Newer Older

    iloveyouii_00_ii, MdKiStLeR, and 99 other people added this photo to their favorites.

    View 20 more comments

    1. Just some dust 61 months ago | reply

      Great photo.

      And stand up for your rights.

    2. emertron 61 months ago | reply

      This is gorgeous. While I can understand people not wanting their photo public, there are better ways of requesting it not be. Strange enough, this was sent to me by a friend asking when the last time I was in Burlington (have actually never been). Apparently, she (and I) are doppelgangers.

      One way or another, the shot is incredibly pretty.

    3. tr4visag 61 months ago | reply

      Great shot! I hope you continue photographing people, you capture great moments.

    4. usedtobeafoto 61 months ago | reply

      What lens did you use for this?

    5. rHythm123 61 months ago | reply

      sir, you are an idiot... no disrespect to you personally but your last comment serves no purpose nor does it add any intelligent value to this photograph or the issue at hand.

    6. Taqi®™ 61 months ago | reply

      really beautiful image

    7. Skies of Bitan 碧潭的天空 61 months ago | reply

      Once all the sound and the fury has died down, what is left will be this image. And I'd be willing to bet that the lady in the photo will be glad for that some day. This is a poetic moment.

    8. ManWithCamera 61 months ago | reply

      That's a beautiful photograph.

    9. Barrera Photography 61 months ago | reply

      does she throw the butts on the ground? rest a while then keep on shooting, life has it's ups and downs.

    10. handym9133000 61 months ago | reply

      Your street photography conflict issue caught my eye. I am retired. I also am a student in a digital photo class in a college in Arizona. I am working on a special project in STREET PHOTOGRAPHY. The class has a private FLICKER group as a part of the class. One of my fellow students found the issue and posted her slant in our discussion area. The following is her slant followed by my comment. A little fuel to the fire. You can see some of my STREET work at: www.flickr.com/photos/photog_jeff (handym9133000@yahoo.com)
      Regards and hang in there.
      Jeff Franklin

      Arichan16 says:
      Hello everyone! So I know we discuss the legalities of street photography and it's morals a lot, especially with a few street photographers amongst us. That's why this article (found in a discussion on Model Mayhem while I was browsing) really caught my attention.



      If you don't want to read the whole article, the long story short is this:

      A man was taking pictures on public property outside of the businesses. A guard came up and informed him that he was not allowed to take pictures of the building, to which he responded that he was allowed to take pictures on public property, no matter what was in the background. It was true as the no-photography policy only applied to the inside of the buildings.

      It ended up with him being harassed by police officers, which led to one even showing up at his office the next day to question him for 45 minutes. He answered honestly, that he took pictures of everyone regardless of age or gender and posted some on Flickr. The officer thought he was 'despicable'.

      A month later he took a picture of a female employee smoking in the snow using a telephoto lens from 50 feet away. She noticed him, approached him, and told him to stop. He said okay. Then she told him to delete the one (awesome) picture that he had taken. He refused.

      The next monday he was delivered a trespass order banning him from the shops for a year.

      Oddly enough, the discussion I found it in was tearing him apart. Other photographers were calling HIM names and insulting HIM. But I feel like he's the victim here. He was taking some awesome pictures and doing nothing wrong. I recalled several discussions we had about street photography and the legalities of taking pictures of people without their consent. I don't see anything wrong with what he was doing.

      The irony is now the picture the lady wanted him to delete is now all over in the news articles and all the discussions.

      He has a Flickr: www.flickr.com/people/38261591@N06/
      And I also found this: www.flickr.com/groups/photography_is_not_a_crime/

      So what is everyone's thoughts? Who was in the wrong, him for not deleting the photo or the police officers for harassing him? Did he deserve a ban? What would you do if this happened to you? How does one avoid these things? CAN one avoid these things? Those who take street photography, do things like this make you more cautious or make you feel like quitting?

      As far as my input goes... I think this is scary. This is why I'm afraid of taking street pictures. He got banned from an entire street of stores. He can't even go there to shop. Why? Because he was (legally) taking AMAZING pictures. I don't think it's right. I really don't. And I think things like this can really squash street photography as an art form. It sounds like taking pictures in public is illegal and you can get seriously punished for it. That's enough to scare me away, what if it scared away big talents, too?

      So I talk about it with my husband. And you know what? He thinks the photographer is in the wrong. He says that he doesn't think street photography should even be legal, that he doesn't want his picture taken by a stranger even if it is for art. And he's firm on it. He says the stores had every right to ban him for being 'creepy'.

      And here's another question... would this have been any different if it had been a WOMAN taking the pictures? Would she have been 'creepy' enough to require a ban from stores? Would a woman have been treated differently by the police, the stores, or the other woman being photographed?
      Originally posted at 12:06AM, 16 March 2010 GMT+7 ( permalink )
      Arichan16 edited this topic 4 days ago.

      handym9133000 says:
      • Here is a quoted comment on the issue. Quoted complete from HARRISON LANSING at www.harrisonlansing.com. (he has some good photographs --- check it out)
      • He could not have said it better. I will add:
      • Had I been the photographer; life goes on --- there are other: Malls, Stores, Venues for STREET PHOTOGRAPHY. (I'd be back to this one in a year to photograph; NOT to spend money!
      • Regarding the 'Captured Soul' issue: I have taken many photos of unique and interesting graves in grave yards. My position is that no disrespect is intended. Indeed, the photo honors the deceased and shares that history, honor, and respect with all who view the photo. Why do we have tombstones???
      • I would LOVE to have a visit from a police officer regarding my STREET PHOTOGRAPHY. It would open a whole new chapter in my life and compliment the anxiety rush I get from DOING STREET PHOTOGRAPHY.
      • In regard to the TRESSPASS ORDER; I would frame and hang on the wall and consider it an award for the photographs taken.
      • If STREET PHOTOGRAPHY becomes banned or very restricted --- much history and human behavior will not be recorded.
      • The world is filling up with people that want ME to stop: Drinking soda; Eating salt; Eating french fries Etc Etc
      • Oh, I forgot; this is Vermont.

      • Harrison Lansing wrote:
      • "Ok, so, just about everyone involved in the actual event is right on some level…minus the seemingly undue harassment beyond simply serving the order to stay out of the mall.
      The photographer is perfectly correct in asserting that he has the legal right photograph from public property, regardless (with some caveats) of what is in the background. He is also correct in asserting his right to photograph people in public places for editorial use.
      The individuals being photographed certainly have the right to express their displeasure and discomfort at being photographed. It’s not about “capturing souls” as one over the top poster asserts. It’s about their right to express their feelings in the matter…period.
      The businesses involved are private entities who are not constrained by first amendment issues. They are free to protect their business interests by barring someone from their premises who is making their clientele uncomfortable.
      This style of photography is bound to run into these issues. Fact is, some people do not like being photographed. Fact is some people like it less than others. Fact is that the businesses/mall are more concerned with their clientele than the photographer. If customers have raised concerns and the businesses don’t respond, they will likely lose those customers.
      Yes he can photograph in public spaces. Yes businesses can decide that he is upsetting their customers and potentially damaging their business interests by extension."

    11. Lauren Murphy 61 months ago | reply

      Lovely photograph. I really hope you continue your photography, I enjoyed looking at your stream!

    12. kylecassidy 61 months ago | reply


      i might dodge the face a little to keep it all from being mid-tones.

    13. Jay Rajamanickam 61 months ago | reply

      Fantastic capture! Bokeh is very beautiful in this picture!

    14. AloneAlbatross 61 months ago | reply

      Amazing capture Scott, Keep on shooting photography isn't a crime :)

    15. Steven Keirstead 61 months ago | reply

      Keep up the good work. Don’t let the cops and businesses intimidate you!

    16. Colin Jacobs 61 months ago | reply

      This is a beautiful photograph. What Burlington has done is not only unlawful, but also plain foolish! I very much like this photo. . . .good luck

    17. *bradford* 60 months ago | reply

      good job man. nice photo.

    18. sithspit 58 months ago | reply

      Fantastic photo; sorry to hear of your troubles from taking it.

    19. TomBrooklyn 48 months ago | reply

      this doesn't look particularly invasive to me.

    keyboard shortcuts: previous photo next photo L view in light box F favorite < scroll film strip left > scroll film strip right ? show all shortcuts