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

[jsrockit]

Taking a photo of somebody else is harassment ? Who is being harassed ?

Depending on how it is done, yes. I photograph on the streets and am fully ok with someone not liking me to take their photo. I can understand why they might not like it. If I do so anyway, I believe it to be harassment.

Why do you care what he is into ? For all we know he just got a new cell phone and is testing noise level at high ISO.

I test my cellphone with ass shots in a bar all of the time... 😉 I would imagine that the person being photographed might care what he is into and the purpose of the photo.

The link in the OP points to a clear case of "Snowflake journalism" if you ask me 🙂

"clear" huh? Is it really out of the realm of possibility that it could have happened?

 

[Bill Clark]

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

Something to chew on:

What about cameras that monitor activities?

They're very prolific now and getting more so.

Most are connected to a recording device.

What about the camera on your smart phone, tablet computer or computer? Maybe even your car!

Maybe Eric Blair was correct on forcasting the future. His pen name, George Orwell.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell

They don't get anyone's permission, do they?

 

[sepiareverb]

Depending on how it is done, yes. I photograph on the streets and am fully ok with someone not liking me to take their photo. I can understand why they might not like it. If I do so anyway, I believe it to be harassment.

But that is likely made known after you've taken the picture many times no? And how about the many people who might not like it but are not aware you have made the picture and so do not make it known? Or you've pointed the camera and not made a picture, but they've become uncomfortable, hasn't the harassment already taken place? And simply looking at some people seems to make them uncomfortable, so how should one react to that?

If this level of paranoia becomes acceptable, how long will it be before simply bumping into someone will become a punishable offense.

To expect privacy in a public arena is completely impossible. As stated we are being photographed constantly in every city, convenience store, big box store, and likely most bars. Is the author as horrified by this? I can totally see the tape of what happened last night at the bar being viewed for pleasure.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . And simply looking at some people seems to make them uncomfortable, so how should one react to that?

If this level of paranoia becomes acceptable, how long will it be before simply bumping into someone will become a punishable offense. . . .

Exactly.

Cheers,

R.

 

[JHutchins]

Yeah, he's most likely not into photography but more into perving.

Why is it that you believe this? First, I'm not entirely sure whether there's any common definition of "perving" we could all agree on. With respect to things like taking photos of fully clothed people in public spaces the difference between pervy and reasonable behavior is probably mostly one of inarticulable instinct that may not be shared across two people observing precisely the same behavior. Maybe most would agree that it at least has something to do with the erotic value of a scene although that is in some ways a troublesome definition. If so it's not easy for me to see, in a world full of free and easily accessible pornography catering to every taste under the moon, why it's obvious that any given person taking pictures in a bar is doing so for that reason. It's possible, I guess -- it's a vast and mighty world but are those people more numerous than or even as numerous as people who just like taking pictures for the same reasons you and I might?

I routinely take pictures in crowded bars -- you can see some of them in my gallery here, many more on facebook -- and don't think there's anything particularly perverted about them. I live in a small town and at this point almost everyone knows who I am -- even those I don't know at all -- so I don't really ever get any grief from anyone. One person -- a person I hadn't even taken a picture of -- who I'd not seen before and have not seen since, once yelled out that I was a creep and tried to take my camera. I thought, in turn, that she was a nitwit with a ludicrous sense of entitlement who thought she was allowed to turn a public place into a private party just by walking into the room. The author of the article seems cut from the same cloth.

 

[jsrockit]

If this level of paranoia becomes acceptable, how long will it be before simply bumping into someone will become a punishable offense.

Of course it is a topic with a lot of gray area. However, I don't find a woman complaining of being photographed (and her friend's ass being photographed) hard to fathom. I've seen it myself and it's creepy when the only reason for the photo is because the woman was hot or sexy. Again, I photograph strangers on the street and I'm not saying you shouldn't. However a person has the right to complain and ask about why you photographed them. You are legally within your rights to say F off. I just think there is a difference between street photography and ass shots taken on the sly.

 

[ferider]

However a person has the right to complain.

Yes. In the US in public, the same and identical right as the other person taking the photo. There is no difference, it is "free speech" in both cases.

Calling the photographer a "perv", is perverting your own liberties. You can't know his intentions, and they shouldn't be any of your business.

 

[jsrockit]

Why is it that you believe this?

It's just not hard to believe.

First, I'm not entirely sure whether there's any common definition of "perving" we could all agree on.

True.

With respect to things like taking photos of fully clothed people in public spaces the difference between pervy and reasonable behavior is probably mostly one of inarticulable instinct that may not be shared across two people observing precisely the same behavior.

True as well.

Maybe most would agree that it at least has something to do with the erotic value of a scene although that is in some ways a troublesome definition. If so it's not easy for me to see, in a world full of free and easily accessible pornography catering to every taste under the moon, why it's obvious that any given person taking pictures in a bar is doing so for that reason.

Sexual fantasy is a weird thing that we cannot agree on either.

It's possible, I guess -- it's a vast and mighty world but are those people more numerous than or even as numerous as people who just like taking pictures for the same reasons you and I might?

I've seen this type of stuff before. I'm not looking and staring at women when I'm photographing. In my scene, it can be a ugly person of any age and it'll be fine too. I've just seen people taking cell phone pics of women after oggling for too long too. Drunk people can be dumb and not aware of who else is looking.

I routinely take pictures in crowded bars -- you can see some of them in my gallery here, many more on facebook -- and don't think there's anything particularly perverted about them. I live in a small town and at this point almost everyone knows who I am -- even those I don't know at all -- so I don't really ever get any grief from anyone. One person -- a person I hadn't even taken a picture of -- who I'd not seen before and have not seen since, once yelled out that I was a creep and tried to take my camera. I thought, in turn, that she was a nitwit with a ludicrous sense of entitlement who thought she was allowed to turn a public place into a private party just by walking into the room. The author of the article seems cut from the same cloth.

Sure, a lot of innocent photography happens all over the place every day. That doesn't mean women are not harassed often. My girlfriend gets harassed a lot and I've seen it myself. It's just not something that I can categorically state doesn't exist simply because I am pro-photography.

 

[jsrockit]

Calling the photographer a "perv", is perverting your own liberties. You can't know his intentions, and they shouldn't be any of your business.

I'll say it again. I'm completely pro-photography and feel you should be able to make photos in public. However, I'm not for ass shots on the sneak or harassing women. Perhaps she is making it into something it wasn't. However, it does happen and it is slimy when you see it.

 

[hlockwood]

Does anyone know the U.S. law when photographing in a privately owned space that is open to the public? I know it's up to the owner, but must the policy be posted?

I read that a private space is considered public if opened to the public and not otherwise stated.

John

At the Museum of Fine Arts (MFA) here in Boston one can photograph anyone or any exhibit - unless a specific exhibit states "No Photography." These are usually new exhibits in a reserved space. For instance, this image is unrestricted.

HFL

 

[willie_901]

The woman who wrote the article mentioned by the OP is obviously unaware of the photographers' rights. Her complaint is trivial compared to the following examples.

If memory serves, one of the defining cases in NY State involved a guy photographing young women on a public beach (Coney Island of all places) in bikinis.

The young women sued and lost. This was where the NY courts defined the right to privacy in terms of a reasonable expectation of being naked without being observed.

In terms of the law, being a perv doesn't count. I am not pro perv. And, anyone caught taking up-skirt photos will be arrested, charged and convicted every time.

Recently a successful artist was sued for candid photography of Orthodox Jews in NYC. The photographs were in a gallery show and prints were sold for significant sums of money. The plaintiffs claimed their right to freedom of religion was violated (something about having their likeness on display and sold). The photographer won.

Even more recently another artist displayed work, sold prints and published a book of candid photographs of people in NYC high-rise apartments. These apartments happen to have floor to ceiling windows. The subjects were many stories above street level and usually did not have their curtains or window blinds closed. The photographer took the photos from another high-rise building directly across the street. The subjects sued and lost.

I would have not made any of these photographs. But my personal ethics are irrelevant.

 

[jsrockit]

I would have not made any of these photographs. But my personal ethics are irrelevant.

I'm not so sure she thinks it's illegal. It does come down to personal ethics though since it is legal. However, just because something is legal doesn't mean it can't feel harassing to another person. Most of us don't want public photography to be illegal, but I think it is good to have some type of self-control at times too. This will never be an easy topic with a black and white answer.

 

[roscoetuff]

FWIW, I agree with charjohncarter and willie_901. Sounds to me like the author encountered a perv at a bar. Yet I seriously doubt the guy was into photography of any sort, or that it had anything to do with the activity he was engaged with.

And yet it touches on the room that's left for the rest of us to capture photos everywhere else. I think this is the OP's point. Consider that our current norms tend to have folks frightened of others - particularly strangers - and particularly (by consensus) whenever kids are involved to the point where there is indeed some risk in being friendly to a mom in a grocery store and complimenting her no the beauty and wonder of her children... much less taking their photo. It's a risk. Maybe a small and normal one, but look twice and you might hear, "Security to aisle 3... guy in a raincoat...".

I don't care how public the space might be... there's a risk that your photography might end up with your photo on a Post Office wall if you exercise your rights without a degree of awareness of how others perceive what we're about. As we've all said to our own kids (okay some of us): "Just because you can doesn't mean you should, nor is doing everything legal turn out to be a good idea." Me? I think most of us know where the lines are drawn most of the time, and we're going to use common sense and err on the side of caution. Especially if we're amateurs. Keep it fun! and don't do crazy.

Wasn't it Peter Salinger whose exercise of discretion got him THE interview with Jackie after JFK's death? Looking longer-term... there is often more than meets the immediate eyeball than simply the shot you miss or surrender today. And maybe it's not me who gets it... but the other guy. That's okay, right? At some point it's about photography in general... not just "MY photography.

 

[micromontenegro]

...in a world full of free and easily accessible pornography catering to every taste under the moon, why it's obvious that any given person taking pictures in a bar is doing so for that reason.

That. It is, IMHO, simply absurd to asign prima facie erotic value to the picture of a fully clothed stranger and call the picture-taker a perv. To me, it says a lot more about the mind of the critic than about that of the photog.

Even thinking about it is practicing thought police, and creating guilt before even the most remote whiff of proof has been produced.

 

[jsrockit]

That. It is, IMHO, simply absurd to asign prima facie erotic value to the picture of a fully clothed stranger and call the picture-taker a perv. To me, it says a lot more about the mind of the critic than about that of the photog.

One quick look around the internet shows many forums with thousands of photos of clothed women (taken from sites like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc) with men commenting on them in a sexual manner. Also, why does everyone keep calling the man who made cell phone photos in a bar a photographer?

 

[micromontenegro]

Also, why does everyone keep calling the man who made cell phone photos in a bar a photographer?

Because he was taking photographs, perhaps?

 

[jsrockit]

Because he was taking photographs, perhaps?

Ok, didn't realize that all it took to be a Photographer. I guess my posts to this forum make me a Writer.

 

[jsrockit]

Yeah, I guess. I'm not a photographer by trade, so I would never call myself one.

 

[dmr]

dmr; this has been a good and interesting thread, thanks for stating it.

I'm kinda surprised it garnered this much discussion.