Film User Beat Up For Not Having a Digital Camera

people will take offense at many kinds of behaviors, having their picture taken is but one. the risk involved in street photography shouldn't surprise anyone who spends time out there, whether shooting or not. no risk, no reward.

there's always the studio ...
 
Brian Sweeney said:
Although my F, f2, and Nikkormats made formidable weapons- The Nikon E3 full-frame Digital camera outweighs the F2 with motor drive and looks like a Phaser Rifle.
Click to expand...

Thank heaven for little ....Leicas
 
debating whether one is free to photograph under the law with someone who wants to punch your lights out for the shot you just took ... somehow that doesn't seem like the response most likely to keep you safe.
 
formal said:
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.
Click to expand...

Interesting story.

It has made me think about how I behave in similar situations. I was at the Chinese New Year celebrations in London. I made a point of being as open and conspicuous as possible. I walked around the same small area for some time, shooting whatever caught my eye. I must have passed the same police officers half a dozen times.

I realise that I also consciously stood close to a group of officers to change films on more than one occasion. This was partly, again, to show that I had nothing to hide, but also, pragmatically, because I myself felt vulnerable at that point, with my hands full of body, film and baseplate. At no point did I attract any more than passing interest from the officers in question. I have no doubt that if someone had, as in your case, complained that I was taking inappropriate photos I would have been checked on, but I cannot help but feel that my openness would have counted in my favour.

Regards,

Bill
 
bmattock said:
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/[/QU


Put the blame on the cameraphone and shady attitudes .
Very few if any 'peado's will walk around with a D3 and a100 -400 zoom.
If I'm shooting where children are around I ask first but I usually carry at least2 Leicas and sometimes 3 and I've had parents ask me to take their kids pictures and I always carry some buisiness cards and some official ID.
Click to expand...
 
I had just the opposite reaction last week. I was returning home with my wife after a walk on the main shopping street in my neighborhood. A sudden rain squall blew in and quickly vanished. Turning towards the local school I thought the sky was dramatic and took my Rollei 35 XF out of my pocket pointing it at the school roof to capture the sky against the building. It was not particularly dramatic in the viewfinder and I realized that I would have been much better off with B/W film and an orange filter rather than the color print film I had so I turned away and repocketed the camera. My wife was laughing heartily. I thought she was laughing at me but that was not the case. It seems that when I produced the camera an elderly woman passerby thought I was going to take her picture and straightened her hair and also slowed down. When she saw me put the camera away she gave out sigh of dissapointment and disgust and walked away in a huff. I never even saw the lady.
Kurt M.
 
I had just the opposite reaction last week. I was returning home with my wife after a walk on the main shopping street in my neighborhood. A sudden rain squall blew in and quickly vanished. Turning towards the local school I thought the sky was dramatic and took my Rollei 35 XF out of my pocket pointing it at the school roof to capture the sky against the building. It was not particularly dramatic in the viewfinder and I realized that I would have been much better off with B/W film and an orange filter rather than the color print film I had so I turned away and repocketed the camera. My wife was laughing heartily. I thought she was laughing at me but that was not the case. It seems that when I produced the camera an elderly woman passerby thought I was going to take her picture and straightened her hair and also slowed down. When she saw me put the camera away she gave out sigh of dissapointment and disgust and walked away in a huff. I never even saw the lady.
Kurt M.
 
parsec1 said:
Very few if any 'peado's will walk around with a D3 and a100 -400 zoom.
Click to expand...

Very few people who are not "into" photography would recognise the kit you are talking about. All they will see ,at least the ones who have been charged-up by the telly & papers, is a bloke with a camera and "challenge" him in some way.

I have noticed that, probably because cameraphones are ubiquitous, no-one pays them, or their users, any notice at all.

There's the trick then, chuck away all your expensive kit and use your Nokia for the best in candid street snappery.
 
BillP said:
Interesting story.

It has made me think about how I behave in similar situations. I was at the Chinese New Year celebrations in London. I made a point of being as open and conspicuous as possible. I walked around the same small area for some time, shooting whatever caught my eye. I must have passed the same police officers half a dozen times.

I realise that I also consciously stood close to a group of officers to change films on more than one occasion. This was partly, again, to show that I had nothing to hide, but also, pragmatically, because I myself felt vulnerable at that point, with my hands full of body, film and baseplate. At no point did I attract any more than passing interest from the officers in question. I have no doubt that if someone had, as in your case, complained that I was taking inappropriate photos I would have been checked on, but I cannot help but feel that my openness would have counted in my favour.

Regards,

Bill
Click to expand...

100% agree the best way.........(Para) Evil will be to those that act evilily.
 
MickH said:
Very few people who are not "into" photography would recognise the kit you are talking about. All they will see ,at least the ones who have been charged-up by the telly & papers, is a bloke with a camera and "challenge" him in some way.

I have noticed that, probably because cameraphones are ubiquitous, no-one pays them, or their users, any notice at all.

There's the trick then, chuck away all your expensive kit and use your Nokia for the best in candid street snappery.
Click to expand...

'They' would recognise expensive equipment and perhaps ask you not to photograph their children which is fair enough but unless your hiding in the bushes or shooting from behind a tree you should be OK.
As for the 'trick' using a Nokia is an even easier way to snap children if thats your 'bent' !
 
Last edited:
Forgot... I have loads of children in my family so I'm not short of subjects and am not bothered about photographing other peoples.
Its a media fed frenzy that will stop when 'Global warming'does and as the 'hole in the ozone layer'has closed. BOOM BOOM
 
parsec1 said:
As for the 'trick' using a Nokia is an even easier way to snap children if thats you 'bent' !
Click to expand...

No no no no no no no no no....

I was attempting to make the point in a light hearted way that if you don't want any aggravation from the great unwashed, then use a Nokia for your street snappery. Because the bloody things are everywhere no one pays a blind bit of notice. Whereas walking around with a "proper" camera immediately draws attention, so the paranoid few will spot you straight away and make a fuss no matter how illogical. You are right in that if you wanted to be pervy and take dodgy pix, then the mobile phone camera is probably the best tool for the job for those very reasons.

It's a bit like going into the street with a drum and banging it every 30 seconds, people will complain, but noisy bus and taxi diesel engines running non-stop, belching out foul smelling sh1t will hardly draw a glance.

For heaven's sake, just go out, take the photo's you want, with the kit you want and expect a reaction every now & then.

Christ, have you seen the time? I've got to go to work in the mornng. G'nite.
 
OK Mick yes ofcourse I take your point but if you go into the street with the whole drum kit and act like Phil Collins your much less likely to attract the wrong sort of attention.

Peter
 
At the Diane Arbus retrospective at the Metropolitan Museum of Art a couple of years ago, they offered only one t-shirt for sale. An all black shirt with simple white text, emblazoned with a quote from Arbus: "One of the dangers of being in public is you might have your picture taken."
 
bmattock said:
You'll note that he was not shooting in any of those places either.

And the usual note as well - that *you* have not had any problem does not mean that there *is no* problem. Clearly, it happened to him.

You didn't go so far as to say he was 'asking for it' but you seem to be kind of implying that. Any thoughts on that matter?
Click to expand...

No criticism intended. I just wonder how come everyone else is having these problems and I'm not. Maybe it is because I live in the south, where everyone is a little more laid back?
 
FallisPhoto said:
No criticism intended. I just wonder how come everyone else is having these problems and I'm not. Maybe it is because I live in the south, where everyone is a little more laid back?
Click to expand...

My home and family are in Wilson, NC. I just happen to have to work (and lodge) in Detroit.
 
FallisPhoto said:
Any chance of lawsuits for libel or defamation?
Click to expand...

I am not a lawyer, but as I understand it, most governments (city, county, state) are immune to civil suit for that sort of thing. He could sue for false arrest or wrongful prosecution, but he wasn't prosecuted (so strike the second remedy) and to prove false arrest, one must prove it was done maliciously - ie , the cop knew he was wrong to arrest the man. Since I doubt that happened, no, I don't think he can do jack.

The various news organizations that reported on him and plastered his photo all over were careful too - they refer to his alleged crimes. That's not libel or slander.

I don't think there is much he can do except pick up the pieces of his shattered life. He can't even get his legal costs reimbursed.
 
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...

What if you use a mechanical camera?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom