Street Photography Legal News

[raid]

Calm down guys. This thread has turned into a very personal one indeed. I also enjoy having well-known laws that we can live by. Without laws we would be in a state of chaos. While not everything is perfect of even nice, this is a relative issue. Let's go out and take good photos.

 

[T_om]

When taking a photo I'm not actually doing anything with your body, am I? I don't touch it, feel it or even have to see it.QUOTE]

You know perfectly well you don't have to physically touch someone to cause them harm. 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? .

Sorry. You lose. I will, and have, taken many shots of kids in public. I'll take yours (and your daughter's) if you happen to cross paths with me when I am out shooting.

If you (and your daughter) are in a public place, you (and your daughter) have no expectation of privacy.

It no more matters what you THINK I am going to do with the photos than it does what you THINK I am doing by merely looking at her. Are you going to challenge that too?

I'm not hurting a bridge or government building when I photograph them either but that's against the law now and, 'Oh My God', they're in public.

Wrong again.

Wow.

Tom

 

[T_om]

Calm down guys. This thread has turned into a very personal one indeed. I also enjoy having well-known laws that we can live by. Without laws we would be in a state of chaos. While not everything is perfect of even nice, this is a relative issue. Let's go out and take good photos.

But I don't watch TV so what other entertainment is available on a Sunday evening except to drop in and argue a bit. 😀

Tom

PS: I'm glad I'm more or less on the same side in this one as Bill, he's a tough debating opponent. 😉

 

[Benfidar]

El Guapo

I agree entirely with you. I also understand the fear. I only hope that we can keep it from becoming so generalized that we sweep away swaths of activity indiscriminately.

Best,

 

[bmattock]

http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=3303

Aside from the unforgiveable sin of referring to the legendary Winogrand as "Barry," this is an interesting read. Not sure what it means as yet, but I thought worthy of passing on in this thread.

Throughout the whole ordeal, I expected to be questioned and then turned loose with some sort of vague warning about bearded men coming into banks with cameras—a warning that, in retrospect, I certainly understand as valid, especially in the world of post-9/11 paranoia that we live in. Well, I got the warning. And, I got arrested. Arrested, believe it or not, for disorderly conduct. Both the cameras I had on me, including the one I wasn’t using, were confiscated.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

That is one more reason for all of us to carry a camera everywhere with us. Supermarket, work, bank: everywhere.

I love it when I take the small one in my pocket and somebody says "Jon, where's your camera today."

 

[Ballen Photo]

Thanks for sharing this news shaaktiman. 😀
-Bruce

 

[bmattock]

And yet more...

http://www.abqtrib.com/albq/nw_local/article/0,2564,ALBQ_19858_4720420,00.html

Bar owners worried; testing patrons on sidewalk harassment, they say
By Maggie Shepard
Tribune Reporter
May 23, 2006

...

Awareness and apprehension about the new testing approach reached a peak Saturday when the Downtown Distillery, an Albuquerque bar, hired a videographer to stand on the sidewalk to document how agents use the breath testers, commonly known as Breathalyzers.

The night turned into much more for the videographer, David Garcia, who was arrested by the agents on a charge of obstruction of an officer in the enforcement/administration of the Liquor Control Act.

According to a Metro Court criminal complaint, agents in front of the Distillery observed Garcia videotaping them and requested he not videotape their faces because they sometimes work undercover.

But Garcia refused, saying he was hired to tape the harassment of bar patrons. He was arrested.

Then, the bar's owner came out with a second video camera to record Garcia's arrest. He was also arrested on the same charge. As he was being arrested, the bar's manager came out with a third video camera and was arrested on the same charge.

Videotape the police while they are enforcing the law in Albuquerque and go to jail. What our police do, they do in private - the public is never again to see a Rodney King-style beatdown, because if you try to video it, you will be arrested.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[RML]

Videotape the police while they are enforcing the law in Albuquerque and go to jail. What our police do, they do in private - the public is never again to see a Rodney King-style beatdown, because if you try to video it, you will be arrested.

Sounds like a banana republic. Not that we are any better but still....

 

[Dougg]

It will be interesting to see how that works out and if it comes before a judge or is dropped.

 

[hannahbearsmom]

Members of the Satmar Hassidic sect are indeed forbidden by their religion to have their picture taken, since they take the 2nd commandment, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image", quite literally. The guy who sued the photographer may have been a member of this (relatively small) sect. The people who run the NYC camera stores are certainly not.

Hmmm.....I always thought that the Satmar were prohibited from having their photograph taken due to the "graven image" prohibition. Yesterday, though, I read an article on the rift between the sons of the late Satmar Rebbe. There were many photos accompanying the article, including photos of the late Rebbe, his predecessor, and the fueding son, who both want to be named Rebbe.

Also, the article stated that B&H Photo is owned by the Satmar. Today, I Googled "B&H" and "Satmar" and found several referenced to Satmar's owership of B&H.

So, it appears that the Satmar are able to have their picture taken and they own B&H. I'm still where the notion that Satmar's can't be photographed came from.

Laurie

 

[Ballen Photo]

Laurie, This is an interesting discovery, albeit a bit confusing as well. Thanks for doing the research.
-Bruce

 

[hannahbearsmom]

Laurie, This is an interesting discovery, albeit a bit confusing as well. Thanks for doing the research.
-Bruce

One more interesting tidbit of info I discovered. The name B&H is derived from the blessing "Baruch Hashem" -- Blessed is G-d.

Laurie

 

[Magnus]

Philip-Lorca diCorcia is a very smart man, find out for how much his fotos went before all "the news" and see what is charged now .... you might also want to check the number of pictures sold before and after, keep an eye on his carreer from now on it certainly has taken quite a leap... and all this at the initial investment of a couple of tens of thousand dollars.....

 

[popitz]

After reading through all this, I realized how lucky I am to live in a place where people taking pictures in public is a normal thing (and everyone has a camera) and lawsuits aren't thrown around like cigarette butts (now that's illegal in some parts of Tokyo). I couldn't imagine how the Japanese camera manufacturers would react if they ban photography in public places (with or without people in the picture) here in Japan. Poor Araki won't have anything to do anymore.

So come on all you street photographers! Do your stuff here without fear of a lawsuit or a cop harassing you.

 

[canonetc]

It would be interesting to find out how well that NY ruling appiles in California and the other states. The 1998 Anti-Paparazzi law in California clearly concerns actual trespass onto private property and invasion of familial privacy on said private property, but interestingly does not pertain to public areas. But I like and am happy to learn from the ruling mentioned in this thread that as long as my images are "art", they are protected, relatively, by the 1st Amendment, even if they are sold through a gallery. At least, that's my understanding of the ruling.....

Got a good book recently called, "The Law (In Plain English) for Photographers" by Leonard D. Duboff. Pretty plain, very interesting, and full of case examples concerning privacy, defamation, libel, privacy, business, and how to pass on your massive collection of 10,000 negatives to your kids. Worth having.

Cheers,

Chris
canonetc

 

[anaanda]

I think taking someone's picture when they don't want it taken is an offense. Nobody has the "right" to do anything, only responsibilty. I couldn't feel good about a piece of work if the subject was hostile towards me. I think part of the greatness of Cartier Bresson was his respect for the people in his photographs. This photographer obviously has no respect for his subjects and cares more for his fame and publicity than the fact that a person's dignity was violated..

 

[Dougg]

I think taking someone's picture when they don't want it taken is an offense. ... I couldn't feel good about a piece of work if the subject was hostile towards me....

Well, I have some sympathy for this view; I like a lack of opposition whether it's enthusiastic cooperation (though too much cooperation can itself be a problem!) or just an awareness and acceptance of the photography. If the subject signals they're not pleased with it, I stop.

As an example, the pic below is of a local acquaintance I ran into on the street. Hadn't seen him for a while, never photographed, and as we greeted I said something like "you wouldn't mind a quick snapshot would you?" and shot at the same time. He didn't really answer, but had this "closed down" expression. We chatted a bit more and went our different ways.

When I later saw the pic I interpreted the expression as a passive displeasure with the photography. And that thought ruined the photo for me, not that it's necessarily great anyway, but it made me feel bad that he might be unhappy over my taking it. Then a couple months later I ran into him again and apologized for not waiting for his approval before shooting. He laughed and said it was fine, he had just been surprised, is all. No problem at all. That made me feel a lot better (he is a consulting phsychologist after all!) and with this acceptance I'll now show the pic publicly.

Edit: For what it's worth: Contax G2 45mm Planar, Fuji NPH@250

 

[anaanda]

Dougg,
its nice that you see it that way because as photographers our integrity is important.