R
RML
Guest
robert blu said:
Yet, those same people dress up as Obi Wan and can't get enough of being photographed at the next Star Wars convention. Odd indeed.
Street Photography Legal News
- Thread starter shaaktiman
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 98
- Views 7K
Yet, those same people dress up as Obi Wan and can't get enough of being photographed at the next Star Wars convention. Odd indeed.
camraluvr
Newbie
RML said:
S
shaaktiman
Guest
What if I have my little girl with me and you are taking snapshots of her? Am I not supposed to care what your reason might be? How do I know what you are going to do with them?
You can "care" but that's about all you can do. It is not illegal.
I'm not hurting a bridge or government building when I photograph them either but that's against the law now
Its not against the law to photograph bridges or govt buildings in america. where do you live?
I can't photograph your place of business, for profit, without your consent.
Sure you can. How do you think paparazzi photographers or journalists make their living? You just can't use it in trade or advertising. But you can certainly sell the image or publish it and sell copies.
The fact that you can see my image in public doesn't give you the 'right' to reproduce it for personal gain any more than the law allows me to reproduce someone's song for personal gain just because I heard it in public.
Did you read the link that started this discussion? Your statement is incorrect. Anyone does have the right to create a photograph of you in a public space. When in public you do not have an automatic right to privacy. Again, look at paparazzi or journalists, that is how they make their living. You do not own all rights to your own image outright as one owns rights to a song they wrote. I can take a picture of you in public and display it on a billboard or publish it in a book and sell a million copies and never give you a dime.
You can "care" but that's about all you can do. It is not illegal.
I'm not hurting a bridge or government building when I photograph them either but that's against the law now
Its not against the law to photograph bridges or govt buildings in america. where do you live?
I can't photograph your place of business, for profit, without your consent.
Sure you can. How do you think paparazzi photographers or journalists make their living? You just can't use it in trade or advertising. But you can certainly sell the image or publish it and sell copies.
The fact that you can see my image in public doesn't give you the 'right' to reproduce it for personal gain any more than the law allows me to reproduce someone's song for personal gain just because I heard it in public.
Did you read the link that started this discussion? Your statement is incorrect. Anyone does have the right to create a photograph of you in a public space. When in public you do not have an automatic right to privacy. Again, look at paparazzi or journalists, that is how they make their living. You do not own all rights to your own image outright as one owns rights to a song they wrote. I can take a picture of you in public and display it on a billboard or publish it in a book and sell a million copies and never give you a dime.
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
Just look at 'Hello' magzine any week and see hundreds of pix which Naomi and Victoria and Arnie never wanted published. But they were.
bjorke
Designated Driver
These threads go on endlessly... not that I mind! You might want to check out http://www.PhotoPermit.Org which is dedicated to nothing but these sorts of issues.,
Kevin
Rainbow Bridge
camraluvr said:
For me ethics means putting people before $$$. This is not happening anymore. Socialism is being ripped apart over here.
The truth can be bent. There is no absolute right or wrong, only power and the ability to legitimize it.
Best Regards,
Kevin
Creagerj
Incidental Artist
bmattock said:
Bill,
As always you make a great point. I hadn't really thought of that before. Now I will make a point of my own.
Consider this: The phycological response for each of these examples is vastly differant than having a guy right in you face with a camera. Street cameras mean security which most people are ok with. A dude with a camera getting in your face and you might wonder what hell he wants your picture for. You are all absolutly right when you say that it is your right to take a picture and you don't need to ask. On the other hand, the person who is having there picture taken has every right to be disgruntled, or at least to ask why.
camraluvr
Newbie
Kevin said:
I feel sorry for you Kevin if you really believe this. This seems, however, to be the general mindset of most on this thread which explains why I, as a newbie to this forum, seem to be banging my head against a brick wall.
Best regards to you too, Kevin
camraluvr
Newbie
shaaktiman said:
I realize you don't agree with me, but I want to make sure you correctly understand my point. I'm not arguing about what's legal or what's not, I arguing right and wrong. In other words I'm saying that today more than ever, the terms legal and right are not always synonimous. I'm trying to illustrate how just because a photographer 'can' do something doesn't necessarily mean he 'should' do it. I'm talking about the integrety of the photographer and the industry. You can't use the practice of paparzzi to sway my thinking because many of them are the exact opposite of what I consider to be photographers with integrity.
shaaktiman said:
I'm in the U.S.A. Where have you been? Since 911 if you photograph a bridge or a Fed. govt. building and get caught, you will politely be taken into custody, your memory card or film confiscated, and you undergo a background check among other things. I'm new to this forum but other forums on the web have been telling the horror stories for some time now. Just last month the secretary of our local photography club was detained by state police and went thru all this for photographing a new bridge in our small KY town.
shaaktiman said:
That's what I meant when I said 'for profit', I just thought I was stating the obvious. My bad. However, your reply to my comment was in reference to an illustrative detail and in no way addressed the point I'm trying to make.
shaaktiman said:
Do you really not see how mean spirited the the basic tone of the latter part of that statement is? I don't mean to me personally, but in general. And again you are rebutting my illustration and not the point. It's obvious to most readers that you 'can' do what you claim. I was illustrating the inconsistancy in our legal system. If a=b and b=c, then a is supposed to be = to c. My comments were meant to illustrate how our legal system sometimes fails in that since, not to tell you what you really can or can't do.
I'm not claiming to be a lawyer, I'm just trying to point out the difference between a 'legal' right and a 'moral' right, and the need for individual integrity on the occasion that the two clash. I'm sorry to say that in 35 years of photographic experience and x number of years on the web, I've never experienced a group of people so selfish and so alien to the previosly mentioned integrity concept as I have seen on this thread. I've never given this much atitention to a thread before either. I hope I'm calling this one quits now and I'm sure many of you will be glad to hear it.
Good day!
R
RML
Guest
Self censorship is the worst form of censorship. Besides, who decides what's right and what's wrong? I thought that's why we have laws. Your right could be my wrong and vv. It's up to a court to decide who is correct. Once you start to make your own interpretations of the law, you're swiftly moving onto thin ice. Yes, you can be disgruntled or annoyed but that doesn't make you right. Often, justice isn't fair, and right can be wrong, but sh*t happens. Deal with it. It's called growing up. I, too, have a lot of growing up to do.
I'm not a US citizen but when I was in NYC not long ago I took photos of bridges, tunnels, in the subway, at the train station, at the airport, etc without being hassled by any police officer. I even shot a few frames of a police office. I asked a policeman before I shot and he told me to go ahead. There was no law against it, so no need to ask, he told me.
I'm not a US citizen but when I was in NYC not long ago I took photos of bridges, tunnels, in the subway, at the train station, at the airport, etc without being hassled by any police officer. I even shot a few frames of a police office. I asked a policeman before I shot and he told me to go ahead. There was no law against it, so no need to ask, he told me.
Creagerj
Incidental Artist
yes but buildings don't care like people care. I don't see why you should be hasseled by anyone for shooting a bridge.
bmattock
Veteran
Creagerj said:
You are correct, the psychological response to my examples is different. One of the major reasons, I feel, is that the automated cameras do not intrude upon our consciousness - they have become part of the landscape. They take our photos, for what purpose we don't know - but we're too busy to care, or we think they are there to protect us, or we just shrug it off because we don't feel we can do anything about it. We live in increasingly surveilled societies, and we don't even ask who is watching us or why. In fact, we get angry if we're challenged for NOT getting mad as all hell about it.
A human photographer, on the other hand, represents not the face of government or presumed authority - which most of us fear and will not engage in confrontation - but a person whom we can attempt to control with our presumed authority. This is an intrusion into our right to be let alone that we can deal with, we think.
And so we go over and confront Mister Photographer. Hey there, what do you think you're doing? Are you taking my photograph? You can't take my photograph without my permission! Did you just take a photograph of my daughter? What do you intend to do with that photograph? Are you with some news agency? Let me see your press credentials. Stop taking my picture. Give me your film right this instant. What right do you have to take my photo without my permission?
They have every right to ask the questions and make the objections listed above. I am in no way required to give them an answer, or to comply with their demands.
And in my opinion, I am morally wrong if I do so.
To comply with a demand that I cease exercising my constitutional rights to make another feel more comfortable is to create an impression that they indeed have the supposed right to make such demands. In the future, this individual will feel that they were right to press their case, that they indeed have the 'right' to make such demands in the future, and slowly, over time, all of our rights are eroded by the supposed 'right not to feel uncomfortable.'
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
Kevin
Rainbow Bridge
camraluvr said:
There is really no need for you to feel sorry for me.
The general mindset of most on this thread is one that upholds the law. In fact, the general mindset of this forum is light years ahead of others on the internet. You are dealing with very educated crowd here which has a passion for rangefinder photography. Many here also practise street photography and now have a solid reason to rejoice.
The ruling which started this thread says that within the state of New York it is lawful to take pictures of people in public and sell these pictures as art for profit. You do not need permission to take the picture or obtain a signed agreement to be able to sell the photographs. This is the law.
Then you pop in out of nowhere and say this is not ethical, even though it is legal.
Ethics is not universal as you would have me believe. Ethics are reflected in the laws of the cities, states and countries of our planet. If you do not like the laws (ie. ethics) of a place, you have the choice to put up with them, fight them in court or move to a new place that is more closely aligned with your ethical (ie legal) preferences. I personally chose the last option. Unfortunately for me, it is unethical here to do what DiCorcia has done.
Bill has basically spellt it out for you in ways that I cannot. I have nothing more to add, except that on my next trip to New York I am going to take some badass, inyourface 7-11 ATM-type portraits of anyone who crosses my rangefinder-toting path. And you know what? I will be thinking of you 😎
Best of luck
Kevin
SDK
Exposing since 1969.
Well, I find myself agreeing with most of what Bill mattocks says, a person in a public place must expect to be photographed whether by disinterested machines or interested persons. An unwilling subject may object, but unless the photograph is misappropriated and used to advertise a product other than the photographic document itself, the subject has no legal recourse. That is the way the law is in the US, based on our First Amendment. This is one admission price we pay for living in our free society, and it seems a small one at that.
I cannot see how Mr. di Corcia's wonderful picture of Mr. Nussenzweig hurt the plaintif materially. His reaction to the display of his image exhibition, sale and book may have been one of genuine alarm, but like the judge said, it can't be addressed by the courts under our legal system.
I hate asking people for permission to photograph them. I'm just too shy. Bus worse, the resulting image winds up being something different if the subject is too aware of the photographer. People mug and pose for the camera, and i just hate those kind of pictures. I'm not interested in making them.
I cannot see how Mr. di Corcia's wonderful picture of Mr. Nussenzweig hurt the plaintif materially. His reaction to the display of his image exhibition, sale and book may have been one of genuine alarm, but like the judge said, it can't be addressed by the courts under our legal system.
I hate asking people for permission to photograph them. I'm just too shy. Bus worse, the resulting image winds up being something different if the subject is too aware of the photographer. People mug and pose for the camera, and i just hate those kind of pictures. I'm not interested in making them.
Last edited:
Dougg
Seasoned Member
I can sympathize with the reluctance to approach/confront, and have made this a matter of personal development... starting with people I know or recognize in the community. I try to get at least non-verbal tacit approval. With a pleasant and respectful approach this has been very successful. Some say "no" and I respect that reluctantly.SDK said:
On the issue of "posing", this is a very individual matter; some subjects simply resume what they were doing and I take a snap or two and leave. Some are uncertain what to do and I urge them to just go back to what they were doing. Some really like to ham it up for the camera, so I may try to "wear them out" until they tire of posing and go back to what they were doing. 😀 OTOH, I also do like to portray an interaction between me and the subject too.
Benfidar
Newbie
I take issue with the tone of camraluvr. You imply that this is new, and moreover, rude. It is neither. Photographing people in public spaces is as old as photography and certainly not a post 9-11 phenom. If people think that the world has changed (and for Americans it may have in some sense, but only to catch up to where the rest of the world has been since the 1960s) it is for people to deal with their paranoia and not for the photog to simply cease doing what seven generations of photographers (not to mention Rembrandt) have done. You are conflating issues. If some one snapped a shot of me in public, I might ask why, and it would be justified. If someone was prowling around snapping shots of my daughter, I might break his nose. But this is clearly not what we are talking about. To take the street picture is in no way, and this is important, has never been morally nor ethically problematic, let alone wrong. It is not just how I feel, it is also 180 years of social norm that informs me. The very first daguerreotypes from the 1820s and 30s were of public places and of common life. If for your attitude (and I think fear and social prissiness) we would have no views of Paris before Hausmann, nor Civil War battlefields and hospitals. To record common life is to provide a view of life as it is, and not as it is propagated and presented by the powers that be. As a professional historian I have personal experience with the disconnect between the world as it was and as it was presented. Photography is not always nice and for this reason, it has been one of the great forces of the 20th century. You were never given a constitutional right to niceness, and for you to get bent out of shape because people disagree with you only illustrates the point. I think we all need to think just what we have to lose if we let the paranoia of the post 9-11 world really change us. What should change is group think. Of which discussions like these are an example.
Last edited:
bmattock
Veteran
Benfidar, I agree with what you say. I am not sure it is something I'd call 'prissiness' but rather a growing public feeling, and it is becoming stronger. I feel that it is going to lead to more freedoms being quashed or suppressed in the future. Perhaps it is the ebb and flow of social interaction over time, I don't know.
We've always had problems with perverts, stalkers, and other bad people who used photography for evil ends - that's not really that new. What is new is that now it is so widely reported - we're aware of it. It is part of the social landscape - there are dangerous people out there, and some of them would prey on our family if we let them. Taken in that light, it is understandable that people have fear or trepidation when they see a man with a camera in public, taking photos of them or their family for God-knows-what reasons.
However, you are correct - photography in public is both reasonable and lawful under most circumstances, and if a person does not wish to be photographed, their only choice is to not go out in public. A person has control of how those images might be used commercially, but they cannot control that they will or will not be recorded. An ATM machine can take photos of any passing person - and does. A human photographer is no different in that sense.
The only thing I can offer is that I understand fear, I understand valid concern for the protection of one's family's safety. I do not let that stop me from doing what I must do to take the photographs I want to get. My street photographs (or more likely, those of a good street photographer) are documentary, they are commentary, they are part of the social history and fabric that are important historically and sociologically, not just artistically.
I fear DUI drivers and what they can to an unsuspecting public. DUI drivers do far more damage to people and property than perverts and stalkers with cameras ever have. Do I have the right to pull random cars over on the highway and demand to know what their BAC is? Can I accost people leaving a bar and ask them to take a test before they get in their cars and drive?
Ultimately, fears, legitimate and otherwise, must give way before civil rights. To live in fear, even fears based in some way in reality, may be an individual choice - but not a binding one on society. It can't be.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
We've always had problems with perverts, stalkers, and other bad people who used photography for evil ends - that's not really that new. What is new is that now it is so widely reported - we're aware of it. It is part of the social landscape - there are dangerous people out there, and some of them would prey on our family if we let them. Taken in that light, it is understandable that people have fear or trepidation when they see a man with a camera in public, taking photos of them or their family for God-knows-what reasons.
However, you are correct - photography in public is both reasonable and lawful under most circumstances, and if a person does not wish to be photographed, their only choice is to not go out in public. A person has control of how those images might be used commercially, but they cannot control that they will or will not be recorded. An ATM machine can take photos of any passing person - and does. A human photographer is no different in that sense.
The only thing I can offer is that I understand fear, I understand valid concern for the protection of one's family's safety. I do not let that stop me from doing what I must do to take the photographs I want to get. My street photographs (or more likely, those of a good street photographer) are documentary, they are commentary, they are part of the social history and fabric that are important historically and sociologically, not just artistically.
I fear DUI drivers and what they can to an unsuspecting public. DUI drivers do far more damage to people and property than perverts and stalkers with cameras ever have. Do I have the right to pull random cars over on the highway and demand to know what their BAC is? Can I accost people leaving a bar and ask them to take a test before they get in their cars and drive?
Ultimately, fears, legitimate and otherwise, must give way before civil rights. To live in fear, even fears based in some way in reality, may be an individual choice - but not a binding one on society. It can't be.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
T_om
Well-known
Creagerj said:
And you are welcome to limit your own photographic ventures by that guideline if you like.
Just don't try and impose them on me because I disagree. Your ethics are meaningless to me... unless they breach the law. In which case, it is no longer a matter of ethics at all.
Self correcting problem.
Tom
T_om
Well-known
PeterL said:
You said it. That is YOUR problem. Sorry, but your problems do not cut much ice with me.
We are a nation that has agreed to be governed by laws. We are not governed by other peoples perceived problems. You may not like some of the laws, and are thus invited to do your best via the proper channels to have them changed or amended.
But again, your problems with street photography do not matter to anyone except you and like minded individuals. If there are enough of you and those other individuals, then you can change the law, provided it meets the harsh eye of Constitutional examination in the courts.
Again, you are discussing a method of work. And that method is perfect... for you. It is not, however, perfect for everyone. Nor are all other methods illegal.
Tom
T_om
Well-known
camraluvr said:
Well, now that you brought it up...
ARE you a "photographer"? There is no evidence of it here that I can see. Nothing in your profile, nothing in your gallery. You may not have had time to load a gallery, and that's cool... but there is no link to a site in your profile either so the info is sorta sparse.
You may be the reincarnation of Ansel Adams, but so far we just have your assertion about the photographer bit.
Tom
