street photography + harassment...

I have to admit I feel a slight resentment myself when I get photographed on the streets of my neighbourhood. Sure, it's legal, and everybody has a right to do it. But I think I feel kind of the same way about being photographed as when somebody stares at me.
Obviously there is nothing illegal about staring at people on the street, but I do think many people would think it impolite when you stare at somebody. Staring being more than just looking or glancing btw.
Same thing with photography. When somebody targets me with his or her camera I feel like I'm getting stared at (and in a way pointed at). And basically in a sense he will at some point stare at me even if the act of taking the picture takes only a moment. During development he will certainly stare at my image. And maybe he will in a way point at me when he posts my image on the internet, maybe even adding a comment like "weird guy who sat across from me on a streetbench yesterday".

Now, if a real artist/ real photographer would somehow use my being in his pictures to make something beautiful, but 99% of the time it will turn out to be just another b&w random shot of what you can see on the street everyday anyway.

I think most of us here have some sort of voyeurism thing going on, which in itself is ok. But expecting the people not to complain about getting stared and pointed at in the name of his so called street photography is stretching it a bit. And yes, in the name of art and beauty it is sometimes necessary to hurt some feelings or to be a little impolite, but let's at least feel a little ashamed about it ourselves so that our subjects arent the only ones suffering in the name of art.
 
It's a difficult time in a difficult world ...times dictate the way you approach your subject. Honestly until short time ago I was 100% sure to be on the right side when taking photos of strangers on the street, but I always tried not to take photo without respecting them. But now, with the increasing capacity of faces recognition softwares it would disturb me to see my pictures posted in the net (without my permission). As consequence I understand other people do not like their photo to be taken.
I'm trying to ask people if I can take there portraits and in some cases it works.
Just my idea, sorry if not shared by the majority.
robert
 
pieter said:
Now, if a real artist/ real photographer would somehow use my being in his pictures to make something beautiful, but 99% of the time it will turn out to be just another b&w random shot of what you can see on the street everyday anyway.
Click to expand...

Sturgeon's Law. (To those not familiar with Sturgeon's Law, Google it).

If I were too paranoid, or so completely lacking in a sense off humour, as to object to being photographed on the street, it would be time to top myself. I do sometimes suffer from depression, but not over being photographed on the street. As the old joke has it, "I may be crazy, but I'm not stupid."

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
If I were too paranoid, or so completely lacking in a sense off humour, as to object to being photographed on the street, it would be time to top myself. I do sometimes suffer from depression, but not over being photographed on the street. As the old joke has it, "I may be crazy, but I'm not stupid."
Click to expand...

I don't quite understand how you think a discussion of this topic is helped by such (I presume/I hope) exaggerations as "too paranoid", "lacking a sense of humor" and "I would top myself". I would say this topic needs subtlety and nuance. It's a grey area, instead of a black/white area.
In my post I talked about feeling a "slight resentment" and then proceeded to try and further characterize my resentment. Maybe you think my resentment comes only from paranoia or lack of humor (though I fail to see how humor plays a part in this)?

Anyway, many great street photographers point out the need for a subtle approach to photographing people and respecting the people you photograph. Like I said, I doubt I would mind so much being photographed by them if it would help their art. But I'm quite sure I resent being photographed by a photographer who's approach embodies the attitude of "if you don't like me photographing you, it must be because you're paranoid or lack humor, and you should commit suicide".

Hmmm writing this post, I guess I do see how you contribute to this discussion, in the sense that it now seems obvious to me that there is a subtle polite way to approach a subject, and there is a overbearing crude way to approach a subject. This applies to the art street photography as much as the art of having an internet forum discussion.
 
...let's not forget that some people just can't be dealt with. I was walking by a mental health resource centre in Toronto with a camera in my hand by my side, not even taking a photograph or even looking like I was going to take one. A woman on a bench yelled something, but I didn't know it was directed at me. Then I was crossing the street to a restaurant and looked back and she was chasing me! I stopped and turned around in the middle of the road and told her I wasn't taking her picture. She accepted and walked away. I went and sat down on the patio, ordered a beer with my date and put the camera on the table. I looked to my right and she was sitting on the bench glaring at me. My camera was pointed at her sitting on the table, which was my big mistake. She came right into the restaurant and started yelling at me. Staff did nothing. I told her that she needed to leave immediately and stop bugging me. She didn't. She said that I was going to give the photo to the cops and have her arrested again, that I was spying on her and trying to ruin her life. I told her this was not the case and she needed to leave immediately. After that I turned my chair with my back to her, put the camera in the bag and she left. Sometimes you get people who have various mental health issues and I should have known better as I work at a shelter that the best thing to do would have been to put the camera away and continue walking to a different restaurant out of site. Your approach will certainly depend on who confronts you.
 
This is a tricky topic and I have strayed at times, I'm not sure what to think.
I don't know if this is interesting - anyway here goes - I was in Hong Kong some time back, it's a very photogenic city, crowded, colourful, cheap equipment, food etc.
I noticed a guy carrying a couple of Nikons, he'd had spotted an elderly local crouching against a wall. The photographer, wearing a bandana looking scruffy - maybe he'd seen Dennis Hopper in Apocalypse Now, crept up very close to this guy, lens about a foot from his face while he was looking away. Suddenly the Chinaman noticed this camera, sprang up shouting, jumping about waving his arms, extremely upset. The photographer was also surprised, humbled and backed off.
He'd invaded this strangers personal space to a ridiculous degree, I don't know what he was thinking.

There are many photos of elderly wrinkled people, mostly weatherbeaten and poor, Tibetan or both which are easily found in the likes of National Geographic mags, Steve Mc Curry books etc.
Some photographers wish they could go home with a few pics that get close to these very professional shots.
Usually we see the subjects face staring back at us in these books, confident, right into the lens, not falling over trying to get away from it.

I feel a photographer that does not respect the dignity of a subject is stepping too far.
If a person in the pic is made to look stupid, for what ever reason, that's too far.
If the person looks unusual, maybe dressed in an unusual way, they might like being seen. A photographer has to make a judgement, only they know if it feels right. If it doesn't why take the shot?
I know why - because that situation will never happen again and it will become the pic you keep in your minds eye - 'the one that got away'.
 
Two days ago I was walking through a narrow alley I often pass through. There was interesting light falling on the brick, and nice contrast between a deep red section of painted-over board and a bit of blue paint from a fading tag. There was Velvia in my camera and I thought it was worth a shot.

As I was taking this photo of - wait for it - a F-CKING BRICK WALL - a guy came running across the street. "What are you doing?! What's going on?"

I replied, "I'm taking a photo - of this brick wall".

It turned out he was the owner of the building. Something about his demeanor, which seemed a little frazzled, took the edge off any hard feelings. I told him I was not with the city, insurance company, etc, just taking a photo for my own enjoyment.

Later that day I was coming back through the alley. What do I see but a well-dressed man with a DSLR, taking photos of the same wall! I laughed and said "Thank God I'm not the only one. I shot the wall today too!" But he didn't seem very amused, in fact a little uncomfortable.

Moral: Sometimes a bizarre reaction may have a rational basis.

Randy
 
I'm not comfortable shooting street photography. I've come to realize it's because I very much dislike having my own photo taken, so I project that onto everyone else. However, I've tried to get better at it in the last year or so, and I really believe a photographer that acts confident is less intimidating than one that acts "stealthy" (often seen as sneaky, even if not the same).

My daughter is taken a photography unit it school. For an assignment she wanted to get a photo of another teen (she didn't know him) down at a pier we go to often. She was acting all sneaky and "stealthy"... and I proceeded to tell her later that she would have been better off just holding the camera up to her face and trying to get the shot. When you act sneaky, you look like you're doing something you're not supposed to be doing, inevitably. But that's just my opinion.

I also think, generally speaking, the photographers that are confident and unhidden, the ones who use wider lenses (not 300mm zooms), get better street shots. There's exceptions, but just generally. At least I know I get better street shots when both things are true.

A year or so ago I was taking a photo of a bike... no people around. From out of nowhere a woman ran across the street and starting feverishly questioning me on why I was taking a picture of her bike. I told her I just thought it was a nice bike. She went into a diatribe about how people can't be too careful, and you never know what will happen and she didn't want to get a ticket and go to jail. She was eventually satisfied I was harmless.

Objects or people, I usually don't shoot or keep the photo if there are objections... if it were me objecting, I'd want the photographer to honor my wishes, so I pay them the same respect. That's just for me though -- I don't think everyone has to follow that rule... it's up to them.

And, I've taken to carrying those little mini-business cards (even though I'm nobody - LOL) just for these types of occasions. It diffuses the situation usually when a person feels like you're somehow legitimate and willing to share the resulting photo with them. I get them super cheap and it's like carrying a pack of gum in your pocket.
 
I came across some good info in regards to this just recently, never had the problem myself but I think I would respond in the following way:

Explain why I'm taking photos (don't lie), offer to show them the photo and email a copy. Look them in the eyes when talking to them (important). If they really want me to delete it, I'll just delete it (what are the chances it would be that one in a million shot anyway? Very slim.)

If you can't offer a legitimate reason as to why you took their photo, you probably have no business doing so.

I would definitely not take an aggressive approach, you never know who you're dealing with. Someone could be on the lam, etc.
 
ive been shooting people point blank on the street and nobody has yet to confront me.. if i see someone who looks like they would be aggressive, i normally ask first and then have them walk as if i wasnt taking their photo.. of course this isnt 100% natural but many people cant tell a staged shot from a real one anyways.
 
MVCG said:
On the one hand, I know I am legally allowed to take pictures of anything I like on the street but how do you handle these situations??? This really puts me off street shooting and has tainted my confidence...
Click to expand...
you are of course NOT legally allowed to just take pictures of anyone without their consent, since that constitutes a violation of their personality rights. imagine someone walks over and kisses you on the mouth without first asking you if you like that.

The predominant point of reference, is that any publication of a portrait photograph requires consent [of the person depicted]. The reasoning for this, is that such a publication might provide the depicted person with discomfort, possibly with other information such as name, of the publication for all with access to the internet, and the considerations of this discomfort is judged as more important than a possible interest in publication.

sorry to burst your bubble.
 
cameosis said:
you are of course NOT legally allowed to just take pictures of anyone without their consent, since that constitutes a violation of their personality rights. imagine someone walks over and kisses you on the mouth without first asking you if you like that.

The predominant point of reference, is that any publication of a portrait photograph requires consent [of the person depicted]. The reasoning for this, is that such a publication might provide the depicted person with discomfort, possibly with other information such as name, of the publication for all with access to the internet, and the considerations of this discomfort is judged as more important than a possible interest in publication.

sorry to burst your bubble.
Click to expand...

Where are you from? In most of the world, you certainly can take a picture of anything or anyone in public wherever they have no reasonable expectation of privacy. You can't follow someone into a public toilet booth and shoot them on the john, but you can photograph them entering or leaving the building, on the sidewalk or the street, at the market, in their car, in their front yard so long as you are shooting from a public space, etc. Provided you aren't engaged in commercial activity, you don't need their consent, either.

There are some exceptions, for example some government installations may not allow photography in or about their premises. Often property owners will try to convince you that you can't photograph their building without their consent, but they are wrong.

Naturally, just because it is legal doesn' t mean you should always take the shot. If you go to a playground and start photographing children, you're almost certainly going to be confonted by hysterical parents, at the very minimum.

There's no such thing as personality rights.
 
cameosis said:
you are of course NOT legally allowed to just take pictures of anyone without their consent, since that constitutes a violation of their personality rights. imagine someone walks over and kisses you on the mouth without first asking you if you like that.

sorry to burst your bubble.
Click to expand...

My my, it's about high time we go after that dirty old French man, Bresson they called him. He had been sexually assaulting the citizens of the world for years! Even if he is dead, we can at least post-humously give him a record!
 
cameosis said:
The predominant point of reference, is that any publication of a portrait photograph requires consent [of the person depicted].
Click to expand...

This is not the case in most of the world, may be except France and Germany. Even in Bulgaria, where I am from, a law was passed a couple of years ago which states that you don't need to ask for consent in a public place.

A few people here are aware of this law anyway, but it's good to know the law is on your side if worse comes to worst.
 
cameosis said:
you are of course NOT legally allowed to just take pictures of anyone without their consent, since that constitutes a violation of their personality rights. imagine someone walks over and kisses you on the mouth without first asking you if you like that.

The predominant point of reference, is that any publication of a portrait photograph requires consent [of the person depicted]. The reasoning for this, is that such a publication might provide the depicted person with discomfort, possibly with other information such as name, of the publication for all with access to the internet, and the considerations of this discomfort is judged as more important than a possible interest in publication.

sorry to burst your bubble.
Click to expand...

Interesting . I assume you are referring to Denmark and laws that apply within Denmark.

From http://www.enotes.com/topic/Personality_rights (and noting I do not know whether this site is authoritative) :

"In Denmark the Danish Penal Code chapters 26 and 27, provides certain personality rights. The governmental Danish Data Protection Agency, has made a declaration regarding publication on the Internet of pictures taken of persons in a public area[2]:

The predominant point of reference, is that any publication of a portrait photograph requires consent [of the person depicted]. The reasoning for this, is that such a publication might provide the depicted person with discomfort, possibly with other information such as name, of the publication for all with access to the internet, and the considerations of this discomfort is judged as more important than a possible interest in publication.

A portrait photograph is defined as a photograph, with the purpose of depicting one or more specific person(s). The personality rights however may be contracted for persons who are generally accepted as public persons."
​
This must make it difficult for people in Denmark. I presume that one is allowed to distinguish between the act of taking a photo and the act of publishing a photo. And I see that the definition of a "portrait photograph" is critical.
 
So, is this the Future of Street Photography!
I'm planing to use this as a project just to show the non-sense of these attitudes and Laws.

Hell! I even may use some colours to made distinctions based on Sex, skin color or religion! Just to make it "worst"!

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