Ken Smith
Why yes Ma'am - it folds
Roger - I understand the dilemma you pose. Shouldn't an individual be able to exercise the choice of having their picture taken or not? And the situations I'm referring to are those in which an individual knows or sees that their picture has been taken and expresses the desire for the picture to be destroyed or deleted.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Ken,
Fair point, but I'm not going to write off a roll of HP5 to satisfy an egomaniac.
There's also 'says no, means yes'. Normally I hate that argument but last week I photographed three girls together looking at pics on a mobile phone, in a village where there was a photography festival. One jumped up and got out of shot, but with her two friends ribbing her about it she stayed in for the third shot...
Cheers,
R.
Disaster_Area
Gadget Monger
There is never a case when one individuals rights should outweigh anothers... the point in this case is that some people are under the impression that they do indeed have a legal right to expect permission be asked if they're in a photograph in public... which isn't the case. So it's not a case of two peoples rights clashing... it's a case of a photographers actual right to take pictures in public clashing with a presumed right which only exists in the subjects mind. Again... I'm not trying to say they don't have the right to get angry if their pictures taken...
My interest is how people got from "This is how I want it to be" to wrongfully believing "This is the way it is"... and how if people believe it's a lawful right they can selectively turn it off and on... like mall cops that will never look twice at the hundreds of people taking pictures with their cell phones in the food court while I've been harassed for just having a camera around my neck.
I almost laughed... last week I went to see Iron Man II and I was planning on going out shooting afterwards, I had my M2 around my neck and my Rolleicord in the bag. As I was leaving the theatre I was detained by security because they thought I was using my equipment to bootleg the movie. I was very laid back about it because I had nothing to hide, I let them search my bag and explained that everything I was carrying was older than them by about 20 years... I had to keep from laughing the whole time as they where eyeballing my gear like I had some ultra new secret gear to film movies...
So I get stopped for having equipment that couldn't bootleg a movie if I wanted it to.... but every kid with an iPhone that can actually do a half decent job of it isn't hassled
Ken Smith
Why yes Ma'am - it folds
I wasn't trying to put a damper on the thread. Taking a photo in a public place isn't a criminal act nor do I think taking a photo of a stranger in a public place is a criminal act. If they're aware that it happened and press-on w/o expressing displeasure then one can take that as a tacit approval. However, if they raise a ruckus over the act, then perhaps the best thing to do IMHO is to destroy the photo. Yes - destroying a roll of film to please a singular individual isn't a cheap, but individual rights don't come cheaply either. As for expressing one's rights being the act of a egomaniac - never. Perhaps in the manner of how you express your displeasure - but never the act itself. A society in which individual rights are honored is never unhealthy.
Disaster_Area
Gadget Monger
I agree completely! Everyone should be able to stand up for their rights and expect their neighbor to stand up beside him as well. Like I said, I have no problem with someone expressing their wish not to be photographed... would I destroy a roll over it... hell no, but I WILL promise not to publish or exhibit that photo IF the subject is a major part of it...definitely, I'd hope the same would be done for me if I every asked it (politely).
I think were people are getting confused is where the line of "right" exists and it's interesting to understand how people get on one side or the other of that line. I've never told anyone to shut the hell up if they hassle me because that IS their right, to express their opinion in a non-violent way and I've on more than one occasion actually had a civil conversation about the matter.
Thardy
Veteran
If enough "people" complain to the right people, there will be laws written forbidding this type of photography.
You know, by the people for the people.
You know, by the people for the people.
Ken Smith
Why yes Ma'am - it folds
Boy - that came out of Left field. Actually laws like this are usually the domain of the ACLU - as in violating civil liberties by the taking of unwarranted photos. Also it falls under the guise of "profiling" by singling out a particular group of persons.
Actually laws like this are usually the domain of the ACLU - as in violating civil liberties by the taking of unwarranted photos. Also it falls under the guise of "profiling" by singling out a particular group of persons.