To the guy who took my picture without my permission ...

[dmr]

I saw this while perusing that Evil Librul Huffington Post. 🙂

Somewhat relevant to some of the discussions that have happened here.

Surf here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...out-my-permission_us_58e078a2e4b0d804fbbb73c4

Enjoy. 🙂

 

[tunalegs]

Big difference between sneaking shots of people on private property and photographing people openly out in public (to say nothing of intent).

 

[zuiko85]

Now if the guy had been wearing a fedora, chomping on a cigar and had a Speed Graphic with big, polished, flash holder. Then he could have gotten away with the shot. (dull as it sounds)

 

[Steve M.]

You just have to exercise common sense, a lost quality these days. Legally, if someone is out in public, private property or not, you can take a shot anytime anywhere in the USA. That doesn't mean I can shoot someone in their home w/ a long lens, and if I feel that a shot would just not be appropriate for one reason or another, I won't take it. If it's a once in a lifetime shot, well, obviously you take it even if it PO's the Pope. Gotta run, the Voice of Compassion and Intelligence FOX News is about to come on :]

You're sure about deaders not putting up a fight? My ex mother in law could probably still beat me up, and she's been a goner for decades. Meanness is hard to bury. If she goes where she's supposed to go, the devil is in for a bad time of it.

 

[Sid836]

Well that missing quality is ethics, pretty much missing in everything these days. Inadequate school and parenting account for that by quite a bit.

 

[oltimer]

Big difference between sneaking shots of people on private property and photographing people openly out in public (to say nothing of intent).

Tunalegs, normally there is intent, and I agree with what you said. I see as you do the posting of pic's on site's, and some of it should never have.
In Canada in 2004 the Supreme Court handed down a decision regarding photos without a release. I'm not a lawyer, but I do understand the basic wording. If you post a picture of someone, even if it's in an exhibit, online, or for commercial reasons without a release you can be sued. Trying to turn this around once in pretrial or actually court proceeding is not going to save your dear a_ _. If your going to play in this field in Canada the law is clear, and you better have a good bank account for your lawyer to fill his pockets with.

 

[willie_901]

Well that missing quality is ethics, pretty much missing in everything these days. Inadequate school and parenting account for that by quite a bit.

Get over it.

Ethics are subjective[1]. You can't enforce ethics because personal choice in ethics is capricious and arbitrary. Your interpretation of "quality" is authentic for one person... you.

This is one reason laws are so useful.



1/ Members of organized groups often follow a code of ethics. Now the ethics are not subjective. The group can enforce their ethics. Of course, non-member can ignore them.

 

[Timmyjoe]

In the city where I live there is a café where working photographers hang out. A few doors away is a barber shop where some "family" members hang out. Everyone gets along. Now and then a tourist or photo student decides to photograph the barber shop. Its a photogenic place. The door is generally open and people inside are visible from the street. When seeing a camera raised, someone from inside the shop says: "Don't do that", or something similar. When the warning is not heeded, one of the "fellows" from the shop will come out, grab the camera and remove the film (in the film days) or I guess a memory card(s) today and return the camera. I've never heard of the cops being called.

I always thought, given their nature, the folks in the barber shop handled the instances politely.

Reminds me of when I lived in NYC and worked for a weekly. Was sent on assignment to cover a bocce ball tournament in Corona, Queens. If you know Corona, back in the day, it was a "family" town (might still be) and I had to go get permission from the "family" to take any pictures. It was explained to me who exactly I was allowed to photograph (like four really old guys), and that was it, no one else. Was a nerve wracking afternoon making sure the camera only pointed at those four guys, and never in the wrong direction.

Best,
-Tim

 

[willie_901]

... If your going to play in this field in Canada the law is clear, and you better have a good bank account for your lawyer to fill his pockets with.

Or an appropriate insurance policy. In the US these are not expensive. I have no idea about Canada

Intent is important in the US as well. By intent I mean the neither the subject's right to privacy, trespassing nor slander are in play. Intent involves the subjective balance between freedom of expression and privacy. An attorney told me to exhibit work in juried photography shows from time to time. In the future the issue of intent would be more likely to work in my favor. Then I had a candid (no permission, no release) photograph of strangers curated for a museum exhibit. In terms of intent, this is even better.

Of course commercial usage is an entirely different situation.

 

[oltimer]

Or an appropriate insurance policy. In the US these are not expensive. I have no idea about Canada

Intent is important in the US as well. By intent I mean the neither the subject's right to privacy, trespassing nor slander are in play. Intent involves the subjective balance between freedom of expression and privacy. An attorney told me to exhibit work in juried photography shows from time to time. In the future the issue of intent would be more likely to work in my favor. Then I had a candid (no permission, no release) photograph of strangers curated for a museum exhibit. In terms of intent, this is even better.

Of course commercial usage is an entirely different situation.

I have no idea how US law works or even in other country's. When you take the picture, regardless of what subject; the intent is there. I already seen posted here that you can photograph whatever in the US without fear. I sure would like to know if this is another hear say internet quote? My belief is the the US has good laws and they will stand up in court.

 

[sevres_babylone]

Tunalegs, normally there is intent, and I agree with what you said. I see as you do the posting of pic's on site's, and some of it should never have.
In Canada in 2004 the Supreme Court handed down a decision regarding photos without a release. I'm not a lawyer, but I do understand the basic wording. If you post a picture of someone, even if it's in an exhibit, online, or for commercial reasons without a release you can be sued. Trying to turn this around once in pretrial or actually court proceeding is not going to save your dear a_ _. If your going to play in this field in Canada the law is clear, and you better have a good bank account for your lawyer to fill his pockets with.

The Supreme Court of Canada case was specific to the Province of Quebec, which was allowed to retain its civil code when Canada was formed; it has no bearing on photographs taken in public elsewhere in Canada.

 

[zuiko85]

The thing about our hyper-vigilant and security obsessed world is that in many places you are 'on camera' all the time. Including high angle, up in the corner, security cams. So, ladies, if you want privacy reconsider that blouse with the plunging neckline. Turtleneck's can be high fashion to.

 

[Roger Hicks]

The Supreme Court of Canada case was specific to the Province of Quebec, which was allowed to retain its civil code when Canada was formed; it has no bearing on photographs taken in public elsewhere in Canada.

Don't confuse people -- especially paranoid people -- with the facts.

Cheers,

R.

 

[oltimer]

The Supreme Court of Canada case was specific to the Province of Quebec, which was allowed to retain its civil code when Canada was formed; it has no bearing on photographs taken in public elsewhere in Canada.

I read it all and how it applies to the rest of Canada.

 

[gns]

And yet, there her photo is, right at the top of the article. For anyone to add to their "spank bank" as she calls it.

 

[rbsinto]

A tempest in a teapot.
Peeking under bathroom stalls is one thing, but getting your picture taken in public or even in a private setting such as a bar is quite another.
I'm primarily a street photographer who walks around shooting in plain sight while wearing a photo vest and carrying at least three and sometimes four vintage film cameras.
As such I am often photographed by others, sometimes with, but more often without permission, to which I say, "Knock yourself out. Take as many as you like."
On those occasions when I happen to notice someone in the act of sneaking a shot, and if they quickly lower the camera, I'll approach them and ask if they want to take a shot, and if so, I'll stand still or whatever, so they can.
What are they going to do with those pictures? Photoshop me having sex with a goat?
Looking at the bigger picture we are all photographed and videotaped every day without permission when we enter and exit stores, use ATMs and fuel up our cars.
There are far more important issues in the World to become Righteously Indignant about than this.
Robert

 

[daveleo]

Actually articles like the one referenced are generally internet blabber (I do it myself and it's fun). Make an "incident" about really nothing, wrap it in some cutsey wording and grab your 15 seconds of (page 36) fame. What a bore.

 

[KM-25]

And yet, there her photo is, right at the top of the article. For anyone to add to their "spank bank" as she calls it.

And that is her choice, not yours or the creep in the bar.

 

[kxl]

Legally, if someone is out in public, private property or not, you can take a shot anytime anywhere in the USA.

It's actually a little bit more restrictive here in California, given the state's anti-paparazzi laws.

 

[Pioneer]

Anyone can get upset over anything.

This really isn't about photography at all. It is about an entitled millennial with a mistaken belief in her right to privacy, a strange little man with a propensity for drunken violence and, only incidentally, a cell phone.

It is very unlikely he was charged with anything. The police were called, took statements and made a report, case done. They probably wouldn't even have bothered showing up to do that if the guy had left the bar quietly. Instead he made a scene and tried to punch an employee.

There is better action to be found in most Florida Wal-Marts.

The bigger problem for this guy was his wife, regardless of his intent. 😀

But I kind of agree with Daveleo. This was really a non-story which, base on the history of follow-up and verification of most reporters, probably didn't happen at all. Another urban myth created by a girl who wishes she had done what she claims.