|
My girlfriend wouldn't be furious. The reason isn't really obvious. Sounds like you would need a partner that isn't a total bitch and untrusting. Sounds like a horrible way to live and a simple picture of me in a public place is far from important when my life is total crap anyway because of this person. If a picture walking with a coworker is enough to anger him/her/it, get out while you can.
So no, I would have no problem with that picture being taken, or the 100 others from security, traffic, and ATM cameras you would be on in that same walk.
Originally posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
kgreggbruce edited this topic 36 months ago.
|
|
Are you still okay with photographers shooting " Street Photography " photos.
Well, there's a difference between what may or may not bother me, and what is legally permitted. I've had this conversation recently with a couple of people who asked me not to take their picture. I wasn't actually pointing my camera anywhere near either of them, ironically, and I would have stopped, in any case (I'm not that big an asshole).
However, that bears no relationship to the legal situation, which is that as long as they're standing in a public place, where they have no reasonable expectation of privacy, I can take their picture. Period.
Personally, I'd be less pissed off with a person taking my picture at fairly close range (although not at Bruce Gilden range) then at someone taking my picture a distance with a telephoto. Distant lurkers with long lenses are fundamentally more creepy, if all else is equal.
Bear in mind that I've done both, although even when shooting with a telephoto, I don't make much effort not to be seen.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I'm slightly confused.
1. Why would my partner be obviously furious over me having lunch with a colleague?
2. If one does additionaly assume the lunch was indicative of an affair I was having, how is the entirely legal act of having my picture taken any different from the entirely legal act of my partner's friend deciding to go to the same restaurant, spotting me and my secretary, and then telling my partner? Sure I might in passing wryly regret that either thign had happened, as well as preferring them not to have happened, but it's irrational to ascribe any material dissatisfaction to the acts themselves: should I think it's not okay for my partner's friend to go to the same restaurant?
Originally posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
Jibbo edited this topic 36 months ago.
|
|
Yep, I'm still fine with it.
Change it to "you get seen by your partner walking side by side on your way to a restaurant."
Does that make letting your partner leave the house a bad thing?
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Ahh, Jibbo got in before me there.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I think some of you may have missed my point, i have made changes to my original post.
Originally posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
D7Kographer edited this topic 36 months ago.
|
|
|
Are you okay with photographers shooting photos of you in public in this manner .. it could be under the guise of street photography or just a cover to invade your privacy ..
Do we forgo all our rights when we are in public places and photographers have carte blanche to shoot what they like.
EDIT - My point here is on Flickr for example there is thousands and thousands of street photography photos of people taken without their knowledge. Is this morally okay? Are you fair game once you step outside your door?
Well, privacy laws (to address the question of rights) vary. In the US, generally speaking, you can be photographed anywhere except where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy -- for example, in your own home, behind closed doors. So, someone using a telephoto to shoot through my bedroom window would be a no-no, although photographing me on a front porch would not be. Legally, in the US, yes, you are fair game as soon as you step out the door.
Morally? That's a different matter, and it's personal, and it depends a lot on intent. Someone photographing people for pervy reasons, or out of sheer voyeurism, is immoral, by my standards, but photographing someone for artistic reasons, or as a technical exercise, or for documentary purposes, is not. Can I tell which reason is behind J. Random Dude photographing me? Probably not. So I give him the benefit of the doubt, unless I get a super-pervy vibe off of him or he's doing something extra suspicious, like photographing kids he's clearly not related to or acquainted with. Of course, even that is tricky to tell, sometimes.
And I expect the same benefit of the doubt when I'm photographing for those justifiable reasons...I may not always get it, though. That's the risk you take...
Of course, how those images are used can be a different question. If they stick my image on a box of cereal (not that I would sell much cereal, I'm sure) then I can sue them unless they have a model release, regardless of where they took the picture.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Bla bla, it can be shot, it is interesting, it is a shot. Images exists outside random boundaries.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Images exists outside random boundaries.
Anyone who says that about street photography hasn't seen Gary Winogrand's framing. ::rimshot::
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
If they stick my image on a box of cereal (not that I would sell much cereal, I'm sure) then I can sue them unless they have a model release... Not to mention a copyright infringement when they call them Kukku Puffs...
;¬)
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
three words
molde release forms
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
molde release forms
Let my fungus go!
But seriously, that doesn't really apply to much of street photography proper. : )
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Are you fair game once you step outside your door? People can see me once I leave the house - in my mind there's not that greater difference between being seen and being photographed.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
some guy took my picture outside 7-11 at night once. with a filthy canon and an L lens. but I was doing the same thing myself--taking night pix so I didn't really care....
I turned to see him run lower his camera and walk off quickly. quite quickly for a guy that chubbed out.
Originally posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
basegrinder edited this topic 36 months ago.
|
|
if its press or just for fun yes you are fair game,strangely art photos or professionals need to get releases.Any press shot is covered by first amendment in America.And yes I totally agree with it.If you are doing something that needs to be hidden HIDE !
and sorry if I see perfect light on a kid on the street I am going to grab the shot.Maybe I will feel guilty,but photography isnt a shameful or harmful activity the way I practice it and I will get over it
Originally posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
delta2864 edited this topic 36 months ago.
|
|
So I give him the benefit of the doubt, unless I get a super-pervy vibe off of him or he's doing something extra suspicious, like photographing kids he's clearly not related to or acquainted with. Of course, even that is tricky to tell, sometimes.
Sad bit is that kids are such a fascinating street subject but I very much understand if people get upset about someone snapping pics of their kids. Quite often I've held back when I believed I would get a great photo. Maybe this would be easier for women...
In the US, generally speaking, you can be photographed anywhere except where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy -- for example, in your own home, behind closed doors. So, someone using a telephoto to shoot through my bedroom window would be a no-no, although photographing me on a front porch would not be.
I think you're fair game in Sweden if you don't have your curtains drawn. Interesting moral questions that raises, I guess :)
Also, as Nick pointed out, you don't need model releases for art photography. That applies in the US (see Nussenzweig v. DiCorca) and it applies in Sweden too. Won't work in France for example, I think, but they've gone all weird in this respect. Ironic seeing how important the work of a certain Frenchman was for street photography
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Damn, I'll have to close my front curtains, open nearly 24/7 (to my wife's disgust), or I'll be shot in my sofa, Homer style :-D
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
As Karl says, fine art, editorial, etc. do not require model releases. It's only if you're going to use the image commercially that you do. And that doesn't include selling prints or books if you're a fine art photographer selling your work, but it does pertain if you're going to license the work for use as stock photography, etc.
Originally posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
kukkurovaca (a group admin) edited this topic 36 months ago.
|
|
Here in the UK, it is legal to take a photo in public, of anybody, without their permission.
The only exclusion is that you are not allowed to photograph members of the armed forces, or member of the police/security services.
The law here is a bit of a grey area, but it comes down to anti-terrorism.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Thx Kukk! Really, and you are right of course :-)
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I guess my rule of the thunb is ,if its decent and in 105mm range Im shooting it
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
The only exclusion is that you are not allowed to photograph members of the armed forces, or member of the police/security services.
Britain scares me nowadays.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Yea, right Karl! And I guess they have filled the streets with so many "terror fighting service men" that you cant shoot a thing. Bet you are not allowed to shoot those in plain either!
Originally posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
aha42 | tehaha edited this topic 36 months ago.
|
|
I think there is nothing wrong with street photography. Like jb17kx said, being photograph vs. being seen is one the same in my books.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Do nothing on the street that you wouldn't want to see on the front page of your local paper, send nothing on the internet that you wouldn't want to see splashed on the front page of the NY Times.
To answer the question: Generally I don't care if someone takes my pictures and I take pictures freely. The only time I feel a little queezy is when i take pictures of homeless people.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
The only time I feel a little queezy is when i take pictures of homeless people.
There's a nasty habit a lot of folks have of thinking of homeless people as intrinsically more photographable. This is a bit morally sketchy (because at heart, with many photographers, it has to do with the perception that homeless people have reduced rights compared to others), and generally produces pretty boring photography, unless the homeless people happen to be doing something especially interesting.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Being photographed is not at all the same as being seen; a camera steals it subject's soul.
On a more serious side - no one (celebrities excluded) really expects to have their picture taken while walking down the street. This is not to be confused with the legal definition of 'reasonable expectation of privacy'.
As for model releases, these merely assure commercial agencies that there will be no future claimants asking for a share of a commercially successful image. They are not legally required, even for commercial work.
To get back to the OP's question, I have wondered about one of my more popular candid shots: Is this intrusive? Am I right to put it in the public domain?
I made up my mind a while back, but feel free to add your €0,02
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
having a jealous significant other.... ha... not anyone else's problem.
photography in public? i don't have a problem but i have confronted for some slimeball with a camera taking photos of kids and moms at a children's park and he had no child with him... i escorted him back to his vehicle and never saw him again.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
There's a nasty habit a lot of folks have of thinking of homeless people as intrinsically more photographable. This is a bit morally sketchy (because at heart, with many photographers, it has to do with the perception that homeless people have reduced rights compared to others), and generally produces pretty boring photography, unless the homeless people happen to be doing something especially interesting.
Perhaps homeless people should be entitled to more privacy than others seeing as they don't have a home to go to?
Idle musings, sorry.
Anyway, most of the "street photos" of homeless people I see mainly trigger my gag reflex; I feel like the photographer is preying upon the subject and compassion or at least something besides the person's homelessness is lacking.
Usually the photos have been taken either with a telephoto or when the homeless person is seriously disadvantaged.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@ault - I don't think there is a problem with this particular photo at all. If they did not want to get photographed, then they should not be making out in the middle of the day in an easily seen location.
@ Karl - But perhaps its that exact emotion that photographers are trying to capture. Isn't it a problem that in this day and age, there are still homeless people? Hasn't civilization evolved to the point where every single person has a place in this world and earned the right to at least live comfortably? And if not - shouldn't the rest of us have a sick feeling that while we're growing fat and sleeping well, there are people out there begging for the bare necessities?
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@ Karl - But perhaps its that exact emotion that photographers are trying to capture. Isn't it a problem that in this day and age, there are still homeless people? Hasn't civilization evolved to the point where every single person has a place in this world and earned the right to at least live comfortably? And if not - shouldn't the rest of us have a sick feeling that while we're growing fat and sleeping well, there are people out there begging for the bare necessities?
The problem is that many of these photographs don't convey or induce a sense of compassion, but rather of voyeurism directed toward those who are not expected to resist it.
Of course, a lot of this has to do with intention, which may or may not be apparent based on the image. And of course different viewers take away different things from an image. But sometimes it's fairly easy to tell that compassion isn't the real motivator behind this type of photography.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
My views on street photography is your fair game as soon as you step out into the world. Certainly with the introduction of the digital camera it has made it so easy to snap your photo, upload it onto the internet for all to see.
Your privacy and your rights when it comes to being photographed in public is long gone. Anyone can snap your photo for any reason, post it in public and theres not a lot you can do about it.
Occasionally photographers will get pulled up for shooting photos where they shouldn't be or even arrested, taken to court, sued etc etc. In general this is the affects the small minority of photographers. The majority of photographers just shoot for whatever reason and are not too concerned about the consequences.
Take a look at some of the groups on Flickr which can push the boundaries of photography in public
hello stranger street photography, extreme street photography, I got made street photography, street photography hardcore, Sneak pics .. etc etc
As kukk has mentioned it can come down to the intent in which you shoot the photo, which 100 people can interpret it a 100 different ways.
I like street photography done with style and panache eg
www.flickr.com/photos/andwan/sets/72157594435920086/
yes he uses a high end Canon but besides that i like his style.
Originally posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
D7Kographer edited this topic 36 months ago.
|
|
|
I have really liked reading Karl and Kukk postings here, got me thinking... thx., yes and others...
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
In the US, I have as much of a right to take your photo in public as you have to be standing in public (or speaking in public for that matter). I do not think it morally wrong if intentions are pure. A photo taken for artistic value is a pure intention in my book. There is no agenda to exploit. So, I have no problem with people (myself included) photographing homeless or kids or anyone as long as they are not being exploited.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I dont have an issue with it. If someone asks me not or to quit shooting them I do. Most of the time I ask them first anyway.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
real candids are by very nature sneaky, not evil but intrusive.compelling photography though.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Ya I agree. You have a good point. I never take pictures with people I don't know in them. It is very creepy for a person to be taken i photo without them knowing. Again you have a great point
Originally posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
letsgopitt edited this topic 36 months ago.
|
|
This is the law on this situation where I live.
www.myfloridahouse.gov/FileStores/Web/Statutes/FS07/CH081...
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I don't act sneaky when taking a candid. I simply point and shoot. 99%of the time it isn't obtrusive because the person whom I took a photo has no idea i took their photo. You know what's sneaky? Huge telephoto lenses. I shoot mostly with a 28mm or 50mm. You know what's intrusive? people who talk on their cell phones while I'm riding the train or bus, people who cut me off while driving, you get the idea.
How is it creepy? I suggest you don't force your own insecurities onto the rest of us.
Originally posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
spencewine edited this topic 36 months ago.
|
|
Someone with a long lens, shooting me from a distance is ok. I wouldn't like someone shoving a lens in my face like some of the papparazzi do. I think they are terribly rude.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
real candids are by very nature sneaky, not evil but intrusive.compelling photography though.
I suggest you take a look at how street photographers work. You could argue that Henri Cartier Bresson was sneaky but I think that mostly only held true up to the point of the photograph being taken.
Garry Winogrand wasn't so much sneaky as having a technique of standing in plain view and looking like something he wasn't. He certainly wasn't hiding his camera or hiding that he was ripping through roll after roll of Tri-X.
Joel Meyerowitz is like a bloody ninja. He'll be standing an arms length from people taking photos and nobody seems to pay him any mind.
Looking at videos of Winogrand, Meyerowitz and others working is simply incredible.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
My experience is not worth a damned yet and probably never will be, but I am still going to write some...
I found people are much more positive to pictures being taken than I expected. I have had great conversation with strangers trying to shoot life, it is one element of it that makes me want to do more of it.
Sure there are shooting situations where the above does not apply because of what being shot, but still... And also by the end of the day you can use that delete button, better to take one more shot than none.
Anyway, I don't think just because one are a beginner, amateur and not a pro or something famous one should restrict one self to flowers and birds...
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
Nikon D40/x/50/60/5000/3000/3100 and Friends Club /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to Nikon D40/x/50/60/5000/3000/3100 and Friends Club discussion threads