5 bucks

aggleton    says:

I didn't witness the altercation but it sounded like he was incredibly aggressive, and way out of proportion to the situation - hence I understand why you have blocked out his face.

Did you do the wrong thing? In what way? By taking his photo or in the way you acted after he started yelling at you? I think I read somewhere (I hope I'm right) that when you're in a public place there's nothing legally preventing you from taking photos of people. Of course, that doesn't mean that ethically and morally (whatever that means...) it's okay to take those snaps. Every situation is different and you can only judge them with what you know at the time. If you knew that he was a fruitcake beforehand I know you wouldn't have taken his photo!

I think you acted correctly. You saw something that you thought would make a good photo and you took it. After he started asking for $5 you told him that you didn't have the money and you deleted his photo in front of him.

I think it's worthwhile uploading the photo because of the story behind it.

Just my two cents. :)
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

jodes i am    says:

Thanks Agnes - Did I do the wrong thing by taking the photo in the first place, and not handing money over??
and had I have had $5 I proabably would have given it to him - or preferably purchased some food or a drink for him... but his agro turned my right off that - especially with the threats
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

_barb_    says:

I don't think you did anything wrong, it's good he didn't get any money out of you, it would have encouraged him to bully other people in similar circumstances. he was really rude and totally unreasonable. (I'm guessing a streetkid messed up by drugs)

I'm always really really careful about not being seen to photograph people or even shop- and housefronts because if you cop a lunatic like him you're in trouble. even otherwise sane shopowners can go ballistic over cameras. this is why I was concerned about that flickr outing at Southbank where the purpose was to take people shots. it's just really horrible to have some crazy guy onto you because of it, I wish it hadn't happened to you.
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

lists&diagrams says:

people are entitled to a reasonable amount of privacy in a private situation. if you're inside your house, it's reasonable that you should expect people not to point long lenses through your window or over your fence. if you're in public, you lose that right. being in public means being seen by others.

the fact that he asked for money before asking for you to destroy the photo (is this correct?) shows that he didn't have a problem having his photo taken, he was just trying to scam a quick buck.

not only were you perfectly within your legal rights, i would argue you didn't do anything morally wrong either.

i tend to rant and rave about rights so i probably would have got on my high horse in that situation, but your reaction was sensible.
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

timijimi    says:

Good on you for posting this Jodes. It was a very stressing altercation that was completely unnecessary. I believe that you were completely within your rights to take this photograph as you weren't on private property or anything. If anything, it was unlucky that he caught you taking the photo in that way. As Agnes mentioned, if you had realised that he was as crazy as he was, you wouldn't have taken his photo. There is a certain amount of judgement that happens before you snap the shutter. I know I've had moments where I've lined up a shot and then retracted right at the last minute for various reasons. Personally, I would have posted this pic, and I would have posted it uncensored. I've heard of us being described as the documentors of life. We record what happens on a daily basis, capturing the world as it is. I can understand your reasons for blacking out his face as there was an amount of personal distress involved. As someone who has seen the original photograph, there is a certain character there which when coupled with the story, really drives home the emotion. I mean his face was quite scary.

That's my view, but whatever you decide on, well done Jodes. :)
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

Serge Marx    says:

Personally, I like the blocked out face. It's adding something to the narrative rather than taking it away. Sounds like it was apertty horrible event, but at the same time, perhaps the photo would have been a throwaway without that story to go along with it.

You did the right thing, here jodes. but I think it's always polite to ask someone before sticking a camera in their face - of course, you lose the natural moment then!
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

*tk    says:

I agree with 2CSM. And I personally avoid taking pictures of homeless people simply because of what you went through.
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

silvermiketrate    says:

There's just some feral/self centred to the exclusion of anyone else's reality people out there.
Sorry you had to go through that- but it's often just their bully nature showing through i.e. if you were a 6'2" guy with big muscles I doubt they would have tried it on.
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

tubagooba    says:

I don't have any moral problem with taking candid snaps of strangers. But I think it's probably best done with a long lens and a planned escape route :)
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

wellingtondany    says:

I think it was prolly safest to black out the face, Jodes.
What was odd was that this guy didn't look homeless or anything, he was quite well dressed. Takes all sorts I suppose...

If he'd got physical we would have at least had a lot of photographic evidence for the police ;op

I thought we should have waited for the other Flickrers and pointed 12 cameras at him at once!
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

jodes i am    says:

Thanks everyone for your comments and opinions - It is interesting to know what we would all do in this situation and whether I would even do it again - probably!
@ listanddiagrams rant away I say - I appreciate it.
@ Tim - I thought I had made the judgement, he certainly didn't look threatening when I clicked
@ Hellblazer awkward indeed and embarressing I guess.
@ 2CSM the photo is shit - I think I deleted the better one. I was standing quite a way away from him, there was certainly no camera in face action at all.
@ Dany I was a bit worried he was going to go for my camera - I don't think he would have hurt me (I am tuff!) but my gear, I would have cried buckets!

Thanks again everyone!!
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

timijimi    says:

Reinar and I were walking down Swanston Street on night and this druggy asked if we had any money. We both said no and walked away. We were both carrying our cameras - not taking photos, just carrying them. About half a block down the road we checked to see where he was and the dude was tailing us. At this point I wasn't worried for my safety, but I didn't want anything to happen to my camera. He followed us for another block or so before we decided to cross the road and see what he did. If he followed us across the road we were going to confront him. Fortunately when we crossed the road, he stopped dead at the side of the road. Not quite sure what he was after, and I guess we will never know.
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

_barb_    says:

yikes, that's creepy Tim!
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

Reinar    says:

But I felt so safe with Timmi by my side...
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

Terry Lane says:

Marshall McLuhan called photography "the brothel without walls". He seems to have been concerned about the way that the ubiquitous camera turns us into voyeurs and the thing we are most interested in is the picture of what is, by conventional standards, weird.

Please don't take this as moralising -- I am just raising another possibility.

Some aid NGOs worry about drop-in visitors taking photos of starving children in Sudan or cripples in India etc. They call it "the pornography of poverty".

What puzzles me is why we find cripples, starving children and street people so interesting that we take photos of them. We need a psychologist here to explain it to ourselves.

I don't take photos of people who are obviously enduring a miserable existence because it doesn't seem right somehow to use an expensive camera to make "art" out of misery. I do take photos of people in the street without asking permission -- perhaps I shouldn't. But I try to limit myself to taking photos of people who might, on another day, take a photo of me.

Five dollars for a picture seems a reasonable price to ask. You wouldn't get Megan Gale to pose for five bucks.

I find the blacked out face in this pic disturbing.
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

Terry Lane says:

Sorry about this.

I should have added that you have superb photos here on Flickr. The shots down the colonnade at the old GPO are truly and breathtakingly magnificent. The B and W city shots in general are gorgeous. Altogether these are some of the best pics of Melbourne that I have seen. Congratulations.

You don't need the reluctant junkie. He doesn't add anything to the folio.
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

jayejaye    says:

Terry, I think you raise an interestng point. However I tend to think that generally people end up with a balance. Weather it be shots of yuppies drinking coffee or as you say people at their lowest moments. But I heard someone say recently that we are documenters of life. The good, bad and ugly. No matter whats its form - it all happens.

As someone who was there, when this shot was taken; I was stunned by this persons reaction. Based purely on appaearances, he just looked like any other Melbournian, waiting for a friend outside Flinders St. Takes all types I guess.
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

Big Gig Photography says:

This is a facinating story and topic Jodes but firstly I just want to say how sorry I am that you had to go through something like this. You can never anticipate the reaction from a person whether you take the shot or ask them first.

As we continue our learning,its only natural to want candid shots of people and many of us are crippled with a natural shyness that prevents us from asking first.Fear of rejection? I admire Reinar for his ability to ask people to pose and he is a great person to learn from.

I once asked some guys at Jiffy Lube to pose,it took me some time to get the guts to ask.They were obliging yet their boss came out and screamed at me that I wasnt allowed.If he had been a bit nicer,it wouldnt have been so humiliating.As a result,I am too scared to try that again.

So I applaud you for handling it as you did and I thank you for sharing it with us because I and hopefully everyone else has learned a little from this.....everyones comments have been really interesting to read.

Good luck and I hope this doesnt deter you from continuing to explore and seek what your eye finds interesting.Your photographs are wonderful and I look forward to seeing more.And if you ever need a bouncer,I will fly there and kick some punk arse for you!!!!With Tim and Reinar and my husband behind me to catch the slack!!!LOL. Stay happy mate and keep up the good work. :o)
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

lists&diagrams says:

What puzzles me is why we find cripples, starving children and street people so interesting that we take photos of them.

Because they're interesting? Because you get an emotional response when you see someone in an unfortunate or desparate situation? Seems pretty straightforward to me.

They were obliging yet their boss came out and screamed at me that I wasnt allowed.

I'm sorry you had such a bad experience. I occasionally ask people to pose for photos, and sometimes you just need to give them a look or gesture, you don't need to say anything. Maybe practice on friends and acquaintances? Or children? Generally I find people are more accomodating and less self-conscious for female photographers. A big guy with a big camera can be quite intimidating. Use your advantage!
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

naz's stuff    says:

(I say beforehand that I haven't read everyone's replies at length so please forgive me)

I think it's fair enough you posted it. Me personally (& I'll probably gain a few people hating me for this), I probably would have left his face in it so others would know to steer clear.

Nobody should every have to feel indimitated like that by another person. Would you have asked for $5.00 or abused him if you felt he looked at you the wrong way? I don't think so.

And by the way, nice touch on the black dunlop runners that aren't that easy to come by...
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

Faffinoodle says:

How long have you been photographing for??
The rules have changed in Photography over the last few years- You have to ask someone their permission and even make them sign a legal form ((if you intend to exhibit/show your work because of privacy laws)). I get upset if someone takes my photo, unless they ask then it's fine. I've been photographing for a while now and since around 2003 I have had to obtain legal documents from Arts Law so I can take photos of people. You can be sued for thousands of dollars if you plan to show the photo/exhibit/print etc.
It sucks because I loved taking photos of cities and people but now its very limited. Big companies can do it because they have the power - but some papers in Sydney have been sued before for not asking permission to take a photo.
So beware!!
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

aussie aubs says:

hmm, maybe you need to learn some etiquette, sure his outburst was unwarranted, but even the government do not have the right to photograph anyone without their permission (or a courts permission), for whatever reason. Take a tip: photograph dodgy people from a distance or just steer clear of em. especially the homeless. I've snapped many homeless people for no more than $1... i dont make any money out of it....
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

jodes i am    says:

Goose-Step Girlie - I have been taking photos for a while.. its interesting to see how things have changed over the years.

aussie aubs - I was no where near him when I took the photo - it is not like I had the lens in his face. I hate having the lens in my face and don't often do it to others!
It was not my intention to make any money out of it - nor have I, nor will I.
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

Darren Rowse    says:

Interesting story. thanks for sharing it.

Not sure it's completely relevant to this instance but here's an article I wrote on asking people permission to take their photos.

Hope it adds to the conversation somewhat.
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

ニコール    says:

I've just followed the link here from the SMH website: www.smh.com.au/news/cameras--videos/a-cheap-s hot/2006/09/...

interesting comments from everyone and definitely something to be more conscious of when photographing around the traps.
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

dnbennett73 says:

The paying of money for photos is wide spread. Currently in the Middle East where young kids will come up and ask you to take a photo then put their hand out for 'bucksheesh'. I have even heard of someone taking a landscape photo and then a local asking for the bucksheesh!!!! (don't think they paid it).

All relative to where you are!!!
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

♥ jenny loves photos [deleted] says:

i don't think i would have given this guy the $5 he demanded or deleted the photo (if there were people around to help you out if it got ugly). though if i was alone and confronted i might have deleted the photo.

in australia you have every right as a photographer to take someone's picture and without their permission. i wouldn't worry too much about what happened and would keep shooting people. i would though use caution if photographing by the beach - no one wants to see their half naked body up on flickr!

i would have posted this guys picture without the black over the face, what the hell! with all the fuss, lets see this guy! :)
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

MoonShadow_1au    says:

Well I guess if you don't want your photo taken ..... don't stand in front of a camera !! And unless you are shooting with a 1Gpx monster from the gigapixle project, the distance where a subject does not know you are there should be safe not to really identify them (unless this guy always sits there !! ).

As for if it is ok, who really knows. I have heard that they are trying to pass laws here (in Australia) to stop people taking cameras to beaches (so I guess no phones, PDAs, mp3 players etc). I mean how are you suppose to 3G with you mates about the hear-throb sitting behind you !!!!!!

For me, I post my people shots with the family or friends privacy settings. That way they never exists unless they ask ;).
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

usagi photos    says:

Good on you for posting the photo. I just bought my first digital camera and I've wondering about this situation. I took some photos at Albert Park Lake with some joggers in shot and they couldn't care less. I intend to take photos of rowers on the lake but I guess I'll make sure they are adults (since many high schools use it as well)...

I was in Hong Kong at the beginning of the year and took a day trip to one of the near by Islands. My partner took a photo of this elderly couple on a small boat because it looked interesting:

www.flickr.com/photos/usagi1975/121029110/in/ set-72057594...

Just as she was about to take one more the couple spotted her. The old lady shield her face wiith a paper and the old man waved at us madly as if to shoo us away. We got the message and stopped. We thought about why they didn't want us to take photos (illegal immigrants? maybe)...and debated about whether we should post it or not.

But in the end, we posted it because it captures the people of the island so well and didn't think there would be any harm in it. Felt bad fror a day or two. Would post interesting pics without hesitation, but would take it situation by situation, of course
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

bronclune    says:

Have a look at this article it covers the rights of photographers in situations like these.
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

silvermiketrate    says:

A lot of you Aussie people commenting should read that link little brownwren has given. It came up recently in the Melbourne group as we had the whole no photos in that mall in Southbank issue.
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

jodes i am    says:

@ Darren - thanks for stopping by, I have actually read that article previously and you do raise some really valid points..Nice work
@ ???? thanks for following the link - I had no idea it was on SMH
@ dnbennett73 I guess it is relative and more so not expected in downtown Melbourne
@ jenny loves photos - it was a hard decision to make for me to post the photo because of what happened, and it has also taught me to ask before shooting, but that does take away from the 'moment'
@ MoonShadow - it kind of makes you wonder what the world is coming to, banning cameras at beaches in this day with a camera in every other phone...Obviously sometimes it is not ok!
@ usagi - Thank you! it can be quite a dilemma and I guess it is just a matter of taking each shot as it comes.
@ little brownwren, great link thanks for posting it!
@ Mike it is a great link and well worth a read.
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

alandot    says:

great read... considering... it says NSW Photo Rights... looking at the many precedents and high court judgements... it would be to apply any where in Australia. That private land vs public space clarification is very useful...
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

www.imageworld.com.au says:

Maybe we should start up self defence classes for photographers. Techniques could include flashing your attacker in the eyes, giving you a split second to make a speedy get-away. Perhaps you could wack your attacker in the shin with your tripod. Even better you could punch him in the nose with that really, really strong arm you have from holding that camera and lens up for so many hours..... :)
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

avatar_will2004 says:

Hi Jodie,

Being a fellow photographer (trusty Nikon D70), my philosophy is that you should *not take pictures of any person without politely asking for their permission. Many people I know wish to maintain their privacy without having their photos on websites such as Flickr and I respect their wishes (which is why I ask). With the new privacy laws in effect, I would not like to be a photographer in court being sued by an angry lawyer or judge for breaching privacy laws.
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

yinyang    says:

As has been already mentioned in little_brownwren's link, there are no privacy or legal issues for Australians in taking pictures of strangers in 'public'.

However there needs to be a measure of common sense in how one applies this - it's fine to discuss this in a civilised manner on Flickr, but if you've taken a picture that someone objects to out on the streets, tempers and reason may be much harder to control. And if you start going on about legality to some irate out of control person, then it won't be pleasant, as jodes can testify to, regardless of how 'right' photographers may be.

My point is that jodes did nothing wrong, and much right, and that she should not stop photographing people in public, but there are going to be some that she will 'feel' may not be that suitable, and in those situations, I don't think it's worth the aggro of pushing the point.
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

antzpantz    says:

You're famous!
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

photojunkie    says:

Hey Jodie

Found you through the article.

I did this post on my blog here
www.photojunkie.ca/archive/2006/09/5-bucks-or -fair-game/
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

jonomiller    says:

So many wasted words.
The guy is a nutter.
Don't sweat it.
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

James Burton says:

Nup, there is nothing wrong with taking a picture. They can stay indoors if they don't like it. All photographers should be out with their cameras wherever they go. The only meaningful response is to snap away at whatever gets you going.





Mind you, regardless of whether I was Megan Gale or Homeless Joe NoBlow, I wouldn't want idiots with cameras blasting off in my house. That just means the same rules apply as they do to every type of interaction.
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

Vanessa Pike-Russell    says:

I have learned a lot through your (mis?)adventure

1 - Ask permission before taking a photo if possible

2 - Consider the feelings of the person I photograph. Some cultures percive the taking of a person's photograph as 'stealing their soul'.
3 - Always have a spare $5 on hand.

Loved the quote in the link on photographer's rights:

"amateur photographers are the documentarians of real life. People with cameras bear witness to the everyday dramas of ordinary people. We capture our world to help us understand it. We are not terrorists. We are not dangerous. And we are certainly not a threat. "
www.4020.net/unposed/photorights.shtml with a link to
jpgmag.com/issue5.html

That's how I feel about my photograpy - a way of documenting my world. To bear witness to the life going on around me. I have so many people ask me why I am taking a photo of something that to me seems very obvious - be it a tree, train, sign or monument. I have submitted some of these photographs to Picture Australia

www.pictureaustralia.org/join.html
www.pictureaustralia.org/sitemap.html

They now have a flickr.com group that you can submit photos to.

www.pictureaustralia.org/news.html#flickrnews

Thanks for such an interesting topic!
--
Seen in a discussion of FlickrCentral. (?)
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

amicitia2006 says:

Actually I am surprised that you did not know that it is in fact, illegal to display, print etc a photograph with less than three people in it unless you have a signed release form. More than 3 people is considered a "crowd" and that's okay. And how about the fact that some people actually have religeous reasons for not wanting their photo taken? Taking it might not be illegal (although, it's debatable in a court of law) but when she posted the pic here, face blacked out or not, NOW it is illegal. And anyway, why do you need the law to tell you right from wrong, what about simple manners and morals?
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

josedalmada says:

One does not need 'it' to be "illegal to display, print etc a photograph with less than three people in it unless you have a signed release form".
One always should seek permission to get pics from individuals or small groups of people enjoying their privacy!
As for Terry Lane: Yes, 1,589 characters with spaces...
And he is not a moraliser!...
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

mr.analog    says:

I think i'll just stick to shooting buildings ....they don't fight back hahaha !!!!!
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

Sara Heinrichs (awfulsara)    says:

it is in fact, illegal to display, print etc a photograph with less than three people in it unless you have a signed release form

I'm sorry, but I do not think this is the case. Can you point me to this law? It is certainly not acceptable for commercial use, i.e. to use a person's photo to sell toothpaste, but for either personal use (print and display in your home), editorial use (to accompany an article etc), and, arguably, for print sale. (In the States and, it appears, Australia as well.)

Whether there is a moral or ethical obligation to not take a person's photo in public, well, that seems like a personal choice to me, not a clear case of Good and Bad. Hitting someone is wrong. Threatening someone is wrong. Looking at them is not. Talking to them is not. Talking ABOUT them is not. All of these things can be annoying or rude, or not. Taking someone's photo without their knowledge or permission can be either of these things as well. The world just isn't as black and white as many seem to believe.
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

silvermiketrate    says:

It's interesting how some of the people commenting negatively and talking about releases don't actually have any photos here. Methinks they may be people who like writing letters to newspapers.
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

alandot    says:

i'm so totally with you Mr Analog... ;)
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

bryan lowe says:

Jodes good on you. Without people breaking the frontiers there wouldnt be stories to be told. On one hand people are concerned about the "pornography" of poverty as Terry says but on the other hand its images like these that sometimes compels people to make a difference also. The majority may just pass it off as another photo but even if there are just a handful who want to take the stand and make the difference, the end product to me is more positive than destructive. As for paying $5, its not for commercial use, its in public, and if I took a picture of someone who was dressed in a suit I certainly wouldnt pay him either so why should I pay this person. Having said that I now there are some personal moral issues that need to be paid attention before taking the image but paying someone doesnt clear up those moral issues just makes them worse and shows the real intent of the subject.

Actually this photographer handled a similar situation in what I would call an extreme reaction which ended up a a full on scrap!

Amicitia2006 looks suspiciously like a creature who lives under a bridge... :-)



--
Seen on the Web. (?)
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

phon    says:

I think it's just courteous to ask people if you can take their photo, especially if they're the focus of your shot.

I also think its a good idea to let them know it will go on the internet.
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

polybears9 says:

No doubt old news, but just read of it on the Age site.

I think taking the photo was fine -otherwise we couldn't take anything.
Its also fine to take it without asking, as long as the camera wasnt put in his face -otherwise there is no spontaneity.

However I do think people have some "right" to photos where THEY are the subject (ie not crowd shots where they happen to be a participant), and they would not otherwise expect photos to be taken (ie not sports players, public speakers, participants in "newsworthy" evens etc -although the latter is hard to define, but sitting on some steps is NOT this!)

This "right" is not to not have their photo taken, or to demand payment (no contract has been made). However I think everyone has the "right" to politely ask for whatever limits to want to be placed on a photo of themselves. ie someone whould be able to ask for it to be deleted, or for it not to be published, or put on the net or...

Of course the problem then is -how do they know you've taken it? I think its polite for a photographer to consult with their subject AFTER they've taken a shot & explain its potential use (eg private vs possible publication) & ask if that's OK. Politeness never hurts!

In this case it was clear that he did NOT want you to keep the photo. I therefore think you were right to blacken out his face (even if some might suggest full publication -possibly out of "revenge"?). It then becomes an appropriate "news" photo of the public event that happened after you took the photo -his PUBLIC explosion of anger.

I could argue that you should have deleted all the photos (as he says he didn't want you to take them), but your use doesn't break his privacy, and I think in fact he didn't care about the photos but actually just wanted his $5

I certainly wouldn't have given him the $5 (unless you dicided it wosn't worth the damage he may inflict if you didn't)

Would be interested in your reply
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

redbarronphoto says:

Jodie,

As a professional photographer with a background in law enforcement, I believe I am qualified to answer your question. You are totally within your rights to take a picture of any person who may be in a public place, regardless of how many people are around them, or whether you receive their permission. They have absolutely no rights, whatsoever to ask for payment or that you delete any photos or hand over any film. In fact, to do so is a criminal offence if the demand is made in a menacing way. The creature you photographed has committed the offences of Assault (you felt fear that you would be assaulted if you did not co-operate) and Demanding Money With Menaces.

To clarify the "in public" issue. You may need the property owner's permission to take pictures for commercial purposes and they have the right to ask you to leave, for whatever reason they like, but they can not demand money for pictures that have already been taken. A person who may be on private property can still actually be in public (any place that is open to the public for use by the public as the public). There are no privacy laws in this country that condradict this, despite the misguided opinion of some posters. I believe that one even suggested the government don't even have the right to photograph a person without their permission. Have a look up at the surveillance cameras watching every move you make when in the city and have a chat to a press photographer. Without getting into the paparazi issue (which is based on moral concepts of privacy, not legal issues) news images are used to inform the public of issues. Can you imagine how ridiculous it would have been for Alberto Korda to ask Che for permssion, or Eddie Adams to ask the police chief as he executes a Vietcong suspect, or Huynh Cong Ut to ask a naked teenage Vietnamese girl to sign a model release as she runs screaming in pain from napalm burns. The list goes on…
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

sengpo    says:

Jodie - with all due respect, I'm going to weigh in on this discussion. Your experience as chronicled in The Age was posted in the PIP - Photographers in Perth forum, which I read with much interest.

I grant you that the experience was very discomfitting and even downright terrifying, but your decision to obscure the person's face confuses and slightly disturbs me. What does this achieve? It's not a portrait anymore - candid or otherwise. It's not an image which tells a story (why black out the subject's face if it is)? It no longer qualifies as a street photograph in terms of the characteristics usually attributed to that genre. What is it telling us about the photograph or the photographer? Is it that you're a FlickRirte who feels the need to post images - whatever they may be - on FlickR, or is it an attempt at being controversial as there is often an element of interrupted voyeurism in photographs where people's faces are deliberately obscured? IMO, If you were serious about this being a documentary/street photograph, you would have publicised the photograph as is, with or without the story of your run-in with the subject, and let it speak for itself. After all, you would have seen something special in that moment that made you take that picture. By obscuring the subject's face, you've denied your audience this vision, turning what may have been a candid street portrait, with whatever story or message it may present, into something which becomes inherently meaningless as a photograph. Or, if you had been grappling with the integrity and ethics of it all, you could have refrained from making that post, out of respect of the person you had photographed, even if his reaction had bordered on 'assault'.

I don't believe that obscuring his face turns this into a news photo - in which case, hundreds of photojournalistic photographs taken in areas of conflict would be filled with people with their faces obscured.

At the end of the day, I would like to think that photographers take on a level of responsibility - to their trade (even if they are hobbyists like you and I) and to their subjects, and that this sense of responsibility or accountability will govern the way we behave - what we photograph, how we process the photographs and where we publish them. Thanks for listening - no doubt, you and a fair few others may disagree with the views expressed above, and I respect that. But I just wanted to make my 2 cents known because this is a case/situation close to my heart as a photographer.
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

augeoff says:

I would go with redbarron's answer and say you are well within your rights to take the photo without permission and post it up in full on the net, without paying him a cent.

If you're in a public place you have no expectation of privacy and that includes photographs.

If someone took a photo of me in a public place and I didn't want them to I could request they delete it but demanding deletion and/or money is ridiculous. Granted, if someone was threatening me I would rate self-preservation more highly than my rights though :)
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

Darren Stones    says:

Terry Lane, you have a very good collection of images and thanks for sharing them. Do you realise that every human being is an interesting subject to photograph?

Street photography requires a great deal of skill and common sense. Taking photos of birdlife requires skill too, but the birds never ask for five bucks.

Jodie, recording life on the street remains valid today just like it always has. There's no need to blacken out the face. It's been interesting to read your thoughts and everyone elses.
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

silvermiketrate    says:

Good post redbarron.

Sengster (and the other people commenting on Jodie's motivation)- I think you have to meet her and actually know her a bit before tarring her with certain things like arrogance/attention seeking etc...
The photo was posted in the context of describing a situation that happened during a flickr walk, and originally intended just for her contacts and the other people on the walk I'd say.
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

Umebozhi says:

This reminds me of an experience I had in Japan. I was in Harajuku and was taking pictures and so happen this big huge african guy was in the middle of it (he had the job of attracting people into the shops I suppose), and started covering his face and looked menacingly... err... so akward as it seems, I decided not to take the picture and walked away, gesturing that I didn't take his picture. He must be some crim or sumthing hiding in Harajuku hehe... not meaning to make assumptions but I guess to still survive my Japan trip, I just had to forgo that intention. That then made me bit nervous when taking pictures afterwards, and especially somehow when u're a guy, look like a Jap (asian .red), and have a big DSLR... they (the women esp), just gave you that "look", very2 suspicious about your intention. (I think Japan has a big perverto problem =P). I think being able to freely take pictures of "life" should be encouraged to give people insights to many different parts of the world of how we all are living *thanks flickr!* and some people just really ruins it for us! argh..!
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

wellingtondany    says:

Quite right Mike! I totally agree. I saw the confrontation and was impressed by how well Jodes handled it. He was very aggressive and I certainly would have thought twice before posting it unedited.

I think it's a bit harsh to imply that Jodes was courting attention by posting the picture, Sengster!
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

jodes i am    says:

Wow I am kinda overwhelmed by all the comments right now and I would like to respond to everyone individually - which I will get to later today.

But for now thank you all for posting your comments and adding to the debate.
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

hmedia05 says:

Public place. Public property. I'd like to see the kind of chap chuck a wobbly at a public event, when there are literally hundreds of cameras taking images of everybody and everything. He's a nutter. You just happened to be in his field of view and he wanted to fluff someone's feathers.
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

dizsyd63 says:

redbaronphoto reckons he has a background in law enforcement (meaning, he's a copper or a screw I'm guessing NOT a lawyer) hence you are WRONG if you think you have any expertise in this field. Personally, if you took my photo I bust your camera. Simple.
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

Wandering E says:

There's a lot of debate here about whether you can or cannot take some random persons photo in a public place.

Just look at all the gossip mags next time you're waiting in line at your supermarket...

On a different note, have you ever been to a gallery and been blown away by great candid images from another decade?

Don't let some freak in the street deter you from going out and taking great photos.
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

wattlesong says:

Absolutely wrong to snap people withouit first checking with them.
If you don't want to respect peoples' space, get ready for a reaction. We're entitled to it.
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

silvermiketrate    says:

What a surprise dizsyd63 and wattlesong don't have any photos on flickr.
The problem with putting the link in the paper is you get all the old nutters (serial complainers to newspaper letter pages- sometimes not making a lot of sense) and juvenile males (puffing out the chest, threatening violence, but really screaming "look at me" "I need attention") commenting.
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

kate :-)    says:

It is always hard to get a realistic portrait if permission is asked first as you tend to lose the spontenaiety of the shot as it is really difficult to get people not to strike a pose once they have noticed the camera. I am in a profession with a high likelihood of being sued at some point and similar to photography it is always going to be a balance between the art of your work and legal dimensions and regardless of how careful you are, unless you stay at home and take pictures of your cat, there is always the chance that some nutter will object in a manner far exceeding the reality of the situation. I end up avoiding what would be great shots far too often as I am too afraid to ask for permission. Don't take the comments too much to heart on a controversy that you probably weren't expecting a response this great from
Always an interesting discussion nonetheless :-)
A semi-related book of interest that I enjoyed was The Bang Bang club - well worth reading for all the ethical issues
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

redbarronphoto says:

Wow! dizsyd63 is an angry little man! Here are some questions:

1) Can he, or anyone else, find any legislation in Victoria, or anywhere else in Australia that prohibits photography of a person in a public place?

2) What happened to Mark Latham when he thought he could assault a photographer and damage his camera?

3) What is the difference between a photographer on the street and a surveillance camera on a pole?

4) How would he, or anyone else, know if I, or anyone else, have already taken his photograph? (my 600 mm lens can frame a person from 500m away)

5) Do you have any knowledge of what you are talking about?

6) What gives you, or anyone else, immunity from public scrutiny? (if you're doing something in public that is newsworthy what makes you exempt, or so special?)

7) Can dizsyd63 explain why I am "wrong"?

In summary, lighten up boys and girls. The magazines and newspapers you all pay good money for are filled with photographs of people taken without their prior consent. Why are you so special?
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

bryan lowe says:

Dizsyd63 is a troll thats why redbarron. Dont feed him. As is wattlesong or whatever name they give themselves... no contacts no pictures no anything.... check em out first redbarron.... always the case....
--
Seen on the Web. (?)
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

redbarronphoto says:

Jodes,

I just had a look at your pics. Nice work!

Any chance of posting the original image without his mug covered over?
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

Aaron Quigley    says:

I really agree with mikelefevre, Jodes you did nothing wrong. I personally would have posted the picture along with the story so people know what a nasty piece of work this person is. If he had asked you nicely to delete the photo or take it offline then I would respect this. However, since he wanted cash it's a different matter.
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

kate :-)    says:

I really have to stop procrastinating and go out (actually to meet a friend at flinders st - feel free to snap away - I don't charge) but thought this site had a lot of interesting legal info and reinforces the fact that nothing is wrong with spontaneous snaps by amateurs and goes into heaps of detail re: private vs public land and definitions and legal precedents - hopefully to save all the speculation in the thread so far www.4020.net/unposed/photorights.shtml
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

jodes i am    says:

@ alandot - it is a really useful link - certainly a lot to keep in mind.
@ theimageworld - not really methods that I would go for but thanks for stopping by ;o)
@ avatar willl2004 - you have a good philosphy and thank you for sharing, but what about if it meant losing the moment? if you had the perfect image but you had to ask permission - what would you do?
@yinyang - you seemed to have nailed it - and this particular shot was one that I assessed the situation and the man did not look like a street person, to me at the time he was a man sitting there waiting for someone to meet him. I was wrong
@antpantz - this is not really what this is about - it is a discussion about photographing people in the streets.
@photojunkie thanks for stopping by - and thank you for the blog post.
@jonomiller - he may have been a nutter but I certainly do not think the debate has been a waste of words if that is what you are referring to??
@james burton and that is what I was doing - snapping at what I thought was interesting
@vanessapr - I am glad you got something out of it, I too have learnt a lot from this discussion, it is great to hear others opinions and that is the sole reason for posting the photo
@amicitia2006 hrmms manners and morals hey? I dont really think you have a right here to question my morals as you do not know me. Seems that in Australia it is not illegal.
@ josedalmada does being in a public place then put you right out there - where does privacy sit in a public setting?
@ Mr Analog - good plan that one ;o)
@ Sara - the world is not black and white and I am glad you took the time to understand what I was trying to say - and in the end I guess it is just personal choice. Thank you
@ Mike - possibly?!?
@ alan - I look forward to seeing them through you lens!
@ gilowe - it was not for commercial use and I have not made a cent from it - nor will I and I agree - how does paying them clear up the moral issue?!?!
@ phon - it is courteous I agree - but is it something to be done before every shot?
@polybears the camera was not in his face, infact i was a fair distance from him. I had not considered asking him or anyone else i have shot after the event and it is certainly food for thought and something I will take on board. In regards to the $5 it was completely about the money and not about the photo - he couldnt care less about the photo, he just wanted money - probably for his next hit. Had this have been a homeless person - which I am assuming he was not - i would much prefer to spend the $5 buying them some food rather than just giving it to them -
@redbarron thanks for stopping by - you seem to have a lot of knowledge in this area .
@ sengster - it was not really about the picture when I posted it - it was about the discussion that I wanted to raise with the flickr peeps that were with me and those that view my photos. I agree it is not a portrait or a street photo - it is a discussion point. Had you have looked through my photo stream you probably would have learnt more about me and what kind or Flickrite I am. I think you are missing the point of the discussion and that was to talk about taking photos in public of the public.
@augeoff - I did have to make the choice about self preservation in the end - I was quite worried for my camera.
@PhotoJour - thanks for popping by I agree it has been an interesting discussion that is for sure.
@ Mike - I do agree it is not right to judge my morals etc until you acutally know me!
@Umebozhi - it does make a great insight in to others lives and worlds and without these photos - would life just be full of happy snaps?
@ Dany - thank you - it certainly was an interesting ending to our shooting afternoon.
@hmedia05 - interesting point - maybe he was just waiting there for someone to harrass? maybe I was his target instead - who knows?!?
@dizsyd63 - I really dont know what your point is
@ernie I am - cool name! and thanks - I guess a lot of people just take the shots - publish them and think not much more about the people ...
@wattlesong - do you take photos yourself?
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

jodes i am    says:

@Kate - I did not want to lose the spontenaiety of the shot and that is why I took it - i will check that book out on the weekend.
@ redbarron - I will not be posting his face
@ aaron - I tend to agree - if he had been polite and provided a reasonable discussion then there would have been no issue. He clearly wanted money
@ Kate - thank you for the link
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

veronica16 says:

If Jodie thought it might have been nice to buy the guy food and a drink, then he probably appeared down on his luck, and I think his reaction was pretty predictable and reasonable in the context.

Maybe he saw the camera as a symbol of affleunce, and maybe he saw Jodie's presumptuous behaviour as another reminder of his relative position in society.

Personally, I think snapping strangers without their permission rude. I wouldn't have threatened her, but I would have been annoyed at Jodie as well. In all the incident was probably a good check to her naivete.

Another thing: journalists and photographers intrude on others for a living (and yes we all benefit from that in many ways). THere are many social conventions concering personal space and privacy that many of us hold dear - I think it's probable that journalists and photographers see these norms as less important or relevant. Thinking this does not obliterate these conventions! Something to keep in mind.
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

sengpo    says:

This is turning into a very enlightening discussion which, as Jodie pointed out, is the intent of the post. I must admit that I had visited this page from a link off a page on The Age's website, and hence did not have access to the rest of her FlickR stream, though I did take the time to view her 'Melbourne' set -- to try and get a sense of how this photo fits in with the rest of her work.

Thing is - it fits in quite nicely, and that it has been included in the 'Melbourne' set indicates that it invites to be viewed/read in relation to the other images in the series - essentially, a photographic record or 'construction', if you will, of the city, its inhabitants, atmosphere etc. When I see something like this in this context, I think of photographic intent - why take the picture? Why publish it with the face obscured thus? Hence my comments above. As I do not know Jodie, I can only make suppositions based on what evidence is available at the moment. It was never my intent to judge on a personal level so I hope no offense was taken.

Personally, I would have preferred if the person's face had not been obscured, if only because it would then add to the sense of narrative that this image undoubtedly creates. Because it belongs in the 'Melbourne' set for reasons outlined before, because it, along with the event that surrounds its taking could well make for a rivettiing and impactful image. However, given the controversy, exposure and discussion that the image has since produced, I'm not sure if this is a viable option anymore. :-(
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

mr walker    says:

wow, what a thread. must get terry lane to notice my controversial pics to get the view-count up ;-)

if i were you, i wouldn't have deleted, but that's me. i'm not known for my pliability on the subject. i'd probably have continued taking hip-shots as he threatened and tried to extort from me. and i'd have possibly uploaded here to tell the story, not obscuring the face if he was as obnoxious as you say (though i understand why you did so).

you ask very similar questions as i once did here: www.fotolog.com/mr_walker/?pid=372396
and also remind me of this story: flickr.com/photos/mr_walker/8681359/in/set-81 8468/
(hint, hint, mr. lane ;-)

there will always be some people who object to being photographed when they're out and about. unless i misuse a photo to make money or defame someone (and a very few other legal and perhaps ethical exceptions), i continue to consider it their problem, not mine. "privacy" is often argued, but both the legal and ethical lines are pretty clear on the distiction between private/public, methinks. if someone really, really doesn't like it, i suggest they invest in some sunglasses and a hat.

that said, i also take great care about what i publish. while i may not ask permission, i usually try to respect a subject's dignity. usually. depending on how much they threaten me.
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

greynotgrey [deleted] says:

Where I live (Quebec, Canada), it's illegal to take someone's picture even if not-for-profit.

"The law in Quebec provides an interesting comparison with Australian law in this area. Unlike the rest of Canada’s provinces, which are governed by a common law system, Quebec’s private law is governed by civil law. Quebec has enacted the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedom. Section 5 guarantees every person a ‘right to respect for his private life’.

In the relatively recent case of Aubry v Editions Vice-Versa,[32] the Supreme Court of Canada held that the publication of an ordinary citizen’s photograph without consent could, in certain cases, violate his or her right of privacy under Quebec law.[33] In this case, a photograph of a 17 year old girl sitting on a step in front of a building on a popular street in Montreal was published in Editions Vice-Versa, a magazine dedicated to the arts, in order to ‘illustrate contemporary urban life’. The defendant acknowledged that the photograph was taken in a public place and published without Ms Aubry’s consent. Ms Aubry sued the photographer and Editions Vice-Versa claiming that the unauthorised publication of her photograph violated her right to privacy guaranteed by s 5 of the Quebec Charter.

Finding in favour of Ms Aubry, the Court concluded that the right to one’s image is included in the right to respect one’s private life in s 5. Accordingly, the publication of the photograph of an identifiable individual without his or her consent is, on the face of it, a violation of that right. The Court recognised, however, that there are cases where the public’s right to be informed, or freedom of expression (which is also protected by the Quebec Charter) will outweigh the individual’s right to privacy. The balancing of the rights in question depends on the circumstances and context of use.

The Court gave examples of circumstances where the taking of a photograph of an individual would not be a violation of their right to be left alone. For example, persons engaged in public activities that have certain notoriety, such as politicians, cannot complain if their photograph is published without their consent. A further exception is when an individual’s own action ‘accidentally’ places him or her in a photograph incidentally, such as being part of a crowd at a public sporting event or demonstration. In other words, the person cannot object to the publication of a photograph if he or she is not the principal subject.[34] "

That said, In Australia, there is no common law right to privacy.
www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/PLPR/1999/59.h tml
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

James Burton says:

I'm pretty sure everyone has a similar story of their own. I have been hassled in a similar way perhaps a dozen times.




- Obligatory Flinders St Shot -


The most annoying times for me are when I didn't even take a shot. I was just being hassled for openly carrying a camera. "You took a picture of my daughter, I'm calling the Police" etc. Its depressing and hurtful for some reason, but you just have to pull it together and get on with it. Or give up I suppose. This is just what happens to people who shoot people in the street. In Jodie's case the motivation was to squeeze a little money out of the photographer. This is a little surprising in Melbourne, perhaps less so in Calcutta. As an adult male I usually get paranoid fathers. I once got "you can't take pictures here because of the 'Signage'. It's company policy". Not that 'Signage' is a word. Why you wouldn't want people to take pictures of advertising in a cinema I don't understand. But then I don't understand why I would want to either :-)

Thanks,
James
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

bootload    says:

'... You don't need the reluctant junkie. He doesn't add anything to the folio. ...'

Disagree Terry. The Melbourne flickr group from observation is pushing the boundry with all sorts of *issues*. One that comes to mind is the PetroChem shots, & photographers being warned off by the owners, police getting involved only to find no law is being broken.

This image is important. It raises the issue of 'Equiveillance' and 'Sousveillance' and what reasonable expectation the public to constantly bombarded by intentional and un-intentional surveillance.

Being scammed for money is a related issue and raises the question, 'Does a reasonable society require permission and/or acknowledgement to conduct electronic observation?'

This image whatever its artistic/technical merit raises important questions of privacy (or lack of) in an increasingly mobile, digital era.

(ps still missing 'Evans The Wireless').
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

KaXoR says:

He doesn't look like a homeless man, but rather a wacked out indie kid lol
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

regbaron says:

If you have a Camera with a good Zoom and Image Stabilizer then use it, if you can, especially on characters like that. Or get a BIG Dog
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

Stubborn Like a Mule    says:

Although it's probabally been said before (I struggled until about halfway through the pile of exisiting comments), here are my thoughts on the issue.

Anyone out in a public space is open to a degree of scruitany by those around them and we implicitiy accept this by the way we behave.

This person was in a public place, as were you and in that regard you both have a right to go about your business as long as you are doing nothing illeagal or something that may harm another.

The minute he started harrassing you for cash and became abusive and threatening his poor (and possibly illeagal) behaviour far outweighted yours (ie. taking the picture).

Well done for standing up for yourself, I am only dissapointed that you felt you needed to hide this persons face, he is just as accountable for his behaviour as you are.

At the end of the day though if you're in this kind of situation you have to do what is neccessary to get out of it safely and with all of your equipment unbroken. If I was in your position and really felt that this guy was going to beat the crap out of me or smash my camera the $5 would have been a small price to pay to get away in one piece.
Posted 39 months ago. ( permalink )

veronica16 says:

The guy tried to engage Jodie in what I see as a legitimate dialogue - he asked for money for a photo she took of him. He did not give her permission to take that photo, she took it without asking. But he knew that she was profiting from it in some way, so why should he not gain something from that? The photo was of him, after all.

I really think Jodie should explore what was behind his request. His behaviour was not illegal. I don't think his primary motive was to 'squeeze' money out of the photographer (although he may have been short of a buck, and possibly resentful).

As for the comparison with Calcutta - don't you think Melbourne has people living in poor conditions, on the street? Perhaps you don't want to know about it. Disadvantage OK in stylised shots of 'Calcutta', but Melbourne: too close to home.

And just because photographing someone is not illegal, does not mean that we can act without consideration. Who makes things illegal or legal? Not carved in stone.
Posted 39 months ago. ( permalink )

jodes i am    says:

veronika - I have not profited from this photo at all. And I feel you have missed the point. The guy did not engage me - he demanded and was agressive from the start.
Posted 39 months ago. ( permalink )

Dongix says:

In my opinion, I don;t think you did something wrong but then that could be relative. For the guy it must be wrong for you to take a picture of him. But what I really think is that for sure the guy is in a bad mood but more importantly he needs money and just wanted to intimidate you until you give in.

We (I and my wife) were in Melbourne once (just near Flinders Street) and a guy suddenly came to us and ask money. He wasn't a beggar for he didn't look like one. We politely told him we don't have money and he left.

This guy that you took picture of found a "valid" way to demand money from you and to even harass you. If he was furious just because he is furious, he would'nt have asked $5 from you for a start. He would have just insulted you.

But oh well, that's one of the adventures of being a photographer.

I had some moments too but not as hostile as the rest of the members here. I try to avoid them actually. I am not that adventurous. (yet)
Posted 38 months ago. ( permalink )

transairn [deleted] says:

You don't owe this guy anything. Not one penny. You don't even owe him an apology. He had no right to threaten you. STREET photography is just that - photos of people in public places - in their natural habitat. He decided to be in the public, so he is at risk of being photographed.

I shoot street all the time and have been 'caught' by people; I simply tell them that it is not illegal to take their photo - and that their photo is not going to be used in a public setting.

You should not have digitally covered his face. What makes him different than a photo you take of a flower? Or a tree? Or a shadow? The difference is HIS issue...clearly psychological if he's going to get aggressive and threatening towards you.

Know your rights - and propose your rights to anyone who threatens your rights.

If your friends were nearby, you should utilize them as 'backup' - because they should know that taking a photo of a person in a public place is NOT WRONG.

See my photos for some examples (well, some of my street shots).
Posted 38 months ago. ( permalink )

tuxcomputers says:

I had to reply before I read the entire thread whether they have been corrected or not so forgive me if it has already been said:

Goose-Step Girlie wrote:

The rules have changed in Photography over the last few years

tuxcomputers says:

avatar_will2004 wrote:

With the new privacy laws in effect,

tuxcomputers says:

dizsyd63 wrote:

Personally, if you took my photo I bust your camera. Simple.

tuxcomputers says:

Based on the events described in this thread I have updated my PDF document on photography rights in Australia

I really wanted to include the Victorian definition of "public place" but that would have blown my PDF to about 5 pages. If you have a look here you will see two other documents based on the same name, one is a Word document and the other is an OpenOffice.org document.

I originally created the doco in OO.o and saved it as the other two formats from there. If someone from Victoria wants to change it to just have that states definition of "public place" I am willing to host it along side the other ones.
Posted 37 months ago. ( permalink )

lists&diagrams says:

Tux: Hear, hear!
Posted 37 months ago. ( permalink )

alandot    says:

yeah go tux... speak the truth
Posted 37 months ago. ( permalink )

mr walker    says:

the chorus line says: tux, you've got it goin' on.
Posted 37 months ago. ( permalink )

tuxcomputers says:

he he... my favourite type of photography is "Street photography", documenting people as they go about their lives, the "ask permission beforehand" brigade just take snapshots of grinning idiots.

I have only had one challenge and it wasn't even by the person I taking a photo of.

There was a girl that had really high black boots (I think they cal themselves emo's?) that had bright orange laces. The light was too low to get a decent shot but this woman that looked like she was homeless started ranting and wanting to call the cops.

I asked her if she wanted to borrow my mobile phone to do it, she continued her rant about sex sites on the internet (you know the usual paranoid dipshit stuff) and didn't take up the challenge.

I told her to leave me alone or I would call the cops in her, she kept going a little to save face and then wandered off talking loudly to no-one in particular.

Apart from that, I have had a few ask why I was taking photos on the train etc... Oh that just triggered a memory about another incident. I was on the train and went to take a photo of a policeman, he shook his head indicating that he didn't want his photo taken so I didn't. I was taking photos of other train travelers when he asked me to stop. The rest of the conversation went something like this:

Me: "Why? I am allowed to in public"
Cop: "Because some people might not want their photo taken and if they complain you could be charged and have your camera taken away"
Me: "Has anyone complained?"
Cop: "No but they could so stop it"
Me: ... I can't remember now but it was something like "I will worry about that when they do complain"
Cop: Goes and sits back down.

I continued to take photos and the cop watched me the whole time instead of going back to the book he was reading before he approached me.

I always wondered what I could have been charged with, so I looked it up where I could take photos and produced the PDF. I also contacted Queensland Rail to ask them if QR property is considered a public place.

After a bit of e-mailing back and forth and a few missed calls they did not tell me if it was or wasn't, all she could say that they could not give me permission to take photos. I asked if there was a by-law or whatever that prevented me from taking photos on the train. Her reply "We can't give you permission to take photos while you travel on the train"

In other words they was nothing preventing me but they could not give me explicit permission. I guess it was just in case I did the wrong thing, it would have allowed me to use the defence, "They gave me permission."

Now that I know my rights better I am wondering if that copper could have been disciplined because he had no cause to threaten me with taking my camera and having a charge laid against me.

I respect all who put on a Blue uniform and most do a fantastic job but that does not mean they can impose their personal wishes upon whoever they want, they are meant to uphold the law. Maybe that copper didn't know the law, that's why I have several printed copies of my PDF in my camera bag.

Now I am on a later start time I don't catch the same train as he does, maybe I should go early tomorrow and see if he knows better than he did before? If not then I have a print out to educate him :)
Posted 37 months ago. ( permalink )

mr walker    says:

hey, tux, while this chorus member fully agrees with your refusal to back down, particularly the point about authority figures using their authority to enforce their own personal whims - i've felt the blunt end of that many times. if you ever decide to attempt to bring discipline, though, get plenty of witnesses and prepare for a struggle - they do whatever they can to back up their own, and statement fabrication is surely an elective subject at the academy. yep, personal experience.

i just have to disagree about a point of semantics you make at the start: posed street portraits can and do make effective "documents" (the curator of the state library photo collection would agree with me). some of my favourite photos are literally of grinning idiots. depends on the rapport that is struck.
Posted 37 months ago. ( permalink )

mr walker    says:

oh, and to another point: many police reallydon't have a clue about the law with regards to photography. i get the feeling they don't get taught a lot of law at all (after all, how long does a law degree take?). several times i've patiently explained that privacy law doesn't cover public photography, that the summary offences act guarantees me the right to observe them without hindering etc ... once i even had to explain defamation law to a constable, who seemed unaware that merely taking a photo does not constitute publication.

so, thanks again for the PDF and all the work involved. not for me, so much, not by now, but for everyone else who can't be arsed to/doesn't know how to trawl through the legislation and precedent.
Posted 37 months ago. ( permalink )

tuxcomputers says:

mr walker wrote:

i just have to disagree about a point of semantics you make at the start: posed street portraits can and do make effective "documents"

so, thanks again for the PDF and all the work involved. not for me, so much, not by now, but for everyone else who can't be arsed to/doesn't know how to trawl through the legislation and precedent.

mr walker    says:

heh, thanks for the qualification :-)

if it wasn't umm, arsery(?) that got you there, well, whatever. thanks for cobbling together a bunch of stuff into a slightly-more-national and easy-to-print format. or something.

and might i also take this opportunity to thank jodes_i_am for letting us continue the thread with such loquacious abandon. appreciate it.
Posted 37 months ago. ( permalink )

tuxcomputers says:

Ok I read my last post and it was not that clear, let me clarify...

I did a very small amount of legal type research, no trawling though legislation, no finding precedences, I have not even shown my PDF to a real live lawyer, if that web page I condensed is wrong then I am in deep shit...

The creation of the PDF/DOC/OpenDoc was formy own benefit, I also happen to believe in and use alot of GPL software so the natural response was to share the PDF to allow crossplatform compatability as well as the "source code" (so to speak) so that others were able to alter it and produce a better or different layout / wording / version.

BTW If anyone does that I am happy to host it, just make sure you send me the DOC or OpenDoc format, PDF's are good for allowing the widest audience but make it harder to reverse engineer.
Posted 37 months ago. ( permalink )

Phototrash!    says:

Dunlop Volleys Rock!! He sounds like a student..
Posted 34 months ago. ( permalink )

JaxPhotography    says:

A most interesting discussion. I have had some difficulties taking shots in public as well, but I have alwasy been able to avoid too many problems. Thank you for telling your story.

--
Seen in The Harassed Photographer (?)
Posted 34 months ago. ( permalink )

transairn [deleted] says:

What bugs me is the people that complain that if you take a candid shot of a minor, you're even more inclined to get into trouble.

I take photos of kids / babies / children on the street all the time. They're part of humanity, and they're damn cute, and people smile when they see them.
Posted 34 months ago. ( permalink )

Museum of Dirt    says:

Jodes, I got half way through and couldn't read on. Wow, there are so many comments.

I think you were dead right in taking the shot, and dead right in posting it. Personally, I would have posted face and all, but, with some thought, I can understand completely why you covered his face.
I think he was after the scam rather than his privacy (in a public space? - its been well covered here).
If I were in the position of not wanting my picture taken in public on a given day, simply looking another direction and/or discreetly covering my face is usually the simple option. Or even getting up and walking away. It's not that hard. Shooting street a lot myself, I get that from time to time - generally, a signal of some kind from unwilling subjects is all it takes rather than a horrible confrontation afterwards.

Having said that, there are always going to be people out there willing to puff out their chest for some reason, usually unknown to the rest of us.
Posted 33 months ago. ( permalink )