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

[maggieo]

It’s both men and women’s responsibility to confront this in public as it’s happening. YES it’s uncomfortable. YES it sucks. But sexual harassment is not okay. It never will be.

Photography is not a crime and by calling a random photograph in a bar "sexual harassment" & tagging it as "sexual assault," you insult and cheapen the men and women who have endured genuine sexual assault.

Go stick a bar of soap in your mouth, you whining princess.

 

[Wolfeye]

Wow. Such a society we live in today, no? Assuming it actually happened, which it didn't, why the hell would whatever someone does with a picture of you have ANY effect on you? Should the man be castrated for having imagined sex with this stranger?

When a crime is actually committed, arrest 'em. Until then, people, it doesn't matter.

 

[CVickery]

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

Useful site for Canadian photogs... http://ambientlight.ca/laws/

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . Should the man be castrated for having imagined sex with this stranger? . . . .

Of course! Even if she is the only one who imagines it! This witless trollop's sense of entitlement must necessarily trump all law and common sense.

Trollop is not used here in the sexual sense, but rather, as of a vulgar or disreputable woman. i.e., one whom few would take seriously.

Cheers,

R.

 

[tunalegs]

Given the case two or so years ago where a teacher was arrested for taking panty-shots of students in school with his phone, I don't see why a guy taking pics of fully grown women in a bar would be surprising or unbelievable, even if in relating the story the author is trying to sensationalize it for clicks.

The story has little relevance to anybody here, unless somebody is sneaking shots of women's butts with their cell phone on private property.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Here's my interpretations from reading the Photo Attorney blog. To quote the Photo Attorney (Carolyn E. Wright) "Take my advice; get professional help. " . . .

Dear Willie,

Now, why on earth would an attorney give advice like that?

Cheers,

R.

 

[charjohncarter]

I'm not sure how civil Libertarians feel about this issue, but today I went the Legion of Honor in San Francisco to view the 'Monet: the early years' exhibit. I forgot my film camera and I don't have a cell phone, but I bet I had my picture taken in this museum at least 12 time.

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

 

[charjohncarter]

Has anyone had this happen to them (?): I took a picture in college at a party, nothing too nefarious or lascivious. The person said don't show that to anyone. Which I never did until about 50 years later. She doesn't remember, but now she loves it.

In a way, I think people are too easily upset now, not just about photography (especially now that everyone has a cameras with them 24/7) but about everything.

Again thanks to dmr for this thread.

 

[Doug]

Photography = threat to some... Yesterday's local paper had a report in the "police blotter" section of someone in a dark jacket taking pictures of Twin City Foods, a processor of frozen veggies. Passer-by reported that bad guy to the police, they did!

Reminds me I was reported in the same way a couple years ago... I saw an overweight lady sitting on the front lawn of an assisted-living apartment, looked like maybe she needed help. So as I approached I shot a quick pic and asked her if she needed help. She acted outraged at that and yelled NO. So I left... by the way this was diagonally across the street from the police station. Mentioned in the "police blotter", pretty much as it happened plus the confirmation that she indeed had fallen and could not get up without assistance! I was a suspicious character for sure...

 

[willie_901]

Thank you. I assume the "someone" who can tell you to stop must be a representative of the property and not another visitor.

Seems to me that public events on private property is the big gray area. Personally, I would not shoot in a crowded bar, but festivals and similar events are often held in privately owned spaces.

John,

That is correct. The property owner or their designated representative can tell you to stop and, or leave.

In the US public events on private property is not a grey area. You can photograph until the owner or their employees tells you otherwise. They can not touch you or your property. If you refuse to comply all they can do (legally) is call the law enforcement officers and press charges (trespassing).

Someone told me they were doing candid photography at an indoor mall. Security told them to stop. They put their camera in its bag and stopped. A short while later they want into a restaurant in that mall and ordered a meal. They asked the manager if they could photograph. The manager agreed. They had a nice time and went home.

However, it is common for private security officers to take on much more authority than they are legally entitled to. They are not shy about threatening you.

I worked in a medical school in a large city. I was walking on a city sidewalk (public street with public traffic) between campus buildings. I noticed a pair of latex lab gloves lying on the sidewalk. This happened every so often as people moved lab equipment between buildings and the gloves just fell off their carts. I always photographed lost gloves to see if I could achieve a composition that might portray mystery. A medical-school security guard saw me and ordered me to stop. I politely told him I was on public property and was not compelled to stop. I took a couple more shots. He asked me to stop again and I ignored him. He started to talk into his radio and I walked away. Of course, nothing else happened. If I had been in a building or on the campus grounds (not the sidewalk of a public street) I would have stopped.

 

[willie_901]

Dear Willie,

Now, why on earth would an attorney give advice like that?

Cheers,

R.

I guess they were being helpful.

I didn't talk to an attorney, I set up a LLC and bought insurance that covered, among other things, legal expenses related to usage disputes for both commercial and editorial usage. Of course, I never needed to file a claim.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I guess they were being helpful.

I didn't talk to an attorney, I set up a LLC and bought insurance that covered, among other things, legal expenses related to usage disputes for both commercial and editorial usage. Of course, I never needed to file a claim.

Dear Willie,

What a generous fellow you are, never imputing anything but the best of motives to everyone!

Cheers,

R. (LL.B.)

 

[jsrockit]

This isn't about photography, as others have pointed out, but a creep in a bar. Don't be creepy!

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

 

[jsrockit]

Wow. Such a society we live in today, no? Assuming it actually happened, which it didn't, why the hell would whatever someone does with a picture of you have ANY effect on you? Should the man be castrated for having imagined sex with this stranger?

When a crime is actually committed, arrest 'em. Until then, people, it doesn't matter.

How do you know it didn't happen? It happens all of the time and being harassed by someone is never really fun.

 

[gns]

Let's see some good pictures of strangers in bars...

http://www.paulography.com/nightclubs#0

 

[nikonhswebmaster]

How do you know it didn't happen? It happens all of the time and being harassed by someone is never really fun.

I was an investor in a few artist bars.

Terry Richardson is alive and well among the population of photographers in bars. But let's be clear here, you can throw the guy out, but you can't delete his photos.

 

[maggieo]

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

There is no evidence for that, aside from the unreliable and hypberbolic writer of the piece. For all we know, the rest of the story about the guy getting into a fight and tossed out might be fabricated, too.

All we know for sure is the author doesn't like being photographed.

 

[ferider]

How do you know it didn't happen? It happens all of the time and being harassed by someone is never really fun.

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

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

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.

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

 

[jsrockit]

There is no evidence for that, aside from the unreliable and hypberbolic writer of the piece. For all we know, the rest of the story about the guy getting into a fight and tossed out might be fabricated, too.

All we know for sure is the author doesn't like being photographed.

Well, sure. However, this stuff happens all of the time here in NYC and I've seen it myself. Sometimes it is so blatant that you can't believe it. I've personally seen a very drunken older man photographing teenage girls (younger than 18 and not his relatives or friends) on the 6 train. It didn't sit right with anyone on the train... including me who have made photos on the train myself. He wasn't making art or doing journalism.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I AM MORE IMPORTANT THAN ALL OF THE REST OF THE WORLD PUT TOGETHER!

How does the witless snowflake who wrote the original piece distinguish between her saying that, and a photographer saying that?

Cheers,

R.