Is Martin Parr correct!? Should we fight back?

emraphoto said:
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.
Click to expand...

No problem with that.

FWIW, I don't think rights change over time. Everyone, everywhere, has always had the same rights. What changes are the social and government protection of those rights.

That said, someone who has lost their temper because you've taken their picture isn't a ready audience for an explanation of photographer rights. We run into these people, just as we run into people who lose their tempers for other inappropriate reasons. Returning fire won't substantiate our right to photograph. Best just to extricate yourself from the situation and move on.
 
And my only issue, in case it is not clear are the people who run up to you and either scream (rare but it has happened) from thirty feet away "Hey ... there is no photography here" or some derivate of that or come up to you (this happens more often) and tell you that you need to leave because this is a school. For the 85% who come up to me and ask me what I'm doing - those are not the issue here.

Perhaps it is a matter of how we here at the forum define our words. There are those, in the minority to be sure, but still present, and getting more numerous, who create conflict. They are bullies who feel justified to save the world from someone and a photographer happens to be handy. So they come at me with an aggresive attitude or a demanding attitude. The first one I tell nicely that I have the right to be there. Why is not the issue. I am not mistaken in that fact - I've double checked and I tell them once and in a nice simple way "I have the right to be there".

If you then proceed to get in my face, I won't back down and wont simper about it anymore than if I or you happened to be in a supermarket buying a steak and someone who gets offended by eating meat seeks to stop me.

Which of you would not be outraged by someone walking behind you haranguing you about that sirloin in your shopping cart? That is the extent of what I am speaking to.
Just because it is becoming frequent does not give any legitimacy to it.

For those who have not had this happen, I say - great. Enjoy it. Perhaps you chose safer targets. I'm perfectly entitled to eat steak and take pictures in a lawful way. If you don't like that ... change the law ... or leave the poor chap with the camera alone.
Push me, and I will push back. Because I don't intend to lose my rights to self appointed do good, uneducated goons.

There is one more thing to address. I don't know how it is in Britain or other countries but I know that in Canada and the US, taking pictures is not the issue. It is how their are used. It is enshrined in our laws that photos in public places where expectations of privacy don't exist and where further there is no belittlement or embarrassment that is of an intentional nature - that if those photographs are used in an editorial fashion rather than for comercial purposes - then there are NO permissions of any sort needed. No releases, no "please pretty please" requests. That is the way it is and it does not apply ONLY to press.

Change the law or deal with it. But don't bother me over it. I promise not to harangue you over that steak in you cart. ;)

----
Well, thats enough for me. It is almost enough to make me cancel my order for a rangefinder. I even got threats once when I posted a picture of my daughter once. Told I was an irresponsible parent for being so reckless. One guy told me (seriously) that it will be on my head if she gets kidnapped and raped. THis was at a RACING forum.

This I believe was the offensive post"
IMG_1.jpg


Where does it end?
 
KM 25

Like I said I don't take sides I take picture's. I sincerely feel that street photography is a legitimate art form. Im documented some truly horrible images in the last 25 years , some beautiful moments as well. Many are yet unpublished but when they are in the new year not everyone will be happy that there image is out in print. Should that stop me from publishing them? This discussion is evolving into usage and i feel no remorse at all in publishing my images. Photography is not a popularity contest. If you don't want your picture taken stay in your house and lock your doors and close the windows. But if your step outside into public places there is a chance that a photographer may snap an image of you in unguarded moment in time. And I still have the right to publish them in any manner I see fit. And that can in books /posters/ or God forbid on the net.





Gregory
 
Pavel+ said:
I even got threats once when I posted a picture of my daughter once. Told I was an irresponsible parent for being so reckless. One guy told me (seriously) that it will be on my head if she gets kidnapped and raped.
Click to expand...


Pavel, the internet acts as a stupidity and paranoia multiplier.
 
Every cell phone has a camera and everyone has a cell phone.

So let's be clear. Taking photographs is not banned. Getting caught taking photographs is banned.
 
Bill said:
Changing the behavior of ordinary people motived by fear is likely almost impossible.

This isn't happening because the police crave power and seek to oppress people. It's happening because people are scared. Whether you or I think they have a reason to be scared is irrelevant. That fact is that they are scared. That fear is the reason rent-a-cops chase down photographers in shopping malls and city streets. It's the reason parents see any photographer as a potential child molester. And, it's the fear that nourishes the legislation that empowers and motivates the real police to hassle photographers.
Click to expand...

Couldn’t agree more with you Bill. Street photography is at the pointy end of people’s fear. The two evils of terrorism and paedophilia generate enormous fear, and politicians and bureaucrats were – and are – under pressure to be seen to be doing something about both.
That’s not as easy as it sounds. What’s easy is to hastily enact repressive laws that give the average citizen the impression that the authorities are doing something and taking it seriously. Photographers are vulnerable because both government and the mass media linked photography to both evils. See the If You Suspect It – Report It poster in Dave Wilkinson’s post earlier, and read the media reports that photographs were taken of potential victims including Madeline McCann so that paedophile gangs could select the next child they wanted. Or look at media reports about paedophilia which usually include references to photographs, hard drives and internet.
A fearful population is a compliant population – something Josef Goebbels worked out long ago. What does a terrorist or a paedophile look like? No-one knows, we certainly don’t want to contemplate that it might be someone who looks just like us, that’s a really scary thought, but there’s someone over there taking pictures near important buildings or children, and we know that both types of threat take pictures because the government and the media tell us. In the public mind, photographers are to be feared and suspected unless they appear obviously innocuous, someone they can identify with – such as a tourist, a mum and dad snapping with kids in tow, or someone who smiles at them.
Now more than ever, it’s probably advisable to be polite and respectful of people when taking photos in public, because like it or not, we are living in a climate of induced fear. And the more fearful our societies become, the more our freedoms will be eroded in the name of protecting us.
Being respectful, polite and firm, and ensuring you are familiar with the laws relating to photography in public places in your part of the world is probably your best defence against emotional responses and generalized fears.
In the UK and in Australia there have been movements to publicise the idea that photography is not a crime. I think another strong message needs to be sent: We Are All Photographers. Everyone. Every dad, every mum, every kid with a cell phone. See that photographer being harassed? That could be YOU or your kid later today, tomorrow or next month. These public awareness campaigns will help challenge, and hopefully change, perceptions that have already been shaped by government and mass media.
I get concerned when an Australian camera clubs organization considers the issue of special identity cards to members to deflect confrontations with private security guards and members of the public. Such a move would disadvantage non-members, but more importantly, would legitimize the perception that street photography is unlawful unless some sort of official identity paper or permit is carried.
Public photography protects freedom. It enables identification of abusers of power and civil rights. It also creates a valuable public record of how we live. The debate about public photography should not be defined by the small proportion who behave unlawfully or who pose a threat to safety.
 
Lynn writes:

"What does a terrorist or a pedophile look like? "

​
I can tell you exactly what their neurons look like, and hence predict their behaviors, which are genunie behaviors, and not contextualizations-- check in with me later.

John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom