For what it's worth...

[Micky D]

But by all means, ask permission before you take any photo if it makes you feel better.

Not "take", but "publish".

 

[bmattock]

It's just so hard to tell...

 

[ruben]

I must agree that my position here, in posting the photo, though legally defensible, is not entirely ethically and morally defensible, and in retrospect I suppose that it would have been better for me not to have posted the photo here. I don't consider it a great moral lapse, though, mostly because the subject accosted me with outright lies in an effort to intimidate me. In addition, if she is indeed a photojournalist, and I believe she probably is, she knows better. I don't react well to intimidation, and I admit there was something of the vindictive in my response (e.g., posting it here). I may have annoyed her, but I did nothing to harm her, and her response was to threaten and berate me with a bunch of authoritarian crap. It was tit for tat, nothing to be proud of, but no great occasion for shame, either.
...........

For this you are most welcome. Furthermore, I wish I could be more explicit in disasociating your former post at the deleted thread, from the circus that followed.

Now let's clarify some further issues

Q: When did you claim to be the victim ?
A: At the title of your thread.

Q: Why you enforced your will ?
A: Because you refused to follow,by some way or another, her will.

Q: How do you happen to fight for your rights to photograph in the streets vis a vis a common woman, or to be more accurate, an equal to you ?
A:

Cheers and my most kind appreciation for having showed here to a great extent a good dosis of self criticism

Ruben

 

[acheyj]

Ruben, Keith. Well stated !
I guess it comes down to good taste and manners and if they are not present NO argument will hold sway. Its a sad state if a bill of rights is needed, because it usually means the above two have to be enforced with an iron fist.

ron

 

[ruben]

...........

But by all means, ask permission before you take any photo if it makes you feel better.

Now you jump to the other extreme.

Very few times I ask permission. But when I find a negative reaction I smile and show symphaty for the subject request. It's easy, believe me.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[bmattock]

Now you jump to the other extreme.

Very few times I ask permission. But when I find a negative reaction I smile and show symphaty for the subject request. It's easy, believe me.

Cheers,
Ruben

I stick out my tongue at them and sneer. Then I take the photo and run away laughing.

 

[arthur sadowsky]

...dear "mabelsound",

I guess what I was trying to say is that Street Photography (just as any other human activities not regulated by local laws and etc.) comes with self responsibilities, including ethical responsibilities.

Once again - it's just my personal opinion,

respectfully yours...

 

[ruben]

Ruben, Keith. Well stated !
I guess it comes down to good taste and manners and if they are not present NO argument will hold sway. Its a sad state if a bill of rights is needed, because it usually means the above two have to be enforced with an iron fist.

ron

Hi Ron,
I don't think I can prevent you from behaving as you would like to. It is up to you only.

Good taste, good manners, common sense, are all at the eye of the beholder, therefore no iron fist can help here or elsewhere.

No one, nor any iron fist will ever be able to stop you from bad taste, bad manners, or unrestrained behaviour.

Your choice

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[Gumby]

A lot of cross dressers are 'straight men' with wives families etc ... so you assume cross dressing and homosexuallity are one and the same maybe?

That was my point, Keith. You just said it more directly. I thought for a moment that you considered crossdressing to be the exclusive pleasure of the LBGT community.

 

[Keith]

That was my point, Keith. You just said it more directly. I thought for a moment that you considered crossdressing to be the exclusive pleasure of the LBGT community.

I'm glad we cleared that one up! 😀

 

[Gumby]

Um, Keith already did when he mentioned tranvestites.

Good point. 😱

 

[dazedgonebye]

That's a great interesting ethic issue for me. Do you have a legalistic approach to people around, or do you also have a scale of values of your own, by which you look to be fair.

Do you use to take advantage by seeking breaches in the Law, or do you have a dignifyied personality with a restricting moral code.

If you are in the legalistic stuff, then don't cry me a river when unjust laws restricting freedom of photography are passed and enforced by the brutal force of police stick.

If you are in the fairness ground, you will find friends to fight back for what common sense justice demands.

Cheers,
Ruben

So, if I don't restrain myself to the bounds of a moral code (someone's, anyone's?) then I should be ready for a code to be enforced by the police stick? We then, how moral am I if I'm only well behaved to avoid potential oppressive laws?
Personally, I'm very shy about photographing strangers. I was raised in a very rigidly moral home and that sort of behavior would be out of bounds. I wish I could get over it, and I have loosened up a bit.
In any case, that others should want to shoot people in public is their business and, currently, constitutionally protected over here.
As long as the discussion is about how polite people behave, I'm on the side of not shooting/publishing when the subject would prefer I did not.
If it goes to legal right and wrong and something like 'you better be polite or we'll pass a law that makes you polite,' then I've got a serious, serious problem with that.

 

[ruben]

You know, dangit... I'm going to hunt down every stanger I've ever photographed and ask them if they don't mind, but I've posted their picture without permission on the internet....

well, not even a chance...

Sorry Memphis but you are escaping the real question here: If explicitely asked at the street by a common person not to photograph her or him - would you respect her/his will - or not ?

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[crawdiddy]

Several posters have overlooked the fact that the OP (mabelsound) had already exposed the photograph before the subject indicated she didn't want to be photographed.

And as he stated, the subsequent assertiveness, and attempts to intimidate are probably the reason he posted the photo in the first place.

I read the original thread, and I don't believe mabelsound claimed to be victimized. He merely reported an interesting street-photography anecdote.

I can understand that Stephen does not wish to spend his money defending lawsuits. But I still think the chilling effect on the exercise of free speech is unfortunate.

 

[Al Patterson]

You do not have the right to publish without permission.

Publishing without permission and then questioning the subject's gender and/or sexual preferences ........

Understood. I have no intention of publishing anything unless I have the proper model releases. I do not need them if all I do is show other photographers my work in a club or photo contest setting.

 

[ruben]

So, if I don't restrain myself to the bounds of a moral code (someone's, anyone's?) then I should be ready for a code to be enforced by the police stick? We then, how moral am I if I'm only well behaved to avoid potential oppressive laws?
..............

I have been very clear in that the moral code you behave by should be your own, as you interpret it, instead of a formalistic legal one.

I have been very clear too, in that if you like to opt for a challenging attitude, then keep it for challenging oppression, which most of the times will meet you with greater forces than yours.

How moral you are ? How can I know it ? Who can know it beyond yourself ?

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[Al Patterson]

But still there is common sense, specially when a person asks you not to do it. And if you lack common sense, then appeal to your good manners.

Cheers,
Ruben

If they "ask" me rudely after I have taken the picture, then common sense tells me to get the heck outta there, and they have pushed me to a point where they are unlikely to see my good side...

And yeah, I'm glad that thread was deleted.

 

[Micky D]

I read the original thread, and I don't believe mabelsound claimed to be victimized.

No?

"ATTACKED!! on Ffith Avenue!"

 

[Al Patterson]

Apart from having a national debt greater than all the third world combined, are you now or have you ever been a member of the "I don't like what you think" party?

Like Bill, I've belonged to every party I can think of at some point of my life, except I didn't join the UFU (United Facists Union) when they were looking for recruits....

 

[slm]

i have to re-iterate (from the nuked vs. of this conversation).
there is a point we are missing here... there is a growing public discomfort with photographers in the street and certainly that would include all us street photographers.
we are doing our self a great disservice by contributing to the already growing public mistrust. it would take very little at this point for public opinion to support a complete ban on photography in the streets. yes, currently the person in question had no legal ground to stand on however with events of late in the UK that legal "right" can change very, very quickly.

That's a very good point.