Black Nikon RF 😉 Sorry Stephen just kidding - feel free delete.

Was it a group on a Leica Academy course ? Remember the Gunter Osterloch's Leica M techniques book; that advocated the under jacket shooting approach.

 

[colyn]

What law was he breaking.

Street photography includes images of people..

You might find your image on the web with your finger pointing skyward now...😱 😱 😱

 

[jarski]

yet one more reason to live in Asia.

 

[peterm1]

The photographer in question is an a'hole. As far as I am concerned a part of the unwritten "code" of street shooting is that if someone does not wish to be photographed then the photographer should respect that, smile, wave and move on. Good karma to him. But if they don't do this and push the issue, then they should not complain if they get belted in the gob by someones fist. I am not advocating violence mind you - just reflecting that disrespectful behaviour can attract a disrespectful and sometimes physical response. Its impossible to understand the state of mind of a stranger in the street. Maybe they just had an argument with their wife and are in an uncompromising mood, maybe they are cheating on their wife and don't want to be photographed. Maybe they came from a culture where being photographed is a hostile act by dangerously autocratic authorities. You just don't know - so a proper person respects it when they realize that a particular person does not like being photographed. And don't quote law and precedent at me. That's not the issue - its about good manners. Of course the banana with the camera probably fancies himself as a papparazzo and like many of his breed thinks its OK to provoke people to get a reaction. Like I said - what an a'hole.

 

[gshybrid]

Rogier, you might want to dump all the candid shots from your flickr feed....

 

[colyn]

Talking about creepy. See the woman to the left looking at the camera? She really creeped me out while I was shooting the image of the 2 girls dancing.. I still get chills when I see that mug... 😱 😱


street dancing by Colyn's fotografs, on Flickr

 

[Darthfeeble]

Not to mention you did say you were in San Francisco......