Just because you can, doesn't mean you should

[Roger Hicks]

Completely agree, fantastic way to look at it.

Another vote for Lukitas's viewpoint.

Cheers,

R.

 

[peterm1]

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh but then you see I have found through out my life that my problem is that just because I shouldn't does not mean I won't!

 

[Michael Markey]

I`m sure that we are all polite and considerate.
However I sometimes wonder in cases where people are being over restrictive that it may in some way reflect their own timidity in such matters.

How would the work of , say , Don McCullin look in retropect if you applied the the sort of constraints advocated by the OP.

Another endorsement of Lukas`s view.

 

[Sid836]

Somewhere in this thread I have read that "we have the legal right to take photographs of anyone or anything in public". Don't know about everywhere else, but in EU you don't! You need the consent of the person you want to take a photo of prior to doing so.
If you live in EU and stump upon somebody that does not like it, you'd be better aware of this.
Go to http://www.echr.coe.int/ and look for "consent to photograph", or narrow your search down to "Factsheet: Right to one's own image".

 

[sjones]

Isn't photography all about voyeurism? About taking home what you see?
Courtesy and discretion is all very nice, but if you are a photographer, what you do is making photographs. Sometimes courtesy and discretion are misplaced. Sometimes the whole point of the photograph is that it is discourteous, that it is indiscreet. Should HCB have just put away his camera when he saw the kid with the wine bottles? Should the soldiers who liberated the concentration camps have refrained from documenting what they saw? How about war photography? Was it wrong for Eugene Smith to shoot a mother in the bath with her deformed child? Is it unseemly to photograph fat people, or weird people? Should Diane Arbus be censored?

I don't have all that much experience at candid photography, but I think a smile, a nod and maybe a thank you should suffice, after you have taken the shot. And if you snap something funny, the people in the shot may be embarrassed, but that doesn't really count. A good joke about the pope and the president is a good joke, wether they are embarrassed or not.

What strikes me is that those who call for discretion and courtesy must have had a polite upbringing, whereas those who react badly to photographers usually have no manners to speak of (at least from what I can glean of discussions of this topic, and my meagre experience). If someone has bad manners, doesn't he deserve to be exposed in a photograph?

Restricting oneself from taking candids of children, sleepers or homeless people is just wrong. Homelessness is rising at such a fast rate, it is high time somebody did some serious documenting on this social phenomenon. I have a friend who is building a gigantic project called 'Sleepers on the train. Fascinating work. Sleepers may be funny, but they are always innocent. And what is so wrong about photographing children? Over-protective parents? Children are just great subjects : lively, unpredictable, and mostly a lot of fun.

What is wrong with us, that we should want to restrict ourselves in these silly ways. Next it'll be wrong to photograph clouds, for fear of offending the owner of a satellite that was overhead at that time.

Photography is a hobby for me; I'm not a documentarian, not a photojournalist. I don't believe that the mere process of holding a camera forces me to adopt these positions or responsibilities.

As for what restrictions I place on myself are personal, and to say that they are "silly" or to ridicule them in any other way is ludicrous; I'll choose the subject matter, not anyone else. Besides, what I do is already invariably 'rude' to an extent, so I'm not going to apologize for trying to interject some consideration or discretion into the process.

Moreover, as I made clear, I'm not calling on anyone else to adopt my personal approach; you want shots of homeless folks or children, I can assure you, the Internet is replete with such photos.

And frankly, I have little interest in taking photos of children irrespective of how lively they might be. Again, I function on a personal agenda based on that which with I'm comfortable. I'm not out to appease the agendas of you, the press, or anyone else.

If anyone wants photos of the down and out, go out and photograph them yourself; I'm not stopping you.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Somewhere in this thread I have read that "we have the legal right to take photographs of anyone or anything in public". Don't know about everywhere else, but in EU you don't! You need the consent of the person you want to take a photo of prior to doing so.
If you live in EU and stump upon somebody that does not like it, you'd be better aware of this.
Go to http://www.echr.coe.int/ and look for "consent to photograph", or narrow your search down to "Factsheet: Right to one's own image".

Um... My reading says pretty much the exact opposite to your conclusions.

Cheers,

R.

 

[sanmich]

Some people will always fear you and your camera are spying on them, documenting something for the wrong reasons. recently I have been threatened by a guy that thought that I was a private detective. I can't know in advance if the person in my picture have recently misplaced his penis, right?
Or I was threatened and physically bullied, because I apparently was a bit insistent on a street corner that appeared to be a drug station. How could I know?
So, I don't voluntarily look for trouble, avoid shooting in criminal areas, or people that may be offended because they have something special in them (homelesses, handicapped etc. These pictures strike me as the most vulgar type of voyeurism anyway, extremely disrespectful and are rarely interesting). But once I stay in what is for me the limits of normal politeness and decency, if the other part is offended, it's ITS problem, not mine.

 

[j j]

This is very well put... "but I think a smile, a nod and maybe a thank you should suffice"

But this leaves me baffled... "Restricting oneself from taking candids of children, sleepers or homeless people is just wrong." Take such photos if you wish but why is it wrong not to do so?

 

[Sid836]

Um... My reading says pretty much the exact opposite to your conclusions.

Cheers,

R.

Read closer:
"[A] person’s image constitutes one of the chief attributes of his or her personality, as it
reveals the person’s unique characteristics and distinguishes the person from his or her
peers. The right to the protection of one’s image is thus one of the essential
components of personal development. It mainly presupposes the individual’s right to
control the use of that image, including the right to refuse publication thereof …” (von
Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) judgment of 7 February 2012, § 96).
“[F]reedom of expression includes the publication of photos … This is nonetheless an
area in which the protection of the rights and reputation of others takes on particular
importance, as the photos may contain very personal or even intimate information
about an individual or his or her family …” (von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) judgment
of 7 February 2012, § 103)."

Cheers,
N. 🙂

 

[j j]

Nikos72

That's not the same as "You need the consent of the person you want to take a photo of prior to doing so."

People may have redress if you publish but you do not have to ask permission to take the photo.

 

[Sid836]

Nikos72

That's not the same as "You need the consent of the person you want to take a photo of prior to doing so."

People may have redress if you publish but you do not have to ask permission to take the photo.

There is a pdf titled as "FS_Own_image_ENG.pdf" from there. Sorry for not downloading this to show it here. There is a section that states the consent of individuals on this on the time of taking the photo, not just after it has been published.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Read closer:
"[A] person’s image constitutes one of the chief attributes of his or her personality, as it
reveals the person’s unique characteristics and distinguishes the person from his or her
peers. The right to the protection of one’s image is thus one of the essential
components of personal development. It mainly presupposes the individual’s right to
control the use of that image, including the right to refuse publication thereof …” (von
Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) judgment of 7 February 2012, § 96).
“[F]reedom of expression includes the publication of photos … This is nonetheless an
area in which the protection of the rights and reputation of others takes on particular
importance, as the photos may contain very personal or even intimate information
about an individual or his or her family …” (von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) judgment
of 7 February 2012, § 103)."

Cheers,
N. 🙂

I have a law degree, and I read it pretty damn' closely, along with the summaries of the verdicts in the cases cited. Repeatedly, I saw the phrase "The Court held that there had been no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private life) of the Convention.".

Cheers,

R.

 

[Rodchenko]

I do care about who I photograph. I try not to cause offence. I don't like people's backs (unless they counterpoint the face of someone coming the other way, or are looking at something specific in frame). I don't take sneaky pics of women, because that's just cheap and sleazy. I try not to take too many photos of people standing outside smoking, because that's too easy.

But mainly I try to take interesting photos which don't cause offence.

 

[Boris Stupak]

I won't take photos in public places without asking permission. If someone asks me not to take their photo, I won't.

Except in nudist colonies. In that case, I'll hide, fully clothed, with a massive telephoto lens and several video cameras, and take close-up photos of the nudists, which I will immediately post on a flickr account under an assumed name with a cloaked ip.

 

[lukitas]

This is very well put... "but I think a smile, a nod and maybe a thank you should suffice"

But this leaves me baffled... "Restricting oneself from taking candids of children, sleepers or homeless people is just wrong." Take such photos if you wish but why is it wrong not to do so?

It is the restricting that I feel is wrong, the self-censorship.
My conscience tells me that it is better not to take opportunistic photos of defenseless people, and usually I don't. But if I see a great shot of a sleeping beggar with child, it feels as a dereliction of duty not to take it.

 

[Sid836]

I have a law degree, and I read it pretty damn' closely, along with the summaries of the verdicts in the cases cited. Repeatedly, I saw the phrase "The Court held that there had been no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private life) of the Convention.".

Cheers,

R.

Not sure if you have a law degree or not, but there is a list of convictrions essayed there. Did you get the chance to read it?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Not sure if you have a law degree or not, but there is a list of convictrions essayed there. Did you get the chance to read it?

Well, I'm quite sure I have one -- it's one of those things you notice and tend to remember -- and yes, I did read it. There's a difference between a verdict and a conviction (and, of course, you can't have a conviction in a civil case). How do you explain the repeated use of the phrase, "The Court held that there had been no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private life) of the Convention"?

Cheers,

R.

 

[EdwardKaraa]

On another forum, it was also mentioned by a Parisian photographer that street photography is essentially against the French law.

 

[Roger Hicks]

On another forum, it was also mentioned by a Parisian photographer that street photography is essentially against the French law.

Mentioned, yes. Accurately, no.

Cheers,

R.

 

[--s]

as i understand the thread, it is not about the laws, but about politeness, i.e., respecting the will of others not to be photographed. and that some photogs feel entitled to behave in an unpolite manner when it is for artistic reasons. right?