In defence of taking pictures of people surreptitiously.

goamules said:
It doesn't. It's called "schooling" bad behavior. It's what Mothers and Fathers, the extended family, the neighbors, the community used to do. When brash, arrogant people decided their individual arbitrary "rights" (desires) were more important than social norms, it's what happened.

It comes from a time when a man had to defend his actions in public. Not hide behind cops and law. The community policed bad behavior. Which of course, points out that laws came from the community and community values, from tribal times to today. So, if you are "bothering someone" by snapping pictures in their face, yelling at the top of your lungs in a museum, splashing water in a strangers face at the swimming pool, you will occasionally meet someone who takes matters into his own hands. And doesn't allow his rights to the pursuit of happiness to be trammeled by someones interpretation of "law".

Like this example: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...menaced-entire-plane-broke-bathroom-door.html
Click to expand...


Im sorry, what century have you just arrived from because this is a complete load of garbage, and has been for a very long time...
 
There should have been way more real photos to be discussed in this thread. Without them, it seems to me that focus shifts away from what we all (hopefully) here love: Real life and photography.

For example, when I see a candid night shot of someone having a shag around a pub's corner, or someone throwing up or pissing between two parked cars, or someone lying drunk on the sidewalk..., I tell myself "this is documentary photography that speaks about our time", but at the same time I ask myself "would I have dared to shoot it?" - Photographers like Daido Moriyama, Anders Petersen and others do dare, and I admire them for that.
 
daveleo said:
To me, this is the pivotal question here. And I don't think that it asks about photographers legal rights. It's a social / ethical question.
Click to expand...

So then what is everyone's ethical system by which they determine whether or not surreptitious photography is ethical?

That is the real meat and potatoes that goes missing here. Everyone mentions that something is unethical, which is fine, but then you need to explain precisely why it is unethical.

From the sound of most of these responses, it seems that something is unethical because emotions have told you so (emotivism). And this is where people mix 'being nice' with ethics.

I explained a bit about Jonathan Stuart Mill's attitude and how, according to his utilitarian system, street photography wouldn't be unethical (until the point at which you cause physical or mental harm).
 
pagpow said:
2) The topic of this thread is of personal interest to me as it has tested a long time friendship. One day, hanging out with two married friends who were not having a great day, we sat in silence on the grass in a park. As conversation was awkward and I didn't want to get crosswise with them, I started shooting photographs. Several of them were of the pattern made by the woman's lower legs, from the knee down, nothing remotely salacious, and hardly hidden. At some point, she demanded my camera, and unknownst to me, began deleting photos.
Questions:
1) is this example relevant to this discussion?
2) was I in the wrong to take the pictures?
3) was she in the wrong to delete them without asking?
4) am I in the wrong to be (still) angry about this?
Click to expand...

To answer your questions:
1) It's relevant in that someone was upset by your photographs and this thread discusses photography that is upsetting to some. It's not relevant in that it wasn't surreptitious.
2) Nope. You were just doing something that comes naturally to you. You couldn't have been aware of her insecurities.
3) Interesting question. Not sure. I would be inclined to say she was in the wrong to delete your photos without permission but then you took photos of her without her express permission.
4) Yes. This seems so minor in the grand scheme of things that there's no reason to hold onto anger about it.

My wife deletes loads of photos that I have taken of her. At first I hated it, but now I don't care. Did you miss out on that prize-winning shot because she deleted that photo?

Some people are just very particular about how they look in photos. And some people are not. Also, it's interesting how media needs to be 'curated' these days and people's desire to make sure their media is highly curated.
 
GeorgeH said:
You folks do realize that there are people in this world who are very angry and very capable of physically hurting you, don't you? I sincerely hope that none of you consequences-be-damned types get your bubbles burst by getting in the wrong person's face.
Click to expand...

You are totally correct!

But this has been said before by you and others. We are adults here, we understand the responsibility and there's no need to repeat yourself.

You can get hurt for a lot of things in this world.

So now onto the interesting question - Do you find it unethical to take someone's photo surreptitiously? If so, explain why. And if someone physically hurts you for doing so, is this ethical?
 
Sorry if this appears twice - but the forum software said I wasn't previous logged in.

I don't want to hijack this thread, but I have several questions that have been worrying me.

I take many street pictures. None of them are salacious, I believe, and all of them were taken in public places. They show recognisable individuals whom I have not spoken to. Most are taken in Canada, where I live.

So here are my questions: can I legally show these photographs on the Web? Can I include them in a book, or an e-book? Can I show them in galleries?

Would the answer depend on whether I to ask for money for the pictures?

I've checked the Web for answers, but I'm not sure of the replies I've received so far. Is a lawyer the only solution?

I look forward to hearing from you.
All the best,
Big Ursus
 
Big Ursus said:
So here are my questions: can I legally show these photographs on the Web? Can I include them in a book, or an e-book? Can I show them in galleries?

Would the answer depend on whether I to ask for money for the pictures?

I've checked the Web for answers, but I'm not sure of the replies I've received so far. Is a lawyer the only solution?
Click to expand...

There's gotta be some resources on the web to help.

Also check a 'model release' for the country of Canada. That could give you some clue as to what rights are being released.

Common sense would say that you can post on the web. If you make a lot of money from a photo with someone's face on it, then that could spell trouble. Otherwise you'll probably be fine.
 
I am a bit late to find this thread but want to say I am astonished to find Goamules equating drunken behavior and the assaulting of crew members and passengers on a flight with someone taking his and his family's picture in public! And will he also want to beat up anyone who looks at him/them in public? How ridiculous is that?
 
I feel that I have the right (legally in public in the US) to photograph in public. However, I think a person has the right to ask me not to photograph them.

Not sure what you'd like me to moderate. People are just giving their opinions (however, rough some might be).
 
I think this whole thing is a little absurd. If you think about it, the question really revolves around private vs. public existence. Can you expect privacy in public? That doesn't even make sense. Look up the definitions. If you go out in public, you must put up with other people sharing your space. I don't know anything about the law, but my own sense of morality would
say "Do what you want as long as you don't hurt someone else". I don't think taking a picture of someone is hurting them. Some might be slightly annoyed by it but, come on. I might be annoyed by someone on the bus who hasn't bathed, but am I going to sue them or attack them for that? Of course not. It's just part of public life.
 
Shirley Creazzo said:
I am a bit late to find this thread but want to say I am astonished to find Goamules equating drunken behavior and the assaulting of crew members and passengers on a flight with someone taking his and his family's picture in public! And will he also want to beat up anyone who looks at him/them in public? How ridiculous is that?
Click to expand...

I have seen the "don't look at me" experience in NYC, where a man is led off in handcuffs, while his wife begs, and his children cry. I always wonder why some men so want to spend the night at Rikers Island or the Tombs?
 
Shirley Creazzo said:
I am a bit late to find this thread but want to say I am astonished ... equating drunken behavior and the assaulting of crew members and passengers on a flight with someone taking his and his family's picture in public! ...
Click to expand...

Shirley, you need to read this whole thing in context. A lot of my comments have been tongue in cheek. But I was replying directly to the comment "I shoot and I don't owe any explanations to nobody. If they have a problem with getting photographed, they can wear a burka or stay home." That is arrogant, strongarm tactics - saying "if you don't like it, I DARE you to stop me." With that type of attitude, it can and DOES escalate to stopping the person.

The drunk on the plane was analogous to this type of arrogant attitude. The belief that you, as a photographer, have more important goals than the individual you are violating.

Yes, you have a right to take pictures in public. I don't deny that. What I'm talking about is if someone is obviously uncomfortable, or asks you to stop, you should. If you are professional and polite, there is no problem with street photography. If you are an arrogant photo bully, like the ones that killed Princess Di, you deserve what you get.
 
goamules said:
Shirley, you need to read this whole thing in context. A lot of my comments have been tongue in cheek.
Click to expand...

You might want to reread your post -- not clearly tongue in cheek, it reads as very violent.

If someone doesn't want to explain why he's taking pictures of me or my children, I don't have a problem with taking his camera from him and making him eat it.

I'm waiting for the day someone fly's a hobby drone over my house or camp....with my 12 Guage.​


Now everyone please leave the suggestions of violence out of this thread.
 
I meekly admit to being a sneaky old pervert, and an arrogant prick to boot.

Lots of people are uncomfortable around cameras, and if I can, I try not to exacerbate that discomfort, flatter them with a winning smile, shoot as fast as I can, and say thank you.

But however much I can empathise with people who have a mechanical eye pointed at them, Ned's 'arrogant' attitude feels right to me. I am a photographer, not a paparazzo, not a pornographer. I choose what is worth shooting, I choose what is worth showing. If I can see it, I can shoot it. If I get it wrong, I'm stuck with a photograph I daren't show. People who yell at me for taking photos are being silly and boorish. They may not know I have the best intentions from seeing me, but to assume bad intentions is insulting.

In a culture where vapid celebrity is adored, people get the notion that photography is about exposing nipples, belly-buttons and rear cleavage. It is not (always). And people get an inflated idea of the importance of being seen in a photograph. Talk about arrogance.

While millions of images are being produced, very few people actually look at them. 30 years ago, when the neighbour invited you to a slide show of his last vacation, you went to drink his alcohol and ogle his wife, not to see another shot of a boy with a monkey on a donkey. Very few people take an active interest in looking at photographs, and those who do must be very selective : too much good work is being produced, no one can follow it all.
Statistics for my blog show that I have less than ten people actually looking at what I publish. And I am arrogant enough to think that I produce work that is not entirely uninteresting.
We may click the like button for a baby picture of a cousin, but we rarely bother to look.

If someone points a camera at you, and you don't like it, make a face. Maybe that will make the photo worth looking at.

cheers
 
goamules said:
Shirley, you need to read this whole thing in context. A lot of my comments have been tongue in cheek. But I was replying directly to the comment "I shoot and I don't owe any explanations to nobody. If they have a problem with getting photographed, they can wear a burka or stay home." That is arrogant, strongarm tactics - saying "if you don't like it, I DARE you to stop me." With that type of attitude, it can and DOES escalate to stopping the person.

The drunk on the plane was analogous to this type of arrogant attitude. The belief that you, as a photographer, have more important goals than the individual you are violating.

Yes, you have a right to take pictures in public. I don't deny that. What I'm talking about is if someone is obviously uncomfortable, or asks you to stop, you should. If you are professional and polite, there is no problem with street photography. If you are an arrogant photo bully, like the ones that killed Princess Di, you deserve what you get.
Click to expand...

Goamules - sorry for the delay in responding. Tho' I was late to the thread I read every post before commenting on yours. The context was quite clear. You may not have liked the arrogant response from one poster, but that does not excuse your attitude toward all photographers.

I don't think you have any more right to ask a photog to stop shoot'g than you have to ask someone to stop looking. Having your picture taken in public is not being violated. That is nonsense.

And photographers did not "kill Princess Di." A bit of a stretch on your part I think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
  • Featured
  • Article Article
How I got into Photography in 1956: No digital, no internet, just people! A geeky kid with a passion for pictures earns his chops the hard way!
Replies
9
Views
292
Godfrey
Godfrey
Back
Top Bottom