Winogrand, Evans, et al, and the legalities of street shooting...

[sooner]

Tom,

We agree on one thing, and that's the notion that most juries are incapable of analyzing complex sets of facts and "playing the jury" is the result, a crap shoot. But I disagree with several of your points, and the vehemence with which you make them and accuse me of bias suggests you aren't coolly neutral here. Hit a hot button, did I?

-- 730 complaints may not be countless but it's a lot. Why should it matter what percentage this is of total cups of coffee sold? If someone reported a gas leak in a McDo restaurant, and the management ignored it for a year until it exploded, would you still say 730 was an insignificant number? The point is someone should have realized there was a problem and they should just set the microwave down a few seconds.

-- I don't hate corporations or think they do these things on purpose, at least regarding the coffee. But they do make cost-benefit analysis decisions about safety features, and have been known to compromise safety for a few dollars or even cents saved. Corporations also tend to be impersonal, making it harder to force corporate officials to take action. And it's well known corporations don't promote and give bonuses to the guys looking out for the consumer, even if it costs a few more bucks. Quite the contrary....

-- My "make them care" remark only meant that punitive damages are assessed to punish for willful, wrongful actions, and the bigger the corporation the more money it takes to make them care (see point above, it's all about the bottom line). One criterion for how much damages to award is size and ability to pay.

Lastly, the vast majority of frivolous lawsuits go out fairly quickly in a motion for dismissal or summary judgment, way before it gets to a jury, so your panicked notion of a coming tidal wave of suits from this McDo coffee business is overblown.

Have a great day.

 

[kbg32]

I would agree with Ray. It is not endorsing a product. I was trying to clarify this by citing some examples and pointing you towards information on the net that is available for these issues.

If you photographed for stock, even for editorial usages, most agencies would not take the images into their collection without a model release. We live in a litigious society in litigious times. People will take avantage anyway they can.

Keith

 

[aizan]

So not only was Winogrand, Evans, et al, acting in an unethical manner with their sneaky "ambush" tactics, but by not obtaining proper signed model releases they were also breaking the law, as is any other photographer who acts in a similar manner today.

Once again, as I mentioned earlier, and going back to the gist of my original question, is not the simple act of a photographer publishing, marketing, and selling a book of his street photographs as "art" taken of people without their permission, whether the photos were taken in public or not, isn't that act in and of itself considered endorsing a product, as specified in the "Publication" clause, that Keith quotes above ?

Taking street photos to publish a work of art is not illegal. It's not endorsing a product in an advertisement, and the photos in a photo book aren't endorsing themselves, are they? 🙂 They don't need model releases because their subjects aren't models in a legal sense. They're "models" in an artistic sense, which is where you're getting confused.

 

[Sean Reid]

There's nothing unethical in the way that Evans or Winogrand worked.

Sean

 

[T_om]

Tom,

We agree on one thing, and that's the notion that most juries are incapable of analyzing complex sets of facts and "playing the jury" is the result, a crap shoot. But I disagree with several of your points, and the vehemence with which you make them and accuse me of bias suggests you aren't coolly neutral here. Hit a hot button, did I?

Guilty as charged. You sure did hit a hot button.

It is hot because it is thrown into my face every day in the form of higher prices charged simply to ensure there is enough money available in case companies lose the lawyer lotto. It is easily thrown in everyone's face when they read all the nonsense legal jargon and stupidly obvious "safety" warning on everything from ladders to aspirin bottles. Lawyers effectively killed general aviation in this country and the businesses and jobs disappeared along with the industry.

A legal system that allows unscrupulous shysters to profit by displaying injured morons to juries (who in many cases are themselves below average in intelligence) in a circus atmosphere is broken.

But enough. This is thread hijacking and I'm done.

Tom

 

[kbg32]

There's nothing unethical in the way that Evans or Winogrand worked.

Sean

Absolutely!

or Klein, Friedlander, Faurer, etc. !


Keith

 

[kiev4a]

No matter what the current law, I think you will see it change in the next few years. One reason is picture phones. Some states already are drafting legislation to prevent phone users from shooting photos of people out in general public unless that person is aware they are being photographed--the charge being such action is an invasion of privacy. What is the difference between a picture phone and a camera? Nothing, really.

People are becoming more aware that their privacy is being attacked in a multitude of ways.

When I was a newspaper photographer 30 years ago our general rule was there was no problem with shooting any event that qualified as news that occurred in public because anyone passing on the street could see the same scene as the photographer. But even then we were cautious about shooting photos of people just minding their own business in public or shooting and publishing photos of specific residences unless they figured prominently in a news story.

Frankly I don't have a problem with limiting photography in general public without the person's permission (if they are identifiable). I also believe you should have to get that permission before taking the photo. (fire away, boys) Maybe it would be a good first step in restablishing the rights of individuals to some privacy.

Taking pictures of anybody, anytime, isn't a god-given right. I think when we thump our chests and claim it a Constitutional freedom we look awfully full of ourselves.

 

[flamingo]

No matter what the current law, I think you will see it change in the next few years. One reason is picture phones. Some states already are drafting legislation to prevent phone users from shooting photos of people out in general public unless that person is aware they are being photographed--the charge being such action is an invasion of privacy. What is the difference between a picture phone and a camera? Nothing, really.

People are becoming more aware that their privacy is being attacked in a multitude of ways.

When I was a newspaper photographer 30 years ago our general rule was there was no problem with shooting any event that qualified as news that occurred in public because anyone passing on the street could see the same scene as the photographer. But even then we were cautious about shooting photos of people just minding their own business in public or shooting and publishing photos of specific residences unless they figured prominently in a news story.

Frankly I don't have a problem with limiting photography in general public without the person's permission (if they are identifiable). I also believe you should have to get that permission before taking the photo. (fire away, boys) Maybe it would be a good first step in restablishing the rights of individuals to some privacy.

Taking pictures of anybody, anytime, isn't a god-given right. I think when we thump our chests and claim it a Constitutional freedom we look awfully full of ourselves.

Thank you Kiev4a. I agree with your view of things. Nitpicking the legalities aside, I believe that the decent, moral and ethical way to approach street shooting WITH THE INTENT TO PUBLISH OR PRINT FOR PERSONAL PROFIT is to get the subject's signed permission to use their image. Anybody who did it otherwise, "Artiste" or not, IMHO, was simply taking the lazy, cheap, antisocial way out. And all you "chest thumpers" out there who say otherwise, let's see how different you may react if you walked into MOMA one day or some art gallery and there was a 20 X 30 framed print of you hanging on the wall taken 5, 10, or 20 years ago and if you requested a copy of the print, you might rudely be told,
"Sure, you want a print of that picture of you ? That will be $2,500 for a 16 X 20.
Will that be cash, check or charge ?"

 

[RayPA]

... And all you "chest thumpers" out there who say otherwise, ...

ok...way to end your thread. nice.

 

[aizan]

yowch. chest thumpers everywhere. 😀

recently there was a nyt story on diane arbus. her estate gave some subjects prints valued at $15,000 or something. i'm sure others have done the same, but it's just being generous. while their image is being used to make money, artists are protected by fair use to publish books, exhibit galleries, and sell prints. an artistic practice is a business, all the way from sole proprietorship to corporation, and have to be protected. the laws are different for photojournalists working for newspapers and magazines, which is where you might need model releases. as mentioned earlier, you need model releases for things like advertising and stock photography.

you may not realize this, but being in public is one of the most social things to do. the antisocial thing is to create legal bubbles to shut out society. what would you have us do, travel the streets in steel balls?

 

[flamingo]

you may not realize this, but being in public is one of the most social things to do. the antisocial thing is to create legal bubbles to shut out society. what would you have us do, travel the streets in steel balls?[/QUOTE]


Ah-h-h-hhh, now I see. So Walker Evans was being very social by hiding his camera under an overcoat on the NYC Subway system for years, clandestinely snapping pictures of unknowing subjects, and then waiting 20 years to publish the photos, for fear of being sued.
And that wasn't a subtle form of antisocial behaviour, perhaps even bordering on some type of perverse harassment ?

So let me see if I understand you.
The rights of the street photographer to publish and exhibit for profit supercede the right of privacy of the individual.

Please correct me if I'm reading you wrong.

I seem to remember a case in the courts say about 30 or 35 years ago, entitled "Gallella vs. Onassis". It was an extreme case of Right to Privacy of the individual vs. The Photographer's right shoot in public, but nonetheless, the courts and the jury sided with the right to privacy of the individual.

 

[back alley]

So let me see if I understand you.
The rights of the street photographer to publish and exhibit for profit supercede the right of privacy of the individual.

i'll correct you!
every time we step outside we are giving up some right to privacy, yes.
how could we not?
in your system of thought we would all be subject to jail time or time with our preachers for sneaking a shot of someone.
that's not even practical. law enforcement can't keep up now, imagine the photo police trying to...

joe

 

[kiev4a]

Legislation and new laws aren't the answer to everything. The problem could be solved by "street photographer" excercising what used to be called common courtesy. Unfortunately, courtesy isn't what it used to be. Everyone suffers because of individuals who use their cameras--be they Leicas or cell phones --to be vouyers rather than artists. Today you can be sitting on a park bench, absentmindedly stick your finger up your nose and five minutes later internet users all over the world can be laughing at the picture. The fact that you are in a public place doesn't mean you should be subject to that sort of ridicule.

"Chest Thumping?" Sorry about the term but I believe it fits when it comes to today's media issues. The chest thumping has been going on since ever since journalism schools started trying to make ever student the next Woodward or Bernstein. "The public's "right to know" is probably one of the most abused terms in the English language and the term media types always fall back on when someone tries to put some reasonable limits on their power. But at least in most cases the journalists are going after public figures--people who chose to put themselves in the limelight and then complain when the exposure is negative rather than positive.

The man or woman or child walking down the street, or visiting the zoo may be in public but they aren't "public figures" in a journalist sense. The act of stepping outside your home shouldn't mean you give up your rights to a certain amount of privacy.

 

[back alley]

i'm not talking papparazi type invasion here or holding people up for ridicule. i will not shoot the 'standard' homeless man shots, that is part of my ethic and my choice when out on the street.

but that lovely woman & child at the zoo is fair game for my 'art' as they become figures in public when out & about.

joe

 

[kiev4a]

i'm not talking papparazi type invasion here or holding people up for ridicule. i will not shoot the 'standard' homeless man shots, that is part of my ethic and my choice when out on the street.

but that lovely woman & child at the zoo is fair game for my 'art' as they become figures in public when out & about.

joe

Joe:

See. You are exercising "common courtesy." Unfortunately a lot of people don't. And there's nothing wrong with shooting a mother and kid at the zoo if they are made aware they have been photographed (maybe see if they would like to receive a print).

 

[back alley]

it's the making them aware part that we disagree.
that would completely kill the spontanaity of the shot.
if i'm 'caught' i usually try to save the situation with a smile and a nod to my camera 'asking' for permission to shoot but i reaaly would rather not.

take the shot and move on, that's how i like to work.
joe

 

[gns]

I'll repeat myself. Public means - Not private. Look it up.

We live a lot of our lives in public and hence, must put up with the behaviors, actions, etc. of others to some degree. That's inevitable. I guess society willl always be changing what is considered acceptable and what is not.

If someone takes my picture in public and makes money off of it, great for them. Who has time to worry about it. If that picture makes me look bad (say I'm scratching my butt), well- I WAS scratching my butt. I just don't see what the big deal is.

For some real entertaining thoughts on this stuff, look up Fran Liebowitz and her views on smoking bans.

Happy shooting (and watch out where you scratch your butt).

Cheers.

 

[flamingo]

i'll correct you!
every time we step outside we are giving up some right to privacy, yes.
how could we not?
in your system of thought we would all be subject to jail time or time with our preachers for sneaking a shot of someone.
that's not even practical. law enforcement can't keep up now, imagine the photo police trying to...

joe

So, you're correcting me now, joe ? Sorry Teach, it won't happen again....teheehee.

And no, the "system of thought" you portray me of having is incorrect, joe. I don't recall mentioning anything about jail time or going to confess to our preacher.....

I am all for street photography. Capturing the moment in a candid way is indeed a gift of the talented shooter. That's why we are all here, yes ? My simple point follows and I believe I as well as other people have said it in one form or another several times during the course of this thread. I agree precisely with Kiev4a's point of view.

And that is, out of common courtesy to a fellow human, ask for their signed permission to use their photo in the future, AFTER the moment has been seized. If the picture is going to sit in your slide tray for the next 20 years with nobody but your family and friends viewing it ocasionnally, no harm done, no permission necessary.
That is what I would categorize as a "snapshot".

However, by being social with the person and perhaps offering them a free print, or simply a dollar bill, or a future signed copy of my book (if their picture makes it's way into the book), then in my opinion, that it is the DECENT thing to do.


I am not against shooting a person's picture in public.
Indeed, I make my living in the television news business.
I do still photography strictly as a hobby as an outlet for my creativity,probably just like most of us here.

I do believe that true journalists and the media should have a seperate set of rules since, in most news stories, the public's best interest does outweigh the individual's right to privacy. That's why we have News Directors, Editorial Directors (in the case of print), and Producers making those decisions on a daily basis. The general public has no idea how much gory, sensationalistic footage actually does end up on the cutting room floor. Then on the opposite extreme, there are the "tabloid" TV shows that are simply making a quick buck simply on the basis of sensationalism and exploitation, a la papparazzi. In some cases this can also be downright dangerous. Look at what happened to Princess Di because of the bloodthirsty Packwolves.....

However, in a professional business environment there are and should be ethics involved as well as legalities both in television news as well as print news as well as , say, the future Garry Winogrand or Walker Evans or Robert Frank or HCB, that is in regard to shooting one's photo in public without permission to publish or sell it for personal gain.
In the case of those particular photographers, what was served other than to put money in the photographer's pocket as well as to feed their own ego and create fame for themselves ?

 

[gns]

[In the case of those particular photographers, what was served other than to put money in the photographer's pocket as well as to feed their own ego and create fame for themselves ?]

Uhm? - they created some great art?

 

[flamingo]

[In the case of those particular photographers, what was served other than to put money in the photographer's pocket as well as to feed their own ego and create fame for themselves ?]

Uhm? - they created some great art?

Here, I'll publish a book of my snapshots I took over the past 20 years and get myself an agent and sell it and call it "art". NOT.

Art, shmart.

Art is in the eye of the beholder. If you like the work, then by all means buy it and good luck with it !!! Buono Fortuno !!!

Yes, no doubt Garry Winogrand was a brilliant street shooter, HCB had great vision, no doubt. I love those guys' work. But I open the book, "Many Are Called", by Walker Evans, and you know what I see ? I see a coward who was out to make a quick buck. I don't see any artistic vision there. That's my opinion.
It looked to me like exactly what it was. A Voyeur with a camera hidden behind his overcoat and a shutter release up his sleeve clicking "snapshots". The mere fact that it took 20 years to publish says something....