Int'l Asc. of Patriotic Street Photographers

I feel that this is an excellent idea. However, I'm uneasy with the word patriotic myself. Although I cherish (most aspects) the culture and the land of my Portuguese ancestors and love my life in Canada, I have a thing against nationalism. I like Pitxu's suggestion and I think it's on the right track. I also like the name - the use of the word 'sans' really does it for me. :)
 
This is a bad idea which won't work the way it is intended. Law officials will take one look at the IAPSP Membership card and see it as proof the photographer is a certified card carrying trouble maker. Things will go downhill from there.

Alex
 
Pitxu said:
Thanks Nando,
I have a problem with my own patriotism. My mother is Scots, my father Welsh, I was born in England, I married and had a son in Canada and am now living in the Basque Country.
Click to expand...

If you were living in Florida instead of the Basque Country, you would be the typical middle-class, white Canadian. :)
 
Pitxu,

Does one need to be a resident of France to join such an association?

If not, count me in please.

Gert

Canberra, Australia
 
OK... getting back to the original proposal.... I still have an issue with the concept of having to "profess to the authorities" that I am a patriot so that they leave me alone to do my photography.

Who will be in a position to "determine" or "judge" whether one is worthy of joining such association? If you have not passed the "police background check" (btw.. based on what criteria?), does that mean your rights as a photographer is less?

What is the true definition of being a "patriot" so that one can prove their worthiness?

Does being a member of this elitist association give me more photographic freedom than those not "deemed worthy"? What are the risks associated with this assumption?

and so on......
 
Pitxu,

I hope that you did not take my post personally - it was not intended that way.

It was purely a theoretical post based on principles. I can see that this thread may progress into a political one. I have my own strong views, but have kept them to myself and only referred to principles rather than real-life examples/perceptions.

I promise to refrain myself and no more posts for Hung on this topic :)
 
Good morning. This thread has taken a different direction, but one that I'm happy with. My initial thought was to make things easy, and cosying up to government by expressing patriotism, but I suppose that if we are going to do something, it may as well be with the highest intentions, above politics, and I think Pixtou has expressed those well in post 35. Let's keep going!
 
I've watched this develop with interest while simultaneously mulling it over from my own point of view. Here are my thoughts, for what they are worth,

Firstly thanks to Tripod for the original idea, and to Richard for running with it. If this is to work it has to be a robust and sensible concept that - critically - makes sense to the non-photographer.

We absolutely need principles, goals and aims - a "constitution", for want of a better word, and I am broadly in agreement with Richard's suggestions in post #35 above.

IMO, the best and most long-lived associations and movements work because they are FOR something, not AGAINST it. We should therefore be very clear that we are FOR the freedom to photograph, not AGAINST legislation to curb our activities. People sign up more readily, and are more sympathetic to, something that has an air of purpose, and a positive goal, than something that sounds like a protest movement.

Right now, we NEED people to play Devil's Advocate, like Hung. This has to pass the "ho hum" test, and add value, both to the individual members and to "society as a whole". We need people to be negative - to think of the "gotchas", because if we don't, someone else will, and this idea will founder at the outset.

Random thoughts:

- Avoid publicity until we have a clear idea of what we are doing

- Make it INTERNATIONAL - this will almost certainly mean having localisations of certain things, for example statements of photographer's rights - but it will be worth it. Not all countries have a "bill of rights" and, as we have seen already, the terms "liberal", "conservative" and "patriot" can be both positive and pejorative depending on context and audience, so therefore should be avoided. There will be others, no doubt.

- Avoid "celebrity" endorsements. One man's hero is another's nonentity, or worse, villain.

- Avoid any "branding" or affiliations with any one manufacturer

- Think outside the rangefinder box - we want to appeal to as broad a group as possible

- Consider a membership fee - both to defray running costs, but also to deter the "me-too" members who would join a milk bottle top if they thought there was something in it for free

- Consider a membership pack. I don't like the idea of a badge, per se, but a laminated card with, on one side, a statement of the aims, or constitution, and on the other, the words "I am a photographer pursuing a lawful pastime" in a number of languages would be useful (for example)

- Consider a "library" of photographers' rights in different countries, that could be downloaded in PDF format as requried

- Consider a network of volunteer advocates - people in each country who would be willing to assist a non-native speaking, visiting photographer, both with advice before arrival and with positive assistance if they run into trouble while in country

As I said, these are just random thoughts - feel free to disagree, I offer them as contributions to the "straw man".

Regards,

Bill
 
International Patriotism sounds like some kind of anarchist subtrefuge. You can't have international patriotism, by definition it has to be national.

From recent reports out of Iraq, I can just show my hairy back to prove that I'm not a suicide bomber. Who has to be completely shaved before going out on their mission? It sounds like some frat prank run horribly wrong.
 
The more I think about this, the less it works. First of all, like many others, I am not happy about the idea of having to 'pledge' anything to anyone, just in order to keep rights I already have. To do so is implicitly to recognize their authority to impose arbitrary rules and requirements. I will not do this.

Second, what the hell is a 'patriot'? Look at the Spanish Civil War and you'll see that both sides claimed the label with equal enthusiasm.

Third, precisely because I have been security vetted for both UK and US government jobs, and worked (in very minor capacities, but on military bases) for both governments, I am well aware of how shallow and potentially worthless most forms of vetting are.

Fourth, the whole things is all a bit too gung-ho for my taste. There is, I suspect, a major cultural difference here. Americans are used to the Pledge of Allegiance. To many Europeans, the sight of people chanting a formula like this is deeply uncomfortable and indeed suspect: who are they trying to convince?

So: what are we FOR? We are FOR things that have already been set out in numerous documents, national and international. Perhaps we need a gatefold leaflet with all relevant quotes from the Declaration of Human Rights on one side, and national quotes on the other.

People who travel may need several copies. Showing a stroppy copper quotes from an international organization will upset him enough, especially if he is acting outside his rights, as he will be; showing him quotes from another country will be worse, as he will simply say, "You're not in ______ [fill in country] now."

Cheers,

Roger
 
How dare you inject common sense into this! I take umbrage! I take offense! I take exception! And I take the silverware, if it isn't locked up.
 
Bill, Richard,

Much as I applaud your aims, I think Roger has hit the nail on the head.

It is difficult enough to get the English, Scots and Welsh to agree on laws these days, let alone trying to get something like the PSF (acronyms anonymous, her i come!) recognised across national boundaries. I would not want to even think about compiling a multi-national list of photographers' rights and trying to keep it up to date - there are just too many laws to include, and the potential for winding up a tired p**d off cop, with disasterous results, is just too real.

Here in the UK, we are supposed to be able to legitimately take a picture of anything that is in a public place - it used to be anything we could see from a public place, but that gets restricted because you can "see" too many government installations from public places (MI5 HQ, GCHQ, RAF bases, etc). This does not stop people from getting hassled and having their gear confiscated - OK, it normally gets handed back after a few hours, but often minus the film and, probably, plus a few scuff marks.

In France (I believe) you cannot take a picture of someone in a public place without their permission - Roger? In 3rd world countries it will be much different - I nearly got arrested in India for taking a shot that included an electricity distribution point!

I don't think there is an international panacea for what ails public photography, however hard we try. The best defence is to make sure you know the law for where you happen to be, remain polite and (in extremis) call a lawyer who speaks your language to bail you out!

Having said all of that, and to quote Groucho Marks (I think): "I wouldn't want to be a member of any club that would have me as a member". [sorry!]
 
Pitxu said:
To bring you up to date Roger.
We're not going to do any pledging, but we will be bound by the rules of the association if we wish to join.
We've dropped the "patriot" tag.
We would like to bring it to the attention of the general public and the forces of order that we are doing no harm by pursuing our hobby.
Click to expand...
Dear Richard,

I fully take all your points - you had yourself eloquently made the point about 'patriotism' - but I'm not sure what the 'rules' would or could be, which is where patriotism raises its head again.

Essentially, all we want to do is to keep the rights we already have; we are, therefore, inherently agaist the abuse of power.

As one of the principal attraction of power to some people seems to be the right to abuse it, we are therefore automatically seen by such people as 'against' them -- not as being 'for' the law and international declarations as they stand, which all right-thinking and well-informed people will want to keep.

In other words, we are looking at rapidly diminishing returns. Les us say that 90% of all police are reasonable, and indeed, on our side and that 9% will see reason with a polite reminder of our rights. The remaining 1% are unlikely to be persuadable by such an association, or by the production of a card or pamphlet.

I have been challenged in a number of countries, most recently in Romania and the UK, but in every case, the police have been civil. This was even the case on the most recent occasion, at Clacton:

Policewoman: "Excuse me, we have had a complaint from MacDonald's that you may have been taking pictures."

After asking her to repeat this, as I could not believe what I was hearing, I said (with a smile):

"Tough. This is a public place and they have no right to stop me. I have no wish to be rude to you, but it is none of their business."

Policewoman: "I fully understand that, sir, but perhaps I could ask, out of personal curiosity, why you are taking pictures."

Me: "Certainly, officer. I have some new lenses to try." (It was the Summarits)

Policewoman: "Thank you."

I then went and photographed McDo, very pointedly; I had not previously taken a single picture of their miserable emporium, in which (after all) I had no interest until that point.

No further questions or complaints from anyone.

Cheers,

Roger
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom