Sparrow
Veteran
How would one do that on a busy street, and more importantly why if the country you live in doesn't require that you do?
elmer3.5
Well-known
Many times
Many times
Hola Juan, of course you´re right!
It happend to me many times, but if i tell the subjects to ask the policemen about rights , probably i´ll end in the local police station giving more explanations, different countries!
Y la manzana de la discordia? Where are the photos?
Bye!
Many times
Hola Juan, of course you´re right!
It happend to me many times, but if i tell the subjects to ask the policemen about rights , probably i´ll end in the local police station giving more explanations, different countries!
Y la manzana de la discordia? Where are the photos?
Bye!
I think in a general busy street / sidewalk situation, things are obviously different i.e. you are photographing a scene not an individual.
Well, just because it is allowed, does it always make it right?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Exactly. YOUR opinion.
Others may not share your opinion. Fortunately, the law tends to be on their side.
It's like the word 'creepy'. What does it mean? Usually, 'Something that's not illegal, but I don't like it, so it should be illegal'.
Cheers,
R.
Sparrow
Veteran
Generally yes, the law in such matters is normally a reflection of the particular societies morality and one should use that as a yardstick for ones behavior.
Here in the UK there only person in the wrong was the bystander who was clearly inciting others to take action against the OP, and that is a real offense for good reason
Had the same events played out in Saudi-Arabia it would no doubt be different
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Cicero:
When the law is against you, plead justice.
When justice is against you, plead the law.
But Stewart is right. An assault need not involve a physical attack (that's a battery, hence 'assault and battery'). Anyone who provokes a reasonable fear of attack in another is guilty of assault.
Besides which, go back to Juan's original post. It wasn't the girls kissing who raised the hue and cry. It was a busybody bystander whose privacy was not affected in any way.
Cheers,
R.
When the law is against you, plead justice.
When justice is against you, plead the law.
But Stewart is right. An assault need not involve a physical attack (that's a battery, hence 'assault and battery'). Anyone who provokes a reasonable fear of attack in another is guilty of assault.
Besides which, go back to Juan's original post. It wasn't the girls kissing who raised the hue and cry. It was a busybody bystander whose privacy was not affected in any way.
Cheers,
R.
craygc
Well-known
Some strange views do emerge throughout this thread...
A forum about rangefinders which has its history in up close and personal social documentary along with a praised list of photographers that defined the genre and produced many defining images that were both candid and shot without any assumption or expectations of privacy. Makes one wonder why some bother to argue so vehemently against the style that has defined the rangefinder...
As for someone having "rights", if they cant be legally defended then they just don't exist. Arguing that moral or ethical over rides legal is an illogical process that only tends to allow individuals to purport their own personal fears and social expectations that if followed would conclude in everyone having to accept the lowest common denominator of extreme paranoia.
As for the portrayal of the initial situation; probably could have handled the 3rd party antagonists better, but as for the initial action of photographing the girls kissing, this is nothing more than a continuation of the practice of social documentation. Something that should be allowed to continue as a part of documenting social evolution. Imagine not having any photography of life in our parent's and grand parent's generation. Public life is out there and open for all to witness and as such there really is no distinction between observing and documenting.
Long live social documenting... :bang:
A forum about rangefinders which has its history in up close and personal social documentary along with a praised list of photographers that defined the genre and produced many defining images that were both candid and shot without any assumption or expectations of privacy. Makes one wonder why some bother to argue so vehemently against the style that has defined the rangefinder...
As for someone having "rights", if they cant be legally defended then they just don't exist. Arguing that moral or ethical over rides legal is an illogical process that only tends to allow individuals to purport their own personal fears and social expectations that if followed would conclude in everyone having to accept the lowest common denominator of extreme paranoia.
As for the portrayal of the initial situation; probably could have handled the 3rd party antagonists better, but as for the initial action of photographing the girls kissing, this is nothing more than a continuation of the practice of social documentation. Something that should be allowed to continue as a part of documenting social evolution. Imagine not having any photography of life in our parent's and grand parent's generation. Public life is out there and open for all to witness and as such there really is no distinction between observing and documenting.
Long live social documenting... :bang:
Sparrow
Veteran
As a side issue, it's handy to know that here in the UK if anybody demands one hands over a film or memory card in such circumstances, without a court order, they are committing a common assault in law, and that’s including a policeman or the owner of the property
italy74
Well-known
A little OT: that's why fb is full of silly girls with their (horrible) pictures taken by themselves with any kind of mobile phones (typically from top or in front at the mirror, so that they look deformed as touched by Hokuto No Ken >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hokuto_no_Ken ) without having any idea of framing, focal lenght and perspective !!!
And the funniest thing is that they think to look beautiful there !!!
Last edited:
FrankS
Registered User
Well said!
I wasn't arguing against social documentation... I was just stating that if you choose to document certain situations that you have to be responsible for your actions (whether innocent or exploitative) and you have to expect that the ones being photographed or those in proximity may / could react negatively. I believe both have certain rights in this situation. The right to photograph and the right to voice displeasure. That's all.
Gumby
Veteran
Since I use that word I consider myself an expert in its usage. There is geenrally not an implication of illegal, but perhaps more of an implication of bizarre, weird, or immoral/unjust. For example, a picture posted earlier of a man with an apparent erection is creepy -- taking the picture was not, nor should be illegal, but most people wouldn't have even noticed such an event let alone photographing it. That's creepy!
Last edited:
craygc
Well-known
Most people tend to miss many subtleties that street / social documentary photographers see... They look for the unusual, the bizarre, the juxtaposed that the greater masses completely miss.
The situations being captured are often far more bizarre, weird, immoral or unjust than the photographer or their intent. Maybe its more often the subjects fear of what they feel they are doing to warrant the attention they makes them project a negative view of the photographer as someone "creepy". Creepy is what I would use to describe how individuals in modern society move to become more insular by the day.
Sparrow
Veteran
I really don't see how one can have a bit of a right, it's like a bit of a belief, or a bit pregnant .. one either has it or not
The subject can voice their displeasure if they wish, and even ask that the photos be destroyed but under UK law they cannot insist and they cannot incite others to insist
Creepy = old men with no children or grandchildren photographing kids on the playground or photographing nude women on the beach while they have a boner. Hahaha. ;-)
I said both have rights... you both just have to deal with others displeasure when you choose to photograph or to yell at someone.
dannynono
Survey sez....
It all depends on the context, no? Just as with someone taking my photo in a public space, there might be times I'd be just as upset as if they'd yelled at me.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Hi Tom,
No, usually I only smile when I feel it. And I called my camera gun in irony while describing how hard it is to me trying to understand people feeling threatened when someone walks with a camera without even aiming at them!
Cheers,
Juan
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Yes, most definately, cause you should have metered, focused and carefully framed first.
And let's not even mention your choice of focal length!
Now seriously, I had my 28 ready too, so all those were done...
Cheers,
Juan
Roger Hicks
Veteran
If anything qualified as 'creepy' I'd suggest it's someone who goes about inspecting old men's trousers to see if they've got a 'boner' when they are taking pictures legally in public.
Something I personally find 'creepy' is people who are afraid to use their own names on line.
Cheers,
R.