Pioneer
Veteran
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....
The guy with the Canon is taking photos to go in a French picture book called Rude Americans.
alan davus
Well-known
When I'm wandering the streets, (generally with a camera in hand,) if I'm inadvertantly included in someone elses photo, my inevitable response is to put out my hand and say, "Baksheesh!!"...... Generally though if someone is photographing me I think, "gee, they must be hard up for material".
Brian Legge
Veteran
I've found the best way to differentiate decent photographers and those with potentially honorable intent is simply to point a camera back at them. Most will laugh, smile, get out of the way of your shot, more on to another subject, etc. Those with more creepish intent typically leave quickly the area and may hide their faces, etc.
Not 100% accurate but I've done this with two guys who seemed potentially engaged in creepish behavior and their response was consistent.
Not 100% accurate but I've done this with two guys who seemed potentially engaged in creepish behavior and their response was consistent.
peterm1
Veteran
I agree - my point exactly. Those in this forum who keep going on about the "creeps" right to photograph someone who does not wish to be photographed are with respect missing the point entirely. Of course he has the legal right to do so. But only a putz (excuse the language) pushes his rights for no good reason especially when it clearly upsets someone else. As a matter of principle and good sense I try never to do that. (Besides which it makes for sh#tty images - who wants photos of someone giving you the finger?)
Dan Daniel
Well-known
First, it is my rule for my work. I don't think everyone should do this. I have a variety of personal rules like this.
I do that because I consider children to be in public without personal agency. It isn't their conscious decision to be in public. If by some strange event, they should see their face in a photograph taken by a stranger, the effect could be detrimental or hard to comprehend. To avoid that ever so remote possibility, I don't show faces.
This isn't a hard rule. I show this photo, for example-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/18067251@N04/4159700112/
The mother saw it in an exhibit and tracked me down. To buy copy. Go figure..
thegman
Veteran
Isn't it as simple as this:
We all agree he has the right to take your photo, whether you want him to or not. We all agree, that if he had perfect, traditional, manners he may not have taken it once you expressed your displeasure. However, the photographer might not care that you didn't want your photo taken, he may even specifically want that reaction for a project or something.
If that's the case, we all have our own views on manners, and he may feel as he has caused you no harm, or interfered with you in any way, he might feel that he was acting reasonably.
We all agree he has the right to take your photo, whether you want him to or not. We all agree, that if he had perfect, traditional, manners he may not have taken it once you expressed your displeasure. However, the photographer might not care that you didn't want your photo taken, he may even specifically want that reaction for a project or something.
If that's the case, we all have our own views on manners, and he may feel as he has caused you no harm, or interfered with you in any way, he might feel that he was acting reasonably.
IdealCamera
Established
I see it as a positive sign that the OP has calmed down enough to walk back his initial burst of hypothetical aggression. Let's hope his wife accompanies him on the streets of SF.
Violence is not the answer and would be just plain dumb in the described circumstances. BTW, bullies who try to beat up folks going about their business in a lawful manner count as creeps in my book. Goes to show how expansive the definition of creep can be.
Violence is not the answer and would be just plain dumb in the described circumstances. BTW, bullies who try to beat up folks going about their business in a lawful manner count as creeps in my book. Goes to show how expansive the definition of creep can be.
goamules
Well-known
Taking a picture after someone asks you not to, or is upset is wrong. Just as playing car music so loud you can hear it from blocks away is wrong. Or people talking on their cell phone walking around a bookstore or library or restaurant.
Some of the responses here suggest that the photographer has more rights than the subject. I don't concur, just like I don't want to be on the receiving end of the above analogs. We are on an increasingly populous planet, why not INCREASE our manners instead of degenerate to animalistic rudeness? Besides, how unique is a "street scene" really? Sidewalks full of people doing normal people things is very boring. I prefer a shot of an empty mountainside or some wildlife. Rarities today.
Some of the responses here suggest that the photographer has more rights than the subject. I don't concur, just like I don't want to be on the receiving end of the above analogs. We are on an increasingly populous planet, why not INCREASE our manners instead of degenerate to animalistic rudeness? Besides, how unique is a "street scene" really? Sidewalks full of people doing normal people things is very boring. I prefer a shot of an empty mountainside or some wildlife. Rarities today.
benlees
Well-known
Chris101
summicronia
As long as you live in the US, under the protection of the Constitution, they do have the right to photograph people in public against their will and the subject does not have a right not to be photographed.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
NY_Dan
Well-known
Roger Hicks you think that was elegant? Well dig this: I may not agree with what you have to photograph, but I will defend to the death your right to photograph it.
-- NY Dan 1/26/2014
-- NY Dan 1/26/2014
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
Lucky for him I had my wife with me. Otherwise that white tele would have ended up in his....
How do you know he was taking a picture of you and yours? Did you hear the shutter? I'm not being a wise ass, I'm just curious. I have had people think I'm making a photo of them a lot when I'm not... and I'm not using any telephotos. Many people assume I'm photographing them when I'm really interested in a store front or something. You also photograph so maybe you were more aware of what was happening, but people always seem to think they are a photographers focus when they may not be. It sounds like it went beyond this, but I was curious how you knew.
goamules
Well-known
Certain exceptions apply. Certain states have outlawed taking pictures of celebrity children, photographing autistic children in Arizona breaks confidentiality/special needs rules, for example. The constitution doesn't give you the right to be a rude, arrogant person. Though you may be. Lots of people use "the constitution" to justify their wrongheaded, bullying, and "in your face" behavior. Doesn't make it right in my mind. Which was my point, American sensibilities have long left the country, replaced by the "occupy anything" movement of our Complaintocracy.
Where does the constitution say you can bother your fellow man?
I'm out....
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
Hear, hear. This is precisely what I have been advocating from the get-go.
colyn
ישו משיח
The state has to prove you know that child is autistic.. If you don't know, you are not guilty..
What about the OP who was rude by giving the finger?? Does he have the right while the photographer does not have the right to take his image??
If someone asked me not to photograph him/her I would comply but by law I could shoot all I wanted to..
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
1: Who gets to decide what's "wrongheaded" for the rest of us? You??
2: Where does the Constitution say that person "A" has any right or lawful authority to force or coerce person "B" to stop exercising his/her guaranteed right to freedom of expression?
thegman
Veteran
Well, that's the thing, it does give you that right.
I totally agree that the Constitution of the United States is used to justify all sorts, and is seen as some infallible document, and if you can somehow tally your behaviour with the Constitution, then it can be justified.
Rudeness is not against the law, nor is arrogance. We're supposed to be able to be civil and polite without the use of laws.
Our problem comes when people feel that their rights are more important than someone else's idea of manners or politeness, and there is no solution to that. You don't have the right not be annoyed by somebody else.
Thardy
Veteran
You see those stupid "giving the finger" photos all the time. Some people think they're good shots.
Street photography is supposed to be showing people doing something. The finger is just a reaction to the camera. You're right, the moment is lost at that point.
Lss
Well-known
I would take the shot, but it would simply be a funny response to the gesture. Most people who give the finger to a photographer do it as a joke. It often ends in smiles on both sides. And if it doesn't, well that is their problem.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.