Nikkor AIS
Nikkor AIS
KM 25 :I don't see how my subject has to be on my side? What does that have to do with photographers rights?
" I take pictures, I don't take side's. "
Disaster Area: Nice photo on you site. Your post on laws on nature cracked me up.
Gregory
www.rogaltacdesign@smug.mug.com
" I take pictures, I don't take side's. "
Disaster Area: Nice photo on you site. Your post on laws on nature cracked me up.
Gregory
www.rogaltacdesign@smug.mug.com
Disaster_Area
Gadget Monger
Street photography documents the everyday life of everyday people and is vital so that future generations know what life was like in the past. What if 2000 years from now all they have to see what the past was like is landscapes, macros, and studio portraits and images from TV and movies... would that give the future an accurate view of our life and times?
What if we didn't have the images captured by photographers during WWII... without those images we wouldn't be able to understand the horror and hardships of those times and be able to appreciate what really went on... what if we didn't have the images of HCB or Capa? Society and culture would be poorer for it. HCB probably didn't think much of a lot of his pics... just snaps at the mall... but today they're a cultural treasure. What wouldn't we give for street photography from ancient Rome... or Egypt... or Babylon... will people a thousand years from now wish they had picture of our lives?
I'm not saying every street photographer is a Capa or HCB... most aren't...but if there's no street photography there is no future Capa's or HCB's.
I'm not trying to be extremist... but it's a slippery slope... there's quite a while to go before street photography is dead... but wouldn't it be easier to stop things before they get out of hand? And what happens when it is dead... and no one's allowed to take pictures in public because of new privacy laws that prevent it... what will those people that were afraid of the creepy pedophile photographers think when they're not allowed to take a picture of their kid in a park? will it take their rights being taken away before they realize that maybe public photography isn't the villain they thought it was?
What if we didn't have the images captured by photographers during WWII... without those images we wouldn't be able to understand the horror and hardships of those times and be able to appreciate what really went on... what if we didn't have the images of HCB or Capa? Society and culture would be poorer for it. HCB probably didn't think much of a lot of his pics... just snaps at the mall... but today they're a cultural treasure. What wouldn't we give for street photography from ancient Rome... or Egypt... or Babylon... will people a thousand years from now wish they had picture of our lives?
I'm not saying every street photographer is a Capa or HCB... most aren't...but if there's no street photography there is no future Capa's or HCB's.
I'm not trying to be extremist... but it's a slippery slope... there's quite a while to go before street photography is dead... but wouldn't it be easier to stop things before they get out of hand? And what happens when it is dead... and no one's allowed to take pictures in public because of new privacy laws that prevent it... what will those people that were afraid of the creepy pedophile photographers think when they're not allowed to take a picture of their kid in a park? will it take their rights being taken away before they realize that maybe public photography isn't the villain they thought it was?
sjw617
Panoramist
What a pathetic post. Almost as bad as Roger saying Pavel's reaction is rational (unless it means something different in Europe than it does in America). It would be rational to show your credentials to educate people, not trying to make them think all photographers are a$$holes.
Steve
Disaster_Area
Gadget Monger
I'm not saying I agree with going by those laws of nature... just the opposite... I was just pointing out the ridiculousness of the text that I quoted there. I DO think we all need to respect each other and follow the laws we've all set out as a society as the rules to live by... I just don't agree with selectively applying those laws... or selectively ignoring those laws... we can't function as a society if that happens.
Pavel+
Established
Steve, try to get your brain around the fact that I as well as any other person with a camera have the right to photograph a public building, standing on public property. I am with accordance with the LAW and being harassed against the law. Showing my ID is pretending that I am doing something that only priveledged "official" photographers are allowed when in fact these freaked out vigilante anti-photography twits are unaware, uneducated and sanctimonious. They are the a$$holes.
I have the right under law to be there - badge or no. You have the right to be there. These self appointed arbiters do not have the right to accost anyone and while I feel sorry for them that they see a pervert around every corner - that needs not be my problem.
Same with security guards and the occasional cop. I have read up on the law here in my state and will not be bullied.
Is that hard to understand or something? Or do you just think everyone should be scared and apologetic? Hmmm? You sound like you apologize for breathing.
When they change the law then I will either not shoot if that is what the new hysteria demands or I will keep on shooting if only those with a badge can - and you can slink home.
I have the right under law to be there - badge or no. You have the right to be there. These self appointed arbiters do not have the right to accost anyone and while I feel sorry for them that they see a pervert around every corner - that needs not be my problem.
Same with security guards and the occasional cop. I have read up on the law here in my state and will not be bullied.
Is that hard to understand or something? Or do you just think everyone should be scared and apologetic? Hmmm? You sound like you apologize for breathing.
When they change the law then I will either not shoot if that is what the new hysteria demands or I will keep on shooting if only those with a badge can - and you can slink home.
Last edited:
KM-25
Well-known
Because the cat is out of the bag man, the world is full of wannabe street photographers and lets face it, you don't do it to put them in a brilliant light and make the world a better place, you do it because it is like hunting for sport.
So I am starting to be on their side, I am tired as hell as a working professional to keep trying to explain what YOU get out of posting photographs of people you DO NOT KNOW on the internet. I go through this every week man, it sucks!
You want to keep your rights or more importantly be able to walk? Start actually giving a **** about who you photograph and WHY you feel it is necessary to expose their personal likeness to the rigors of the internet.
What I meant by the laws of nature over the laws of government is that people are getting tired of being photographed and put on the internet without consent and from what I have seen emerge *in person* in the past 2-3 years is that the laws of nature might take over the laws of government in an instant and cause you, the photographer, harm.
If I were the lady whom Roger Hicks referred to as telling him to delete the photo, I would have kicked him in the groin and smashed his camera, the law of nature, not the law of government, end of story. I am a professional photojournalist working on a long term book project called "Kodachrome at 75". More and more I SEE and HEAR disturbing trends from calm, educated people who do NOT want to be on the INTERNET! Luckily, I have NO intent in putting them there and instead I feel like I am constantly cleaning up after the mess some idiot has made in terms of ramming his god damned rights down some poor soul's throat. I am TIRED as HELL of it, I love and care about people, it shows in my work, it shows in how I am easy to work with and how I conduct my self as a professional photojournalist.
Until you can see that giving before taking is the NEW way forward in street and or candid people photography, you have no future in this, NONE!
It is the year 2010 with 300 million people in the U.S. and the internet, not 1791 with 4 million people and no cameras, I don't see how on EARTH you could possibly think that ramming your 200+ year old rights down people's throats is the right thing to do in this day and age.
This is a sad, sad place and a sad day for the good name of photography, for you really do NOT give a crap about anyone else but your self and MAN can the world see it clearly baby!!!
And yes, I *am* as furious as I sound, because I believe in every problem lies an opportunity, but chanting about your rights and doing battle is NOT the way to go forward, it is giving us all a worse name than we actually deserve.
I have so ****ing had it!!
Last edited:
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Because they are rights. That means you don't surrender them to some fool who is shrieking about something that won't hurt them in even the tiniest way. This is a free society and if you assaulted me and smashed my camera, i'd press criminal charges against you and sue you for every goddamned thing you own. If you don't like living in a free society, I'd suggest you leave. We don't want you here.
Law of nature? The law of government will beat you on this one, I promise. Its called felony assault and battery and will get you a stretch in the state prison up here. Maybe its less civilized in Colorado, but thankfully not in the midwest.
As for why people take photos in the street and post them on their website? Its called art, you might look it up. The streets of this FREE country don't belong exclusively to you 'professional photojournalists'. They belong to all citizens.
Law of nature? The law of government will beat you on this one, I promise. Its called felony assault and battery and will get you a stretch in the state prison up here. Maybe its less civilized in Colorado, but thankfully not in the midwest.
As for why people take photos in the street and post them on their website? Its called art, you might look it up. The streets of this FREE country don't belong exclusively to you 'professional photojournalists'. They belong to all citizens.
Last edited:
KM-25
Well-known
No Chris, I am not going to leave my friend, I care about my rights too, that is one of the reasons I joined the military and served in the Gulf War.
But I will not stand for photographers and would be subjects taking a bad rap because people can't see that we are faced NEW problems with OLD rights. This is photography, it is supposed to be fun and be positive in it's overall outcome, not this waging of wars. But many of you for some really odd reason can not see that.
In my years as a PJ, I have been shot at, punched, spit on, had my old F5 an 17-35 smashed by a sheriff's deputy who is now a good friend and above all, I have learned to be entirely empathetic to everyone involved in a situation that might be a touchy exposure of likeness. Maybe that is why I can see this clear as day and you can not.
Times have changed, we have no other way but forward and to become much more empathetic to the people we photograph.
But I will not stand for photographers and would be subjects taking a bad rap because people can't see that we are faced NEW problems with OLD rights. This is photography, it is supposed to be fun and be positive in it's overall outcome, not this waging of wars. But many of you for some really odd reason can not see that.
In my years as a PJ, I have been shot at, punched, spit on, had my old F5 an 17-35 smashed by a sheriff's deputy who is now a good friend and above all, I have learned to be entirely empathetic to everyone involved in a situation that might be a touchy exposure of likeness. Maybe that is why I can see this clear as day and you can not.
Times have changed, we have no other way but forward and to become much more empathetic to the people we photograph.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Steve, what Disaster Area was saying about the law of nature isn't pathetic. It comes from 17th Century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes wrote that man living in a state of nature is is cruel, savage, uncivilized. This is because in nature you do anything it takes to survive, including murder and steal and (to pass on your genes) rape.
Hobbes didn't advocate living like this. On the contrary, he justified the existence of government as a curb on man's natural tendencies. He called it a social contract. Government provides rules that regulate our behavior (and enforces them through policing, jails, death penalty, etc), and we accept them because the rules protect us from violence.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I'm not a photojournalist and never will be. I mostly photograph old buildings, but it frightens me to see people advocating violence against photographers. Seriously, I can't see how anyone is harmed by being photographed in public. Some people out there are paranoid and stupid and think having their picture online will cause the devil to steal their soul or something. I don't care if someone takes my picture, everyone here knows who I am and what I look like anyway and even if I was unknown it wouldn't hurt me to be photographed. Now, if I were selling drugs I might take a different view of street photography, so I would certainly tell people to be careful who they take pics of.
A couple yrs ago, right after I came back to Indiana after living in New Mexico, I took the girl I was dating to a festival downtown. There's a big week-long festival here in Ft. Wayne every summer. I always take pictures of people there, and the girl I was with at the time was a photographer too. She saw a couple of cute little Asian kids sitting alone eating ice cream cones. No sign of mom & dad, so she snapped a photo of them. All of a sudden this huge 6+ foot 300lb muscular white dude who looked my dad's age get up in my friend's face (she's a little 5' tall woman) and starts screaming and cussing at her. Turns out he and his wife had adopted the kids from China. I was about ten feet away waiting in line with my son to buy an Elephant Ear. I'm tall, but skinny, and this dude was taller than me. The place crawled with police so I figured he wouldn't do something too stupid, he looked too middle class for that (the culture here is very class/culture conscious...going to jail would mortify them!). I walked over and said what's the problem sir? He starts threatening to sue us. Whatever. I told him that we were artists and told him some of the places we'd exhibited locally. I handed him my card and said call me or email me and we'll send you a print. I never heard from him or his lawyer. lol The pic really was cute too.
The guy and his wife did a really sweet thing adopting a couple of orphans from a poor country and giving them a nice life, but at the same time i wonder how they treat the kids of they treat strangers in such a nasty manner? I grew up in an abusive family that had money. Looking back, I'd rather have grown up poor than with my parents.
About your work experiences; that's terrible. I can't imagine people punching a news photographer. And a sherriff...that would never happen here. I live in a big city though, the police and sherriffs departments here are big bureaucracies with hundreds of officers. They don't do things like that because they'd be kicked off the force instantly, so you never see incidents like that. That would be scary...I guess being a war veteran would help you though, I'm a pussy! lol
Last edited:
KM-25
Well-known
Thanks for this Chris, it makes me feel a bit better about all of this. For what it is worth, I grew up in an abusive family too, but they were poor at the time, so I have been on my own since age 15, a great decision on my part.
But I really appreciate the story you told at the fair, it has been going on for many years, we just hear about it more because there are more people period.
I believe in what we all do, even if we are different. But the problem can not be denied, there many more camera using people now than ever before. Some of them are photographers and some are just plain folks with cameras. So with the internet, perceptions change and they are not going back to where they were.
We have to be the best voice of our cause, to leave something behind that speaks of this time in history ( if that is your cause ) but we have to be the first person in line to show that we care about people and what they want, regardless of laws.
Thanks again for your story Chris, it makes leaving this on a positive note easy for me.
Peace,
KM
But I really appreciate the story you told at the fair, it has been going on for many years, we just hear about it more because there are more people period.
I believe in what we all do, even if we are different. But the problem can not be denied, there many more camera using people now than ever before. Some of them are photographers and some are just plain folks with cameras. So with the internet, perceptions change and they are not going back to where they were.
We have to be the best voice of our cause, to leave something behind that speaks of this time in history ( if that is your cause ) but we have to be the first person in line to show that we care about people and what they want, regardless of laws.
Thanks again for your story Chris, it makes leaving this on a positive note easy for me.
Peace,
KM
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Chris,
Eloquently put.
I must say that 'kick him in the groin...smash his camera' is far more frighteningly arrogant than taking a picture of anyone.
Besides which, I'd like to know how to delete pictures on film.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Disaster_Area
Gadget Monger
To KM:
I know what you're getting at... I really do. I don't want to advocate at all that we all go fight for our rights by staging protests... taking pictures of people or places who don't want it just because we can or any other stretching of the rights right to the limit just to prove we're allowed to exercise them. I think we need to form an informal peaceful process. If every street photographer just took a little extra time and effort to be *EXTRA* polite... say hi.. show people their pictures... talk to people... strike up a conversation... smile etc... just generally go out of our way to show we're NOT creepy pedophilic stalkers I think we could help alleviate some of the paranoia.
And you're right... times have changed...but I don't think the rights of 200 years ago need to change. The internet is a fact of life and it's here to stay... period... get used to it. And people DO have a reason to be wary of it... but it's NOT the street photographers who're the problem. I work in the club industry as a photographer and one thing I have to be very mindful of is catching people in... exposed circumstances... and I do... a lot...without ever trying to... there's panties... and no panties for that matter flying everywhere. I'm good enough not to post these pictures but there are TONS of guys snapping away with cell phone cams on the sly, pictures that would make a hooker blush... everywhere you look there's guys with cell phones held at knee level. And there's TONS of websites that cater to that kind of "photography". And that's just one situation where the cell phone sneaker is ACTUALLY invading someones privacy... but it's the street photographer that's getting the bad rap because we're being lumped in with them... and we're a more visible target to bitch at. And there's a million guys with cell phone cams to every one street photographer... who's really doing more damage and ACTUALLY infringing peoples rights?
I know what you're getting at... I really do. I don't want to advocate at all that we all go fight for our rights by staging protests... taking pictures of people or places who don't want it just because we can or any other stretching of the rights right to the limit just to prove we're allowed to exercise them. I think we need to form an informal peaceful process. If every street photographer just took a little extra time and effort to be *EXTRA* polite... say hi.. show people their pictures... talk to people... strike up a conversation... smile etc... just generally go out of our way to show we're NOT creepy pedophilic stalkers I think we could help alleviate some of the paranoia.
And you're right... times have changed...but I don't think the rights of 200 years ago need to change. The internet is a fact of life and it's here to stay... period... get used to it. And people DO have a reason to be wary of it... but it's NOT the street photographers who're the problem. I work in the club industry as a photographer and one thing I have to be very mindful of is catching people in... exposed circumstances... and I do... a lot...without ever trying to... there's panties... and no panties for that matter flying everywhere. I'm good enough not to post these pictures but there are TONS of guys snapping away with cell phone cams on the sly, pictures that would make a hooker blush... everywhere you look there's guys with cell phones held at knee level. And there's TONS of websites that cater to that kind of "photography". And that's just one situation where the cell phone sneaker is ACTUALLY invading someones privacy... but it's the street photographer that's getting the bad rap because we're being lumped in with them... and we're a more visible target to bitch at. And there's a million guys with cell phone cams to every one street photographer... who's really doing more damage and ACTUALLY infringing peoples rights?
sjw617
Panoramist
Pavel, Simply because someone asks you question makes them a criminal? Asking a question is not harassment. You do not know exactly why you are being asked. Maybe there have been real threats against the child, maybe there has been trouble at that location before - kidnappings, abductions or assaults.
I do not apologize for breathing and don't take cr@p from some moron like you either. Your arrogance and purposely confrontational personality prove you are the a$$hole.
At those times you are given the opportunity to educate but chose not to. You choose to alienate people and give them a reason to fear photographers. It seem that you are the one who is "unaware, uneducated and sanctimonious".
Steve
wgerrard
Veteran
Street photography is a subset of the broader field of photography. The fact that we have a right to take photos is not going to mollify someone who doesn't want their or their child's picture taken. They've never heard of "street photography" and they don't care about our "art". They have no idea who the person with the camera is and what will be done with the photo. Reminding them that taking the picture is legal may win you a grudging acceptance, but it's unlikely to generate much support for photographers. Some, in fact, may decide to press to have the law changed.
I'm not advocating people stop taking pictures in the street. I am advocating a little less naivete.
The more important issue is the challenging of photographers by police and the legislation that stands behind and propels those challenges.
I'm not advocating people stop taking pictures in the street. I am advocating a little less naivete.
The more important issue is the challenging of photographers by police and the legislation that stands behind and propels those challenges.
Disaster_Area
Gadget Monger
And I don't think everyone... or even the majority of people are paranoid and afraid of street photography at least here in Canada. I've encountered very few people that actually have a problem with me while I was shooting, in fact most people are just curious or actually interested. I've sold quite a few prints from handing out cards on the street... and have had a lot of positive feedback... like the father of the kid in the shot below, all he had was a crappy P&S that was doing a terrible job.. so I offered to send him a digital copy of my shots...and he was thrilled, he thought it must be really interesting to just walk around and take pics of stuff. He didn't have any problem with what I was doing, even before I offered him a copy. The problem is it's not the hundreds of reasonable people that try to get cops or security involved... it only takes one unreasonable one to do that.
I just don't see how anyone can think a photo like this harms anyone. There's never been any documented evidence that any pedophile has ever found and started stalking a victim online, in fact the VAST majority of cases the pedophile already knows the victim personally as either friend/family/neighbor etc. It's just the society of fear that the US/UK have been trying to force on people... well my kid MIGHT be stalked by a pedophile online... ok.. well he MIGHT be molested by a teacher... so don't let him to to school... he might be molested by an uncle... so don't let him see relatives... I think there was a South Park episode to this effect that really drove the point home... it ended with all the adults leaving the kids alone in the town completely because any one of them could be a molester so it was just safer that all the adults left.
I think Benjamin Franklin put it best:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
especially those who would give up someone else's liberty to gain a bit of imaginary safety for themselves.
I just don't see how anyone can think a photo like this harms anyone. There's never been any documented evidence that any pedophile has ever found and started stalking a victim online, in fact the VAST majority of cases the pedophile already knows the victim personally as either friend/family/neighbor etc. It's just the society of fear that the US/UK have been trying to force on people... well my kid MIGHT be stalked by a pedophile online... ok.. well he MIGHT be molested by a teacher... so don't let him to to school... he might be molested by an uncle... so don't let him see relatives... I think there was a South Park episode to this effect that really drove the point home... it ended with all the adults leaving the kids alone in the town completely because any one of them could be a molester so it was just safer that all the adults left.
I think Benjamin Franklin put it best:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
especially those who would give up someone else's liberty to gain a bit of imaginary safety for themselves.
emraphoto
Veteran
"It is the year 2010 with 300 million people in the U.S. and the internet, not 1791 with 4 million people and no cameras, I don't see how on EARTH you could possibly think that ramming your 200+ year old rights down people's throats is the right thing to do in this day and age."
the problem is it is a RIGHT and some of us are unwilling to roll belly up under the guise of "security" or whatever fresh propaganda the machine is pumping out. regardless of your anger and assumptions.
when you have security and police forces acting contrary to laws and civil liberties THAT is indeed a problem that needs to be met head on.
the problem is it is a RIGHT and some of us are unwilling to roll belly up under the guise of "security" or whatever fresh propaganda the machine is pumping out. regardless of your anger and assumptions.
when you have security and police forces acting contrary to laws and civil liberties THAT is indeed a problem that needs to be met head on.
wgerrard
Veteran
Few, if any, posters here are advocating that we stop taking photos. I would argue, though, that -- for whatever reason -- some people are going to be offended when a stranger takes their picture. It's naive to imagine they will be made happy and content by that stranger's assertion that he is exercising a right. Running into hostile subjects is just one of the risks of street photography.
The issue of police challenging photographers because they feel directed to do so by legislation is a different issue.
emraphoto
Veteran
i agree 100% Bill. there are two totally different issues at hand here.
if you re-visit my post you will see that i am replying to km-25 directly. not the bulk of posters here and i agree, there are two issues here. if a discourse is needed (and that is debatable) regarding our conduct then so be it.
"The issue of police challenging photographers because they feel directed to do so by legislation is a different issue."
(^^^just to keep us on track^^^)
km-25 is touching on an issue that might just be valid. it is, however, a separate issue and i suggest that they might even be going about it all wrong.
if you re-visit my post you will see that i am replying to km-25 directly. not the bulk of posters here and i agree, there are two issues here. if a discourse is needed (and that is debatable) regarding our conduct then so be it.
"The issue of police challenging photographers because they feel directed to do so by legislation is a different issue."
(^^^just to keep us on track^^^)
km-25 is touching on an issue that might just be valid. it is, however, a separate issue and i suggest that they might even be going about it all wrong.