street photography + harassment...

[kokoshawnuff]

Sometimes I will take photos with the solitary intention of harassing the subject, as with this fellow:

 

[noisycheese]

It seems to me that a bad subject reaction often arises out of a sense of having been targeted. And they don't know why. I'm sometimes asked if the pic is for the newspaper...



Sometimes the problem is worsened by a photographer who is one of the "uneducated, the misinformed and the belligerent who have control issues." And this just contributes to problems for the next photographer. Better to be friendly and respectful, avoid misunderstandings.

Doug -
When I am shooting on the street, I am always friendly and respectful to people. In my original post, I believe I touched on that point:

Avoiding or diffusing confrontation is always the preferred solution - but any time you engage in street photography you have the potential for confrontation.

I have been doing street photography for almost five years now and have easily photographed over a thousand subjects. In all those hours - probably hundreds, if not thousands - of engaging in street photography, I have had perhaps four or five situations where things went sideways (verbally).

This leads me to believe that I must be doing something right.

 

[airfrogusmc]

I am very friendly and respectful to.

 

[Doug]

Doug -
When I am shooting on the street, I am always friendly and respectful to people. ...

I am very friendly and respectful to.

Cool! 🙂 There are always some who will be abrasive...

 

[airfrogusmc]

Cool! 🙂 There are always some who will be abrasive...

If I am taking a more of a portrait and if I do engage and they say no I respect that. I even will send them photographs. But when I'm working on capturing the moment its all about that. But you have to have thick skin when working on the street because it can involve rejection and some people are confrontational.

 

[noisycheese]

Cool! 🙂 There are always some who will be abrasive...

Maybe it's a midwest thing, but all my photographic peers who do street photography really try to treat people with respect when they are photographing. If there is abrasiveness and aggression, it comes from the subject 99.9% of the time.

I the last guy who gave me problems came up behind me and started yelling at me for photographing other people - I had not so much as seen him, let alone made a photograph of him (I'm pretty certain he was under the influence of some sort of "street pharmaceuticals" - he was acting in a really unhinged manner).

 

[Joe_Incognito]

Funny

Funny

Accually I look more like John's avatar. LOL.

In real life John's a kinda big guy though. Funny thing is that he likes small cameras, rarely shoots with a hood, and loves tiny lenses. Go figure.

Meanwhile although I'm 5' 10" I only weigh 155 pounds and I shoot big cameras that John calls monsters like a Nikon F3 with motordrive. Both my Leicas feature TA rapidgrips and TA Rapidwiders BTW.

Cal

I am a big, bald, biker looking, white guy and I shoot with an XP1, my buddy is a 5'9 Asian fella about 165lbs and he shoots with a 5DIII and big L lenses.
I find that my appearance saves me the headache of harassment, but on the rare occasions that I am approached, I find a smile and a jovial personality diffuses the situation every time.

 

[68degrees]

I have always failed to understand why some people in the U.S. - who are photographed 5000 times a day by security cameras - take umbrage to being photographed by a lowly little street photographer.

Maybe its not that they dont take umbrage to security cameras photographing them but rather that they cant do or say anything about it because there is no name or face thats doing it, laws are passed in closed rooms and does anyone really know the names of those who proposed the security cameras and then passed them? No. BUT when they see a real human being photographing them, violating them, monitoring them, all their rage and resentment about the security cameras is directed into the street photographer who they can confront.

 

[noisycheese]

Maybe its not that they dont take umbrage to security cameras photographing them but rather that they cant do or say anything about it because there is no name or face thats doing it, laws are passed in closed rooms and does anyone really know the names of those who proposed the security cameras and then passed them? No. BUT when they see a real human being photographing them, violating them, monitoring them, all their rage and resentment about the security cameras is directed into the street photographer who they can confront.

I have suspected that very thing for some time now.

It would be more constructive if the average Joe or Jane would think things through a bit and direct their resentment at the source of that resentment rather than at the first guy with a camera they see on the street making photographs.

I would not refer to street photography as "violating" or "monitoring" the photographer's subject, though. While some people may not like being photographed on the street, it can hardly be categorized as violating them in my view.

Based on rulings issued by various courts, it seems that the judicial system (in the U.S., at least) concurs with that view of street photography.

 

[Exdsc]

One of the more peculiar observations that i have made is people will let you photograph them if you 'look like you know what you're doing' and if you 'look like a proper photographer'.

Its hard for me to explain but as an example watch videos of some of the famous photographers and see how they get away with shots that will get most nervous amateurs in trouble.

 

[user237428934]

Maybe its not that they dont take umbrage to security cameras photographing them but rather that they cant do or say anything about it because there is no name or face thats doing it, laws are passed in closed rooms and does anyone really know the names of those who proposed the security cameras and then passed them? No. BUT when they see a real human being photographing them, violating them, monitoring them, all their rage and resentment about the security cameras is directed into the street photographer who they can confront.

No one cares about security cameras, because photos of the people don't get on the internet. If some weird guy on the street takes a photo of me, I don't know what he does with it. Will he post it on a site like "Most stupid looking people" or something else? With those photos I can't control the context someone put's the photos in.
If everyone was just taking normal tourist photos, then I had no problems at all. In these cases, I'm only another person on a photo of a touristic scene.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

No one cares about security cameras, because photos of the people don't get on the internet. If some weird guy on the street takes a photo of me, I don't know what he does with it. Will he post it on a site like "Most stupid looking people" or something else? With those photos I can't control the context someone put's the photos in.

I really think you've nailed it with that. It's the monkeys and the banana story, writ large. Many people feel like the little monkey who has his banana stolen by a big monkey. We see someone smaller and vent our rage on them.

The Spinners get it right here: http://www.whosdatedwho.com/tpx_90374/the-spinners/tpx_21993465

 

[68degrees]

well it's not illegal to take someone's photo in a public place, at least not in the U.S.

thats called being "dead right" . Yes you are right but its no consolation when you are dead because you took the wrong persons photo. Winning in court isnt going to make your broken ribs feel better. Just because there would be no legal consequences after being falsely accused, arrested for criminal mischief, stalking, disturbing the peace, failure to obey an officer, jaywalking or whatever else the officer can think up at the time, waiting in jail, getting into another fight with some lowlife because you are acting self righteous and indignant about b eing in jail, paying bond, getting out of jail, getting an attorney, or if you cant afford one having all your finances examined with a microscope to see if you truly cannont "afford" by their definition an attorney and then finally going to court and the judge agreeing with you that indeed you can photograph anyone you want. You are right, but it can be quite costly and stressful. This of course is if you arent physically attacked, camera smashed and cell phone smashed while you are threatening to call the police on the assailant. Theres always a crazy in the group, somoene who objects AND will do something about it. Many object to getting their photo taken but few will confront you. Is it really worth it if you arent making good money with the photos? The only safe way to do it in my view would be to go in a group of non photographers, I doubt he would approach a group. Life isnt fair especially if you are eccentric single man, there is considerable social stigma and prejudice against single eccentric men who like taking photos of strangers but it is what it is.

 

[noisycheese]

thats called being "dead right" . Yes you are right but its no consolation when you are dead because you took the wrong persons photo. Winning in court isnt going to make your broken ribs feel better. Just because there would be no legal consequences after being falsely accused, arrested for criminal mischief, stalking, disturbing the peace, failure to obey an officer, jaywalking or whatever else the officer can think up at the time, waiting in jail, getting into another fight with some lowlife because you are acting self righteous and indignant about b eing in jail, paying bond, getting out of jail, getting an attorney, or if you cant afford one having all your finances examined with a microscope to see if you truly cannont "afford" by their definition an attorney and then finally going to court and the judge agreeing with you that indeed you can photograph anyone you want. You are right, but it can be quite costly and stressful. This of course is if you arent physically attacked, camera smashed and cell phone smashed while you are threatening to call the police on the assailant. Theres always a crazy in the group, somoene who objects AND will do something about it. Many object to getting their photo taken but few will confront you. Is it really worth it if you arent making good money with the photos? The only safe way to do it in my view would be to go in a group of non photographers, I doubt he would approach a group. Life isnt fair especially if you are eccentric single man, there is considerable social stigma and prejudice against single eccentric men who like taking photos of strangers but it is what it is.

You raise the twin spectres of murder and maiming in the streets. That may well be the case in Karachi or Mogadishu or Ciudad Juarez or San Pedro Sula. But I don't do street photography in any of these violent, dangerous cities and I would hazard a guess that most of the other folks who are members here don't, either.

That brings up two obvious questions: Can you provide some examples of photographers being murdered for engaging in street photography within the U.S.? What about photographers being beaten and maimed for engaging in street photography? Can you provide some examples of that happening within the U.S.?

I have been photographing people on the streets for almost five years now. For every one person who says "no, thank you" or "don't take my picture" (to which I always politely respond that I won't), I make a ton of photographs of people without incident - I'm talking in the high hundreds, likely 500-700, possibly more.

I have never had even one of the who knows how many thousands of people I have photographed on the streets get in my personal space, let alone lay hands on me or my camera or attack me (and no, I am not built like an NFL offensive lineman).

I was yelled at once, though. By a guy who, judging from his behavior, was most likely stoned on some type of street drug. The irony is that I had not even photographed in his general direction, let alone made a photograph of him specifically.

I don't know - maybe I am just extraordinarily lucky. Maybe I somehow manage to photograph only nice people who are not violent...

 

[68degrees]

You raise the twin spectres of murder and maiming in the streets.

That brings up two obvious questions: Can you provide some examples of photographers being murdered for engaging in street photography within the U.S.? What about photographers being beaten and maimed for engaging in street photography? Can you provide some examples of that happening within the U.S.?

I have been photographing people on the streets for almost five years now. For every one person who says "no, thank you" or "don't take my picture" (to which I always politely respond that I won't), I make a ton of photographs of people without incident - I'm talking in the high hundreds, likely 500-700, possibly more.

I have never had even one of the who knows how many thousands of people I have photographed on the streets get in my personal space, let alone lay hands on me or my camera or attack me (and no, I am not built like an NFL offensive lineman).

I was yelled at once, though. By a guy who, judging by his behavior, was most likely stoned on some type of street drug. The irony is that I had not even photographed in his general direction, let alone made a photograph of him specifically.

Maybe I am lucky. Maybe I somehow manage to photograph nice people who are not violent....

maybe you just know how to do it without provoking people or instinctively know who or what situations not to mess with. Of course my previouis reply was not directed personally at you anyway but 'you' meaning we, or 'one' .

I dont have examples, I have not compiled statistics from coroners and police reports from around the nation but then again, dead men tell no tales (or make no posts I should say). There are many missing persons and middle age men that dont show up for work on Monday. Then again, these types of threads have many guys chiming in of the confrontations they have had while photographing. Of corse death is not the only thing that can go wrong for our demographic. In my previous posts I described a plausible scenario that will only become more an more likely as society continues to devolve into upside down world.

The main point was only that, I agree with you, you are right, we legally can do it and in the old world it would not be a problem, but the world is changing and has changed now and will continue to change more and more into hive mind thinking, to do street photography, while right one may be, there is much risk for our demographic especially for those less skilled than you.

 

[noisycheese]

I guess the message then is something along the lines of "Let's be careful out there" (to borrow a line from the Hill Street Blues T.V. show of old).

No photograph is worth dying for, as someone once said.

I recall one afternoon of street photography that could have turned ugly. I happened upon what was very possibly a transaction in progress involving "home made pharmaceuticals" wrapped in aluminum foil and laid out on a cafe's sidewalk table.

One of the participants saw me round the corner with camera in hand and shot me a death stare. I got the message and walked on without making an image.

There are some decisive moments that are best left not photographed. This was obviously one of them.

 

[user237428934]

This whole thread is already off topic but now it even gets "US only". This is still an international forum, isn't it?

 

[noisycheese]

This whole thread is already off topic but now it even gets "US only". This is still an international forum, isn't it?

There was no "ugly American" mindset behind my proviso. Read on and this should become readily apparent.

The only reason I said "within the U.S." is due to the fact that there are somewhere between 195 and 204 nations in the world today
( http://www.polgeonow.com/2011/04/how-many-countries-are-there-in-world.html ). That's alot of nations and laws to keep track of.

Here in the U.S. of A, we have the following situation:

In the ever growing complexity of our society we are facing ever growing rules and regulations, or Laws as we call them.
January 1st. 2010 was a big milestone in this scary look into the future with the introduction of 40,627 new laws that went into effect throughout the nation and its territories. That is some 800 on average per state in the union, covering as widely diverse topics as texting while driving to mold removal in homes and criminal laws against people who scam other people.

Source: http://www.searchamelia.com/land-of-40627-laws-and-regulations-more

Fifty states, eight hundred new laws. Per state. In 2010 alone. That, in addition to the hundreds of millions of laws already on the books. But that's nowhere near the end - oh, hell no. In 2012, another 40,000 laws went into effect: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/45819570/...les-abortions-immigrants-voters/#.UX7rmLWThWk

In addition to all the above, no one in the U.S. Government can give us a definitive answer about how many federal laws the U.S. Congress has created:

In an example of a failed attempt to tally up the number of laws on a specific subject area, in 1982 the Justice Department tried to determine the total number of criminal laws. In a project that lasted two years, the Department compiled a list of approximately 3,000 criminal offenses. This effort, headed by Ronald Gainer, a Justice Department official, is considered the most exhaustive attempt to count the number of federal criminal laws. In a Wall Street Journal article about this project, “this effort came as part of a long and ultimately failed campaign to persuade Congress to revise the criminal code, which by the 1980s was scattered among 50 titles and 23,000 pages of federal law.” Or as Mr. Gainer characterized this fruitless project: “[y]ou will have died and [been] resurrected three times,” and still not have an answer to this question.

Source: http://blogs.loc.gov/law/2013/03/frequent-reference-question-how-many-federal-laws-are-there/

So my statement of "within the U.S." was based on the fact that I can't even keep track of America's billions and billions of laws, let alone ours and the laws of 195+ other nations. 😉

 

[bosjohn]

So I was out on Sunday with my M6 and 24 Elmarit and noticed a character dressed in some interesting clothes so decided to take a hip shot as he was crossing the street. I mostly shoot "hyperfocal" so didnt need to adjust a thing with this lens.

We crossed paths shortly after and were on opposite sides of the street. We were both coincidentally waiting (me for my fiance and him for the bus) although he kept on looking at me with an intense stare. Shortly after he decided to cross the street over to me whilst I was on the phone and stood in front of me somewhat aggressively. I was concerned so cut short my call. He asked me to stop taking pictures of him and to delete the shots I had taken (1). I admitted to him that I had indeed taken a picture of him as I was crossing the street as I thought his outfit was interesting but I couldn't delete the picture as it was not a digital camera. He became rather aggressive (although "sort of" polite) saying that this was rude and that I should have asked him, to which I said, "ideally, you are right, however, had I of asked you, would you have said yes?", I told him I was a street photographer who liked to capture people in their natural environment and I would be happy to send him a print of his picture. He didn't respond but was very dismissive at this point and started crossing the street although kept looking at me for quite a while until his bus came...

My question is to all you savvy street shooters, what should our stance be???? 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...

I spent years doing street in Harvard Square. I got to know most of the charactors hanging around and as I am a chess player I got to know all the chess players quite well. I would shoot away and occasionaly bring a print and give it to the folks I had been shooting never had a problem and if some one saw me pointing the camera and signaled no I smiled and move on. no need to anagonize anyone.
I once got into a discussion with a brain dead teenager who insisted I had to have his permission to take his photo. He started out quite heated but when I asked him whats the difference between every one on the street seeing him and my taking a pic of him we were able to have a very good conversation. Basically he was a pit hanger on and just really tired of having cameras poked at him.
Obviously much of how you will handle these situations will be in a large part based on how big or loud your antogonist is

 

[CactusJuice]

I drink when I shoot though, so I usually forget about it soon enough.

Hahah great idea! I must try this 🙂

I've been confronted once. I happened to be shooting digital that day and so I gladly deleted the image...even though the woman was riding her bike on a public street! Imo if someone is genuinely upset then it's not worth it. Anyway, no matter how careful or considerate you are there will be situations where someone is having a bad day or just likes to try asserting his/her power. I just remind myself it's not a reflection on me and try to diffuse the situation the best I can and move on.