Street Photography Under Attack? WBZ-TV Boston's slanted piece

[filmfan]

It's very interesting to hear these opinions. I appreciate learning more about where I come from through the eyes of others. I grew up just North of Boston and went to High School in the Western part of the state. I went to university in Colorado, which is basically like being back in MA due to the insane number of us East Coasters out here.

 

[hteasley]

Not just Boston, it's a New-England wide trait. To tell you the truth, I've grown to appreciate this trait a bit. Cold and rude is one side of it, but there's also a reserve that's admirable, and they don't share the general American inclination to puke up unnecessary personal information within the first 10 minutes of being introduced. In some ways, I find the genuine rudeness of New Englanders preferable to the often phony and indecipherable good cheer of Californians.

Best epitomized in a classic New Yorker cartoon (wish I could find it): two panels, two talking heads, one panel labelled "New York" and the other panel labelled "L.A."

L.A. panel: One guy is saying "Have a nice day!" and is thinking "F*** you."

New York panel: One guy is saying "F*** You" and is thinking "Have a nice day!"

I prefer the latter. Moving to Massachusetts was a weird transition. People are generally pretty terse, I find. But once you've met them two or three times, things seem to change, and they be very nice and will go out of their way for you much more than I've seen in most other places. I grew up in the land of "Southern Hospitality", and New England rivals it, though in a very weird way.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Best epitomized in a classic New Yorker cartoon (wish I could find it): two panels, two talking heads, one panel labelled "New York" and the other panel labelled "L.A."

L.A. panel: One guy is saying "Have a nice day!" and is thinking "F*** you."

New York panel: One guy is saying "F*** You" and is thinking "Have a nice day!"

I prefer the latter. Moving to Massachusetts was a weird transition. People are generally pretty terse, I find. But once you've met them two or three times, things seem to change, and they be very nice and will go out of their way for you much more than I've seen in most other places. I grew up in the land of "Southern Hospitality", and New England rivals it, though in a very weird way.

And that actually reminds me of that movie with Steve Martin (I think it's called "Blue Heaven"), who plays a mobster that is on the Witness Protection program and moved to San Diego. Everybody was so friendly there, his answer to "hello!" and "good morning" was "f--- you".

 

[Field]

Lets clear some stuff up.

1. Selling photos for journalism is legal without releases because of freedom of the press. However if it is for commercial reasons (an advertisement) you need a release. Art is very... in order for it to be considered commercial first you would probably need someone to actually file a suit against you and then I do not know what would happen after that. You might as well get a release if you can from anyone you want to sell a print from that is not for "the press". If you can not well it is up to you to risk it. That is my understanding. I assume 99% of the time people sell photos without problems.

2. Legal photographs of body parts are acceptable so long as two conditions are not met.

First is you can not invade an expected level of privacy. This mean you can take all the leg, ass, man junk, and boob shots you want so long as you never take them from a vantage point that the subject did not intend on revealing to the public by walking outside of their home. Does it make you any more interesting than a Girls Gone Wild video, or any more tasteful? Got me... I am open to anything having potential to be interesting compared to just being smut. Most likely it just makes you a boring loser. People appear to be pushing for laws against boring losers these days.

Second you do not intend or take the shot in order to slander the individual. You can catch them doing something bad that speaks for itself, but if you intentionally skew the idea to be only to bring peer harm to the person anymore than the action itself then you are breaking a law. The right to free speech covers this with the clause that lower forms of speech (pure slander with no support) are not protected; an example being talking trash about someones mother you do not know.

*This means that photographing children is legal unless the shots are being depicted specifically in capturing moments that are seen as sexual, which would be to slander a young person. Now can a judge see it either way, sure... We have no control over that. For the same reason never take photos of your child in the bath tube and allow anyone but trusted friends or yourself develop them.

*Technically taking body shots you could sell for money without release at an art show. The reason is the person is unidentifiable so they can never claim to be at a loss. However if it says their name on some sort of butt tag obviously this changes the point.

There is a much bigger problem with all of this that no one is talking about.

The big problem is that street photography is getting ousted by people that do not know laws, and are uncomfortable whenever someone pulls out a black camera because they have no self confidence and only fear the worst. That in itself may not sound bad but...

If it were anything like the candy scare at Halloween what happens is that it will be turned into a "safe" thing so that only registered people working for the government or some big "trusted" corporation are allowed to photograph. Seriously next time you are out try wearing a big hat that has a news channel on it, or some other "trusted" organization. A lot of people will probably care less or even want to be photographed.

This scare is a reason we all should make a point to be seen, and educate people on the laws. - "This is fair game, once you leave your house I can photograph you and you can photograph me."

If we allow ourselves to be pushed around the only people documenting things will be Homeland Security. You might consider that a conspiracy theory but then you are an idiot. Everyone establishment bent on making lots of money besides news operations would prefer to make up stories and deny stories as they go.

It is pretty much impartive that we keep it a social norm to do street photography, especially journalism. The with patriot act it would take nothing more than the idea of public consent to strip all of us from taking photos with a couple crafty words and bureaucratic laws/guidelines that do not even have to go through the houses due to granted power by congress.

*I have no idea why but people are way more afraid of larger cameras, particularly our coveted black "professional" editions. Yes you could pretty much shove an Ipod in any orifice of their body and they wouldn't even think about it.

*News channels advise kids only trick-or-treat at established businesses and recommend the malls. The idea is breed positive sentiment to corporate entities.

THE FUNNIEST AND WORST PART OF THIS ENTIRE THING - PEOPLE ARE DUMB ENOUGH TO THINK IF THE ANECDOTE OF ONE PERSON EXISTS THAT REALLY SHOOTS UP SKIRTS, IT IS OK TO OSTRACIZE ALL PHOTOGRAPHERS. THIS IS THE SAME MENTALITY THAT IF YOU HAPPENED TO SEE AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN COMMITTING A CRIME THEN ALL AFRICAN-AMERICANS ARE SHADY CRIMINALS. IT IS PATHETIC AS WELL AS ARCHAIC THAT PHOTOGRAPHERS OR ANYONE WITH A NON-P&S CAMERA IS BEING SUBJUGATED TO THIS. :bang:

P.S. I like to wave, and smile. I only ask permission when I can not get a natural shot. Then I have to wait for a natural one if they ever make it available to me again. I think the best shots are the ones that do not acknowledge the camera as far as street photography goes (generally). People still freak out when they see my giant black Nikon F. At least I do not have one of those foot long canon lenses I can only image...

The photographing planes thing is ludicrous because for one anyone that really wanted to do it could just get a lens to shoot it from so far away no one knew what they were taking picture of at all. Plus wearing a hood so you can see through your finder is not shady, it just means you need to buy a rubber eye cup.

 

[Mister E]

I take pictures of kids and women all the time, so what?

 

[kevin m]

Anyways, a running joke back on the west coast, upon returning was if we had spent evenings in "woosta"

One of the funniest "Top Ten" lists on David Letterman was "The funniest things you can say with a Boston accent" and #1 was "I'm going to Worcester to get a toaster, you b*stard." But of course it sounded more like, "I'm goin ta Woostah ta get a toastah, ya bastid." 😀

Best epitomized in a classic New Yorker cartoon (wish I could find it): two panels, two talking heads, one panel labelled "New York" and the other panel labelled "L.A."

L.A. panel: One guy is saying "Have a nice day!" and is thinking "F*** you."

New York panel: One guy is saying "F*** You" and is thinking "Have a nice day!"

I cut that one out and matted it at one point. 🙂 (don't know where it is now...)

I prefer the latter.

Me too. I find that dealing honestly with conflict is much healthier in the long-term, despite the initial abrasiveness. The veneer of civility is very often hiding something much nastier than a friendly "F*ck you, pal!" 😀

 

[sig]

Boston and not street photography is under attack.....

 

[Field]

Boston and not street photography is under attack.....

I think the sentiment is unfortunately shared among too many people in other places. Maybe it is just that Boston News is willing to say F-off photographers we think you are creeps, in the same way the citizens say something to eachother.

Where I live there are so many places teaching photography classes that everyone is use to it. In a place five to tens times the size that my mother lives, people are way more sensitive about it. The regularity keeps it ok in the eyes of the average person. Just like in L.A. everyone knows that the paparazzi is going to be oozing all over some places; even though many think they are sleaze, they are accepted sleaze.

 

[oftheherd]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krosya
While I agree with this - I do have a thought. From what I understand those guys dont shoot for profit, while every news report is technically for profit and would require person's consent to be photographed or at least published/aired, correct?

So your thinking is that every time you see reporters chasing down someone they want to interview (like Scott Peterson, Drew Peterson, or Casey Anthony) they get Release Forms signed by them...I don't think so...

I think he was seriously asking if news reporters were required to get signed releases before posting news photos. The answer is, if it is for a news report, and their actions in getting the photo were legal, no. Well actually, no regardless. However, if they break the law in getting the photos, that would be a separate matter.

 

[GSNfan]

After watching the video of those people taking photos, I thought the apt title for this thread should have been, 'wannabe paparazo wage war on street photography'.

-Don't attract attention
-Don't annoy people
-Respect your subjects

These so called photographers broke all those rules, taking photos like a pack of hooligans with cameras and annoying people so much that they had to call the news crew. Then during the interview, not allowing themselves to be filmed while they were hounding people with their cameras!

These people are actually the greatest threat to street photography than any draconian government legislation. Wannabe paparazzi, hunting in a pack and photographing women's legs while bending down! In full view of a public square. Seriously, if i was there i would have picked a fight with those idiots, simply because I knew i could never photograph in that place anymore if those people continued on... This is one clear instance of a bunch of cowards who only feel daring in a pack. I bet none of them could dare to raise the camera to eye level if alone on the street.


But the worst thing about this video is that it has awakened the mob mentality against street photographers. Now any self-righteous person could pick on a photographer and would be joined by the by-standers. That is the worst part, now people know street photographers are 'wrong' and thus fair game.

If this trend picks up and more city news crews start hounding street photographers, kiss this hobby good-bye without the government even blinking an eye. This is one instance that we have to clean our own house, and how we do that, and how we reign in all these run-away packs of amateur paparazzi is something I don't have any answer.


I'm sorry for all the genuine Boston area street photographers.

 

[twopointeight]

Too much generalization here about "street". Winogrand, Levitt, Gilden, Meyerowitz, and a few others of that distinction have nothing to do with this pack depicted. These guys are apparently putting out a pervy vibe and doing it collectively. Sure, they have a right to be shooting in public, but that doesn't make it cool or acceptable, or worthwhile.

 

[jsrockit]

These so called photographers broke all those rules, taking photos like a pack of hooligans with cameras and annoying people so much that they had to call the news crew. Then during the interview, not allowing themselves to be filmed while they were hounding people with their cameras!

I have to agree. "We're street photographers!" :bang:

 

[Mister E]

After watching the video of those people taking photos, I thought the apt title for this thread should have been, 'wannabe paparazo wage war on street photography'.

-Don't attract attention
-Don't annoy people
-Respect your subjects

These so called photographers broke all those rules, taking photos like a pack of hooligans with cameras and annoying people so much that they had to call the news crew. Then during the interview, not allowing themselves to be filmed while they were hounding people with their cameras!

These people are actually the greatest threat to street photography than any draconian government legislation. Wannabe paparazzi, hunting in a pack and photographing women's legs while bending down! In full view of a public square. Seriously, if i was there i would have picked a fight with those idiots, simply because I knew i could never photograph in that place anymore if those people continued on... This is one clear instance of a bunch of cowards who only feel daring in a pack. I bet none of them could dare to raise the camera to eye level if alone on the street.


But the worst thing about this video is that it has awakened the mob mentality against street photographers. Now any self-righteous person could pick on a photographer and would be joined by the by-standers. That is the worst part, now people know street photographers are 'wrong' and thus fair game.

If this trend picks up and more city news crews start hounding street photographers, kiss this hobby good-bye without the government even blinking an eye. This is one instance that we have to clean our own house, and how we do that, and how we reign in all these run-away packs of amateur paparazzi is something I don't have any answer.


I'm sorry for all the genuine Boston area street photographers.

What? These guys are far less provocative than say Bruce Gilden, et. al.

 

[furcafe]

I don't know, I'm more w/"Mister E," though I agree that these guys could use some help in the public relations department. IMHO, what's going on is a combination of many of the things that have been mentioned, only exacerbated by poorly-done, & stereotypically sensationalistic, "journalism" by WBZ-TV. Having seen many street shooters, good & bad, @ work in the real world, plus videos of the likes of Winogrand, Meyerowitz, Gilden, Parr, & Eggleston, I fail to see how they're significantly any creepier/pervier/annoying in their working methods. The main factor is that the general public, @ least in much of the developed world, is much more paranoid about photography, even as compared to 10 years ago, & the TV station is simply exploiting that sentiment in a bad way.

As a practical matter, anyone shooting the public, even a reincarnated young HC-B w/lightning ninja-like reflexes or the totally nice, inoffensive Bill Cunningham (in the documentary he gets yelled @ by a couple teenage girls) has to be prepared to deal w/potentially, or actively, hostile feedback. The fact that these guys seem to be working together as a group, are all apparently middle-aged men, seem to have a defensive attitude when questioned, & have a member who's fixated on leg shots isn't helping their cause. While they may be hanging out together for protection (but from what?) or because they enjoy each other's company, it just serves to draw attention to themselves, which is last thing they should be doing if they can't do a good job of explaining what they're doing (in plain English, not photo nerd speak) or don't have the charisma/balls to just ignore people or tell them off.

Too much generalization here about "street". Winogrand, Levitt, Gilden, Meyerowitz, and a few others of that distinction have nothing to do with this pack depicted. These guys are apparently putting out a pervy vibe and doing it collectively. Sure, they have a right to be shooting in public, but that doesn't make it cool or acceptable, or worthwhile.

 

[Field]

I tried the video again and my computer actually played it.

Now that I have seen the footage I am not sure there is anything wrong here but a bunch of idiots at a news station trying to hyper-scare people so that photography is censored as means of control - like censoring Internet traffic.

There is no way to tell if the one man who bent over actually shot up-skit. He looks totally lame bending over instead of kneeling but he also looks so old that he may not get back up.

There is NO rule about through legs shots. The only RULE is invasion of privacy. If he was shooting through the girls legs wearing shorts and not focusing on trying to see up into the shorts he did not do anything wrong.

People have been doing through leg shots for decades.

http://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-c...7/george-clooney-through-the-legs-414x500.jpg

*I did not listen to the sound clips so I have no idea if the people they talked to are rude, or idiots. Even if they are that does not mean their rights should be taken away by fist or law.

 

[GSNfan]

What? These guys are far less provocative than say Bruce Gilden, et. al.

A good friend who's a decent photographer used to say that Gilden is a street performer and not a street photographer... Imo street photography is like a street performance, but inversely if you're good no one takes notice, if you're bad they call the news crew and embarrass you for the rest of your life, as it happened in the case of these guys.

Gilden likes attention, thats his personality, we meet people like that everywhere. He likes to jump on people and then chat with them and so on... he makes a certain kind of image that is 'cool' for some people, but nothing that makes you think or feel, more of an instant look and then forgotten. His no intellectual thats for sure, and that he does not pretend to be one is admirable.

 

[igi]

I feel pity for those guys. For all you know, it may just be a gathering with friends with similar interests.

Perverts? Have you seen their pictures to make that kind judgment?

 

[GSNfan]

I feel pity for those guys. For all you know, it may just be a gathering with friends with similar interests.

Perverts? Have you seen their pictures to make that kind judgment?

When you annoy people and turn into a nuisance, they'll call you all sorts of things... A pervert is the stereotype of a photographer and there have been many cases of perverts using a camera but for people someone using a camera equals photographer, the same way that those clowns think by photographing on the street like a pack of excited teenagers makes them street photographers.

 

[MC JC86]

I really don't see how seconds of edited news footage can possibly make one judge another as a "pervert" or even a "clown".

Are there any amongst us who haven't had moments in their life that, if taken out of context and shown on the news, would make us appear something other than what we are.


I see some wild conjecture based on very little information and I hope all of those engaging in said behavior will never be subject to it themselves.

My favorite was the decision that since the older man was shown bending oddly to take a picture, not only was he a pervert but also had poor technique.

 

[igi]

...the same way that those clowns think by photographing on the street like a pack of excited teenagers makes them street photographers.

Whoa!? Really now, do they look like "a pack of excited teenagers"??? Can you show me a particular part of the news clip which shows this?

On the other hand, I can show you the whole news clip to prove otherwise.