Film User Beat Up For Not Having a Digital Camera

BTW, there is a kind of technique by which you point the camera towards the subject and wait for his/her reaction. Upon it you either offer a broad smile and make or don't make the picture. Subjects unwilling to be photographed will sign it to you.

Then there is a tricky variation of the same, needing a really silent film camera:
you release the shutter with the joint of your finger, i.e. "you have not shot", and upon the negative reaction of the subject you smile in agreement, or continue shooting.

Cheers,
Ruben

PS
Be a Roman in Rome.
 
If you haven't been harassed yet you're not shooting enough street...or you're invisible...
For the polite photographers out there who always ask first...never mind...
 
ruben said:
This sounds so strange. What do you think motivated the woman's attitude ?
Click to expand...

In the US (and apparently in parts of the UK as well), paranoia is now running rampant, and a man with a camera is simply seen as danger to children, with no other thought behind it than that.

In Texas, the state passed an 'improper photography' law a couple years ago. Basically, it is now illegal in Texas to take photographs of people without their consent - if the primary purpose of those photographs is to 'arouse' any person who views them. Seriously.

I have been following arrests reported in the news of photographers, including those arrested under this law. The various district attorneys who prosecute people under this law - so far - seem to have concentrated on perverts - people who take photos that would be illegal under any conditions, like upskirts and dressing rooms, bathrooms, etc. And I'm glad they do arrest those perverts.

But others have been arrested - a few prosecuted - for photos of 'body parts' of women and children - fully clothed, mind you, and taken in public. I don't know if the people who took those photos were perverts or not - I have no idea what kind of photographs we're talking about here. But without any further explanation, that could easily cover most of us - anyone who does street photography, etc. My best advice - stay out of Texas.

http://dallas.org/node/88

We've has this discussion on RFF before. Some people feel that there are (or ought to be) limits on what and whom a person can photograph, even in public. Some have argued that they are protecting their children. If you recall, we've even had a few on RFF who are parents and have offered to punch out any photographer who dares take a photograph of their kid at public park.

So I recognize that emotions run strong. I understand a parent's desire to protect their child from predators. And I understand that the media has us all whipped up into a frenzy concerning online predators and photographers and stalkers, and etc - at least here in the USA.

But the laws have not been changed (except in Texas). So what was legal before, remains legal. Despite a parent's objections, taking photos of people at a public parade is perfectly legal (except in Texas).

In my opinion, part of the problem is that too few photographers are willing to stand their ground and risk being harassed or even arrested - they'd prefer to just delete the photo when an angry parent demands it, avoid confrontation, walk away. Or they'll even not take the photo in the first place; and I'll admit that has affected me as well. But in the end, when the photographer backs down, the parent walks away convinced that they had a legal right to do what they did - and in truth, they did not. This is how rights get lost, in my opinion.

I went to a model train show yesterday. Took some photos. As one might expect, there are a lot of kids at a model train show. Lots of parents taking photos of them, too. No hysteria or paranoia that I could see - but I admit - the thought crossed my mind.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wigwam/sets/72157603981424741/
 
M. Valdemar said:
If someone says to me "please don't take my picture", I don't take their picture.
Click to expand...

That's a personal choice on your part, and of course you are free to make it. Would you impose that sanction on me? Am I not free to take or not take the photo, as I please?

And in the case mentioned originally, I believe the man was not warned not to take the photo first - he was beat up when the man discovered his photo had been taken and the camera was not digital and hence, could not be erased.

How would you proceed ex post facto? Pull out the film and hand it to the guy?
 
bmattock said:
In my opinion, part of the problem is that too few photographers are willing to stand their ground and risk being harassed or even arrested . . . This is how rights get lost.
Click to expand...
Dear Bill,

Seconded.

Cheers,

R.
 
A few years ago, I was near some wetlands, photographing nesting birds, with my Nikon and a 500mm, and I heard someone yelling. Turns out it was one of several guys in the water with hipwaders fishing, yelling at me asking what I was doing taking their picture. I didn't even notice them. I yelled back that I was shooting some small birds nesting, and I don't think that he really beleived me, but left me alone after that. Maybe they were fishing in a restricted area? Never found out, but this was some time before 9/11.
So you never know what going through the other person's mind!

Keith
 
M. Valdemar said:
If someone says to me "please don't take my picture", I don't take their picture.
Click to expand...
But what happens if you took their picture before they asked you not to take their picture?
 
nikon_sam said:
"Fear" was her motivation...
Click to expand...

Yes, preceded by the word 'irrational'.

It was a parade. She was being photographed by the TV news crew, who were panning up and down the same street from a truck at the time. There are cameras mounted on the top of every light pole, pointing straight down onto the street. Every ATM machine and private security device in the area was recording whatever passed in front of it. Where was her fear?

And to the parents who 'fear' a person taking the child's photograph. What could I do to a photograph that would harm your child in any way, shape, or form? I've even heard people say "I'm worried about what a photographer I don't know would do with a photo of my child." Are we reduced to believing in spirits being stolen via camera now? Do we think voodoo on the photo will harm the child? Is there something someone could do to said photo that could harm anyone?

I wonder if those same parents refuse to allow their child's photo to appear in the school yearbook - after all, a copy goes into the school library, available to all under the FOIA. And newspaper who take photos of the swim meet champs or the football stars - if it is their kid, do they march down to the newspaper or local TV station and demand that those photos be destroyed?

The fact is, they object to the lone street photographer because they *can*. He is one person whom they can actually turn their irrational fears on. They can't complain to the bank over the ATM taking their kid's photo, the local TV crew is not going to edit out their kid's photo, but they can harass this guy and take their irrational fears on on him. Lovely.
 
In the Lone Star State:

A person commits an offense if the person: (1) photographs or by videotape or other electonic means visually records another: (A) without the other person's consent; and (B) with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person;

So I can whip out my sketch pad and draw lewd pictures of the ladies with relative impunity, but the moment I put it away and use my electronic notepad to do the same, I'm committing an offense.

Marvellous.
 
MickH said:
In the Lone Star State:

A person commits an offense if the person: (1) photographs or by videotape or other electonic means visually records another: (A) without the other person's consent; and (B) with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person;

So I can whip out my sketch pad and draw lewd pictures of the ladies with relative impunity, but the moment I put it away and use my electronic notepad to do the same, I'm committing an offense.

Marvellous.
Click to expand...

It must be said that so far, people who were not obvious perverts taking 'upskirts' and changing room photos, who have fought their prosecution, have had the charges dropped in most cases.

I suspect that Texas does not want anyone to be convicted for taking photos of a cheerleader (clothed on a football field) and then appeal to the Supreme Court and have the law struck down as unconsitutional, as I presume it would be. So they're pretty selective about whom they prosecute - especially if they kick up a fuss about it.

In the case I pointed out, the charges were eventually dropped. But the poor guy had his mug shot all over the evening news, was labeled a pervert in his community, and spent thousands of dollars on legal defense - none of that can be reclaimed. How does he get his dignity back, or his reputation, or even his legal fees? It's just 'sorry pal' and tough luck for him.

http://www.nbc5i.com/news/5221710/detail.html

Things like this worry me. But seriously - what worries me more are the people who think laws like this are a good idea.
 
MickH said:
In the Lone Star State:

A person commits an offense if the person: (1) photographs or by videotape or other electonic means visually records another:
Click to expand...


And although I never thought about it before, my film cameras, especially the older non-metered ones, have no batteries and could not in any way be considered electronic. So I guess film is OK, digital is not.

Heck, maybe Texas is just trying to keep film alive!
 
I was told by another parent that photography was banned outright in Michigan at a minor bantam (13 yrs) AAA baseball tournament last year. The Canadian parents who just wanted a shot of their kids at the plate were told to put their cameras away or face a forfeit and expulsion from the tourney.
Something's definitely gone awry somewhere if you can't get a shot of your kid playing his favourite sport.
 
bmattock said:
And although I never thought about it before, my film cameras, especially the older non-metered ones, have no batteries and could not in any way be considered electronic. So I guess film is OK, digital is not.

Heck, maybe Texas is just trying to keep film alive!
Click to expand...

Not logically. Those verbs are connected by "or" - which I believe indicates any one of the three instances is sufficient to establish an offense.

But I like the thought :)
 
bmattock said:
Heck, maybe Texas is just trying to keep film alive!
Click to expand...

Let every man, woman and child be free to carry firearms in public, but woe betide you if you snap someone with your cameraphone.

I know it's excessive stereotyping, but many a true word and all that.
 
Street is a sizeable part of what I shoot and just last week when I was testing out my m4-p+50/1.2 outside a cafe. I was trying to get a shot of the lady behind the counter but couldn't focus the shot quick enough and she was out of frame. I figured I'd still square up my shot anyways and two ladies walked out of the cafe and started to smoke. 'Even better' I thought, some live bodies to shoot and as I was compsing one of the women called out in French, Can I Ask You Why You Are Taking A Photo ?

And Kinda caught of gaurd because I wasn't really paying them any mind, I started to reply saying I was just taking a shot of the... and her friend finished up my sentence for me and said builiding. And then that was that.

Yeah, I'm new to my rangefinder and it was -20 celcius outside and my fingers were freezing; I was slow to make the shot.


People will be suspicious sometimes, and at times they are just curious. But It's true that sometimes I feel like I am on their side when they pipe up, because I don't know there is stands legally, as it varies from place to place and can as well from region to region. But Steve Ballayr, thanks for pointing that out.. that public space is a free area. And you can't be harassed for having taken a picture.

With time you learn the tricks of the trade, become more comfortable and move with the knowledge and confidence of your right to shoot.
 
I was at a Chinese New Year's celebration in Dublin a few weeks ago and I would estimate that at least 25% of the people there were taking photographs; many with telephoto lens and high-end DSLRs. I was using an M6 with a 24mm lens and obviously I had to go very close to to get pictures.

I was taking pictures of performers, vendors, the police, adults in the crowd, "street people" and some kids. I was not trying to hide my actions and it was obvious that I was taking pictures of the kids. Their parents could easily have asked me to stop if they were uncomfortable with me taking the pictures, but none of them did.

However, a Ban Garda (woman police office) came into the crowd and asked to step out. She asked for my name which I gladly supplied and told me that someone had complained about me taking photographs of kids. Of course, I was doing nothing wrong, but she had to do something in response to the complaint.
As far as I know, none of the other photograhers were taken aside.

The problem is that the average person is ignorant of both the laws of the land and the laws of optics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom