Open Photography Forums  
HOME FORUMS NEWS FAQ SEARCH

Go Back   Open Photography Forums > OPF Welcome Hall > Layback Cafe

Layback Cafe Let's chat!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 7th, 2015, 11:01 PM
Jerome Marot Jerome Marot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany.
Posts: 3,633
Default Rights of Photographers v. Rights of Everyone Else and the ethics of it all!



The interesting discussion is transferred from an original thread started by Leonardo, here.
The XE II camera is so small, high quality and with an articulating LCD screen, that one can
compose and shoot so surreptitiously! That raised the "off topic" look at ethics and offense!





The picture is not currently available showed a table
of men, all seemingly friends, sharing beer around
a wooden table probably in a Munich Beer Garden.

The question is raised whether or not taking such a
picture is an ethical stress for the photographer? A.K.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old July 8th, 2015, 12:23 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 33,861
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome Marot View Post
I see what you mean. I took the following pictures in the same manner: wide-angle, camera on its bag, back screen tilted so that I can see it from the top. If the shutter is silent enough, people will not even notice that a picture is taken:
IMAGE NOT AVAILABLE

Yes, YES, Jerome!! Real picture, covertly taken without getting some interfering reaction is the essence of great work! Bravo, Jerome. I love the idea of resting the camera on your camera bad.

Sometimes I do that purposely holding my Canon camera with a long lens pointing downwards, (that distracts the security guards), and meanwhile my diminutive Ricoh is silently taking pictures from my waist. I do not use the LCD as it's fixed. Just know how to aim "sort of well", some of the time!

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old July 8th, 2015, 03:38 AM
Jerome Marot Jerome Marot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany.
Posts: 3,633
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
Yes, YES, Jerome!! Real picture, covertly taken without getting some interfering reaction is the essence of great work! Bravo, Jerome. I love the idea of resting the camera on your camera bag.
I should add, maybe, that I am ambivalent about this kind of pictures even if I've taken a few myself. There is a fine limit between documenting a festival and spying on people. That fine limit happens around the point where the photograph would not be accepted by the subjects if they new the picture was taken.

As photographers we do not enjoy special privileges or rights to photography people against their will (only the press enjoys these rights, and under strict limits). When I visibly took pictures openly, it sometimes happened to me that people asked me to delete the pictures. I have always complied. I am ambivalent in this case: since the people did not notice the camera, they did not really have a chance to object to the pictures.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old July 8th, 2015, 03:43 AM
Cem_Usakligil Cem_Usakligil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,939
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome Marot View Post
I should add, maybe, that I am ambivalent about this kind of pictures even if I've taken a few myself. There is a fine limit between documenting a festival and spying on people. That fine limit happens around the point where the photograph would not be accepted by the subjects if they new the picture was taken.

As photographers we do not enjoy special privileges or rights to photography people against their will (only the press enjoys these rights, and under strict limits). When I visibly took pictures openly, it sometimes happened to me that people asked me to delete the pictures. I have always complied. I am ambivalent in this case: since the people did not notice the camera, they did not really have a chance to object to the pictures.
It works the same way for me, fully agreed Jerome.
__________________
Kind Regards, Cem

flickr
website
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old July 8th, 2015, 04:54 AM
Tom dinning Tom dinning is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 2,088
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome Marot View Post
I should add, maybe, that I am ambivalent about this kind of pictures even if I've taken a few myself. There is a fine limit between documenting a festival and spying on people. That fine limit happens around the point where the photograph would not be accepted by the subjects if they new the picture was taken.

As photographers we do not enjoy special privileges or rights to photography people against their will (only the press enjoys these rights, and under strict limits). When I visibly took pictures openly, it sometimes happened to me that people asked me to delete the pictures. I have always complied. I am ambivalent in this case: since the people did not notice the camera, they did not really have a chance to object to the pictures.
Surely ambivalence isn't necessary in such circumstances.
In countries where the law is clear the rights of all individuals are protected, including the photographer. If you are within the law, the law will protect you and your rights. That should make your decision clear.
As with the person photographed, who is also protected by the law, they would expect the same intensity of the law to be maintained if they were engaged in an activity involving other people.

As for the ethical and moral aspect, the law still holds. People may dislike your actions but that doesn't suggest unlawfulness.

As keen photographers who would like to enjoy the freedom to abide by the law we should resist those who seek to take away that right just because of their indignation.

In the country in which I live I can take a camera into any public place and photograph anything I wish. I am not obliges to delete, hand over or stop taking photos as long as I remain within the law. Surely these laws have been well thought out and determined for the good of all concerned, as we would expect all laws. Just because we don't like a particular law doesn't allow us to ignore it. That applies both ways in photography: the photographer and the subject matter.

I have the same sentiments regarding dogs on leads, littering, murder and child molesting.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old July 8th, 2015, 09:39 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 33,861
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom dinning View Post
Surely ambivalence isn't necessary in such circumstances.
In countries where the law is clear the rights of all individuals are protected, including the photographer. If you are within the law, the law will protect you and your rights. That should make your decision clear.
As with the person photographed, who is also protected by the law, they would expect the same intensity of the law to be maintained if they were engaged in an activity involving other people.

As for the ethical and moral aspect, the law still holds. People may dislike your actions but that doesn't suggest unlawfulness.

As keen photographers who would like to enjoy the freedom to abide by the law we should resist those who seek to take away that right just because of their indignation.

In the country in which I live I can take a camera into any public place and photograph anything I wish. I am not obliges to delete, hand over or stop taking photos as long as I remain within the law. Surely these laws have been well thought out and determined for the good of all concerned, as we would expect all laws. Just because we don't like a particular law doesn't allow us to ignore it. That applies both ways in photography: the photographer and the subject matter.

I have the same sentiments regarding dogs on leads, littering, murder and child molesting.
Sir Tom,

I'm impressed! This has the quality of a responsa from the U.S. Supreme Court! Clearly articulated and I believe valuable!

Jerome,

You have the right self criticism, but you taking these pictures is really fine. We should have angst about spying on others. But the potential for public good might constitute a "balancing" factor. I assume we always have the decency to delete anything that is demeaning to others and never create terror in parents by focusing on the child by them without asking them permission, when the folk are close to you.

I also immediately delete any picture on request, as you do, if the person makes a request. If it's not one of a child and that person is rude, I tell them to go call the police, as I am within my rights. If they now are polite, I delete the pic.

I trust everyone to police themselves and obey the law!

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old July 8th, 2015, 11:04 AM
Jerome Marot Jerome Marot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany.
Posts: 3,633
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
Jerome,

You have the right self criticism, but you taking these pictures is really fine. We should have angst about spying on others. But the potential for public good might constitute a "balancing" factor.
What "public good" could possibly come from our pictures? It is an honest question: for example, I presented a picture of a table of young men drinking beer. It is nothing particular, the same happens regularly. What "public good" is there in that?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old July 8th, 2015, 11:09 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 33,861
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome Marot View Post
What "public good" could possibly come from our pictures? It is an honest question: for example, I presented a picture of a table of young men drinking beer. It is nothing particular, the same happens regularly. What "public good" is there in that?
That would be a question I'd ask sociologists, news reporters, anthropologists who try to read many of these, taken without personal intervention, sampling natural, unrehearsed human behaviors and interactions in social settings.

As a social observer and a scientist, I'd hazard a guess that well-trained scholars could gain a lot of insights into what we do. The could eventually distinguish between behaviors that are innate from those might be unique to one culture, place or temporary fashion. There's the closeness of men. Another picture might show women too. The dining of presumably alcoholic beer and so much more. The folk seem to divide themselves up into separate bubbles of conversation. One person smokes cigarettes right next to so many other people. The do not seem to be concerned at all. This is another telling inference that's possible from this single, isolated snap take at one time in one unique location.

I believe that pictures like this might, in mass, together with the metadata which at least gives date and time (and perhaps place too), could at the hand of a competent group of investigators lead to publishable data on ourselves as a species and our social behaviors.

In addition, the very presence of cameras ubiquitously, means that we have an ability to document police behavior and that single potential benefit makes universal freedom of photography a most valuable factor in counterbalancing potential abuse by the state on those it deems deviant or a threat.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old July 8th, 2015, 12:02 PM
Lee Tracy Lee Tracy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 151
Default

Despite there being no firm law against it (which there should be) taking some one's photo without their express and written permission is not OK. It is an invasion of their right to decide who, where and when their image is taken and used. Taking and using someone's image against their will is a violation. It is taking something that is not yours to take.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old July 8th, 2015, 01:23 PM
Jerome Marot Jerome Marot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany.
Posts: 3,633
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Tracy View Post
Despite there being no firm law against it (which there should be) taking some one's photo without their express and written permission is not OK. It is an invasion of their right to decide who, where and when their image is taken and used. Taking and using someone's image against their will is a violation. It is taking something that is not yours to take.
If you don't mind, and just for the exercise of the discussion, I would then like to turn the question around: what public good would there be in deciding that everyone could prohibit their photo to be taken?

Each law is there for a reason. We decide that the Press can take and publish pictures of events because there is a greater good in freedom of information. We decide that Police can film public grounds (or not, this depends on the country), because it may help public grounds to be safer for everybody. We decide that people can own objects, because without an incentive to feel responsible for their belongings, a whole category of social constructs will not work for most people (e.g. the Tragedy of the commons). We decide that people can "own" rights to their creation (the principle of copyright), because there is then an incentive for them to create. Now you tell use that we should decide that people should "own" their own image (something they did not create, they are simply born with it).

There is no immanent right to to one's possessions, images, anything. Each right needs to be inshrined in human legislation and human legislation is, or should be, based on some idea of public good. This is why, in democratic countries, laws are passed by elected representatives of the public.

Now, you tell me, in substance, that you have a right to prohibit anyone to take an image of your face, body, etc... This is not true: you only have rights as far as there is a law to defend them and there will only be a law if your elected representatives are convinced that it is in the interest of the general public to make a such law.

Now, please tell me: what public good is there to gain in passing such a law? What would the public gain in spending considerable ressources (tribunal, police, etc...) to insure that no picture of you (or me, Asher, Tom, etc...) is taken without your prior agreement?

It is an honest question, even if I mainly set it here for the sake of the discussion: I honestly do not know. I don't like my picture to be taken myself and I normally avoid it. I also avoid networks like Facebook, whose purpose is to publish, distribute and tag pictures of their members. But these are just my personal feelings and they weight little in the discussion. The question is not me or you or Asher or Tom, the question is the public good. So let me ask the question again: what public good would there be in deciding that everyone could prohibit their photo to be taken?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old July 8th, 2015, 04:24 PM
Tom dinning Tom dinning is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 2,088
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
Sir Tom,

I'm impressed! This has the quality of a responsa from the U.S. Supreme Court! Clearly articulated and I believe valuable!

Jerome,

You have the right self criticism, but you taking these pictures is really fine. We should have angst about spying on others. But the potential for public good might constitute a "balancing" factor. I assume we always have the decency to delete anything that is demeaning to others and never create terror in parents by focusing on the child by them without asking them permission, when the folk are close to you.

I also immediately delete any picture on request, as you do, if the person makes a request. If it's not one of a child and that person is rude, I tell them to go call the police, as I am within my rights. If they now are polite, I delete the pic.

I trust everyone to police themselves and obey the law!

Asher
Why do people insist on using the word 'spying' when taking pictures of people in public places? It's not spying. If it were spying it would come under a whole new set of rules beyound that of the right of the photographer. But firstly, it would need to be proven that it is SPYING. People in public places photograhing others does not constitute spying. The application of the photos might be considered spying if they are used in a particular manner but the person must have due cause and a warrant to act on the examination of the photos.
The paranoia of the public to think they are being spied on by people with a camera is well out of hand.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old July 8th, 2015, 04:32 PM
Tom dinning Tom dinning is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 2,088
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Tracy View Post
Despite there being no firm law against it (which there should be) taking some one's photo without their express and written permission is not OK. It is an invasion of their right to decide who, where and when their image is taken and used. Taking and using someone's image against their will is a violation. It is taking something that is not yours to take.
Whatever you are saying here, Lee, it is not factual in Australia.
Because you think it should be so does not make it illegal or immoral.
Taking and using photographs come under two entirely different sections of the law. One supports the other but neither contradicts or over-rides the other.
Get off your high horse. About the only right you really have is to suck air and your mothers breast when born. From there on in the rest is provided for you at the will of others, as Jerome has said.
Just as the people at the table are permitted to drink alcohol in public view so is a person permitted to photographi them doing so.

Anyone objects, read them their and your rights.
Or tell them to **** off!!
Either works for me.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old July 8th, 2015, 05:26 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 33,861
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom dinning View Post
Why do people insist on using the word 'spying' when taking pictures of people in public places? It's not spying. If it were spying it would come under a whole new set of rules beyound that of the right of the photographer. But firstly, it would need to be proven that it is SPYING. People in public places photograhing others does not constitute spying. The application of the photos might be considered spying if they are used in a particular manner but the person must have due cause and a warrant to act on the examination of the photos.
The paranoia of the public to think they are being spied on by people with a camera is well out of hand.
Haha, Sir Tom!

Spying is also used to denote invasion of privacy!, LOL! See this, nothing more than observing closely but without being noticed so that one finds out things about some person. Certainly it has a bad connotation, expressing the PC objections that a photograph, without permission is an invasion of some imagined right to privacy in a public place!


Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old July 8th, 2015, 09:41 PM
Lee Tracy Lee Tracy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 151
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom dinning View Post
Why do people insist on using the word 'spying' when taking pictures of people in public places? It's not spying. If it were spying it would come under a whole new set of rules beyond that of the right of the photographer. But firstly, it would need to be proven that it is SPYING. People in public places photographing others does not constitute spying. The application of the photos might be considered spying if they are used in a particular manner but the person must have due cause and a warrant to act on the examination of the photos.
The paranoia of the public to think they are being spied on by people with a camera is well out of hand.
Perhaps because it is done surreptitiously? For some reason street photographers never own their role in the negativity people feel towards it. You are trying to capture people doing stuff unawares - for most people there is something uncomfortable with that, there is a feeling of being spied on - spy on someone: to watch someone secretly so that you know everything that they do - so it is no wonder some object.

All I know is that if street photographers do not wise up and start being more aware of the issues instead of standing so vehemently on their 'right' to do it, the backlash from the public is going to end it, sooner probably than later. People are becoming more and more aware of their right to privacy (while perversely giving it away left, right and center) and the need to control their image / information.

There needs to be give in order to get. The more photographers insist they don't have to stop, or delete photos when requested to do so etc the more people are going to make it difficult to take any photos at all.

Is it worth losing the ability to take any photos by being difficult when the occasional person has personal issues?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old July 8th, 2015, 09:46 PM
Lee Tracy Lee Tracy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 151
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom dinning View Post
Whatever you are saying here, Lee, it is not factual in Australia.
Because you think it should be so does not make it illegal or immoral.
Taking and using photographs come under two entirely different sections of the law. One supports the other but neither contradicts or over-rides the other.
Get off your high horse. About the only right you really have is to suck air and your mothers breast when born. From there on in the rest is provided for you at the will of others, as Jerome has said.
Just as the people at the table are permitted to drink alcohol in public view so is a person permitted to photographi them doing so.

Anyone objects, read them their and your rights.
Or tell them to **** off!!
Either works for me.
Here we go then #^#&*^$# off!

You know NOTHING about me and why I don't want MY photo taken!

And in case you haven't noticed we live in a digital age where the photographers aren't hiding the photos under their bed to drool over later, they are posting them online where millions can see them. MY image belongs to ME not a creepy street photographer. Photographers do not have a right to distribute MY image to the whole world and I can see that that is where the legal battle will be. I might not be able to stop someone from taking it, but I am sure that all it is going to take to stop people distributing it online is one test case.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old July 8th, 2015, 10:19 PM
Lee Tracy Lee Tracy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 151
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome Marot View Post
If you don't mind, and just for the exercise of the discussion, I would then like to turn the question around: what public good would there be in deciding that everyone could prohibit their photo to be taken?

Each law is there for a reason. We decide that the Press can take and publish pictures of events because there is a greater good in freedom of information. We decide that Police can film public grounds (or not, this depends on the country), because it may help public grounds to be safer for everybody. We decide that people can own objects, because without an incentive to feel responsible for their belongings, a whole category of social constructs will not work for most people (e.g. the Tragedy of the commons). We decide that people can "own" rights to their creation (the principle of copyright), because there is then an incentive for them to create. Now you tell use that we should decide that people should "own" their own image (something they did not create, they are simply born with it).

There is no immanent right to to one's possessions, images, anything. Each right needs to be enshrined in human legislation and human legislation is, or should be, based on some idea of public good. This is why, in democratic countries, laws are passed by elected representatives of the public.

Now, you tell me, in substance, that you have a right to prohibit anyone to take an image of your face, body, etc... This is not true: you only have rights as far as there is a law to defend them and there will only be a law if your elected representatives are convinced that it is in the interest of the general public to make a such law.

Now, please tell me: what public good is there to gain in passing such a law? What would the public gain in spending considerable ressources (tribunal, police, etc...) to insure that no picture of you (or me, Asher, Tom, etc...) is taken without your prior agreement?

It is an honest question, even if I mainly set it here for the sake of the discussion: I honestly do not know. I don't like my picture to be taken myself and I normally avoid it. I also avoid networks like Facebook, whose purpose is to publish, distribute and tag pictures of their members. But these are just my personal feelings and they weight little in the discussion. The question is not me or you or Asher or Tom, the question is the public good. So let me ask the question again: what public good would there be in deciding that everyone could prohibit their photo to be taken?
To answer these in order - I really don't care about the 'greater good' in this instance. The law is also there to protect the individual and in this day and age it is also important for personal security to control the distribution and use of your image online in particular. There are issues with protecting your identity online and that includes your image ending up who knows where. It isn't just about it being posting on a forum like this, or on a photography site, it's also about what happens to it after that. Once an image or information is online control has been lost over it - the photographer who took it and posted it no longer has effective control over the image - in the past an image might have been displayed in a gallery, it might have been sold to a collector but the number of people who effectively saw it was not large and it could not really be used for anything else. These days this has changed considerably. Images posted online are taken and used for any number of things by any number of people. While the photographer may not be using the image illegally by posting it online a whole other can of worms is opened. I'm not a lawyer but I'm darn sure a case could and should be made that by posting a photo online without permission is making it available to people who might use it illegally and that should not be allowed. Just ask all the people whose photos have been used without their permission after posting them online. And once that genie is out the bottle it is impossible to stuff it back in. Ask the poor parent who posted a picture of his kids fishing in an online photo competition only to have them stolen and posted on a porn site. He has been trying to stuff that genie back in the bottle for years but it is a Sisyphean task - no sooner does one site get a DMCA take down notice than the picture pops up in ten others.

So when you post photos of people online it isn't just a small group of people you are sharing them with, you are making it available to every creepazoid hanging about on the net as well. And there are plenty of those. FYI this applies to your family pics and your information as well. Identity theft is real. It happens. Photos are taken from social media, from forums, from photosharing sites, from blogs and used elsewhere all the time.

I am for freedom of the Press but ... but ... I think the line is crossed when under the guise of freedom of the press photos that are intrusive of personal tragedy are taken. I fail to see what 'public good' there is in photos of family mourning loss or in the aftermath of a disaster. These kinds of photos serve the worst kind of human nature, and aren't news.

http://www.theguardian.com/technolog...ot-deter-crime

CCTV for the most part does not deter crime - we gave up a right to privacy for nothing (as usual) and (as usual) getting it back is going to be very difficult.

The only use for CCTV footage (and it isn't much of a use either) is in apprehending criminals after the act. It certainly does not stop them from committing it.

It is certainly possible to copyright your image therefore proclaiming ownership. And you didn't create your name either, but you still own it, and others can't use it - that's illegal. So why isn't your image, which is also an integral part of your identity not under your control?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old July 8th, 2015, 10:54 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 33,861
Default

Part of democracy is the risk inherent in societies that depend on goodwill, mutual respect, accountability, rights and equality before law, which we all indirectly control and craft by our elections. But for democracy to work requires some maturity of the culture for social values are respected.

We have folk in our homes, but don't fear being attacked. We walk unarmed in a shopping mall and feel safe in our democratic societies. The ability to randomly record whatever we wish, with few limits, is part of our granted rights in most democratic societies, but not in autocracies.

I am not afraid of my photographs being stolen. I would hope that the exploiter turns out to be a rich corporation and then I will be awarded damages in a court of law!

You project a concocted view of some nightmare-sourced street photographer. I am sorry if this is related to some personal experience which frightened you.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old July 8th, 2015, 11:16 PM
Jerome Marot Jerome Marot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany.
Posts: 3,633
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Tracy View Post
To answer these in order - I really don't care about the 'greater good' in this instance.
Since the "greater good" was the central argument in my post, I don't see how we can pursue this discussion then.

Quote:
The law is also there to protect the individual and in this day and age it is also important for personal security to control the distribution and use of your image online in particular. There are issues with protecting your identity online and that includes your image ending up who knows where. It isn't just about it being posting on a forum like this, or on a photography site, it's also about what happens to it after that. Once an image or information is online control has been lost over it - the photographer who took it and posted it no longer has effective control over the image - in the past an image might have been displayed in a gallery, it might have been sold to a collector but the number of people who effectively saw it was not large and it could not really be used for anything else. These days this has changed considerably. Images posted online are taken and used for any number of things by any number of people. While the photographer may not be using the image illegally by posting it online a whole other can of worms is opened. I'm not a lawyer but I'm darn sure a case could and should be made that by posting a photo online without permission is making it available to people who might use it illegally and that should not be allowed. Just ask all the people whose photos have been used without their permission after posting them online.
We now upload and share over 1.8 billion photos each day. I think that no court is ever going to put the worms back in the can.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old July 8th, 2015, 11:54 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 33,861
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Tracy View Post
Here we go then #^#&*^$# off!

You know NOTHING about me and why I don't want MY photo taken!
Lee, I feel empathy for your predicament in a society overflowing with millions of cell phones and cameras. Imagine we passed laws making it illegal to take another persons picture simply at will. Policing street-happy photographers would take an enormously intrusive police surveillance system, manned in 3 shifts to keep you safe. The courts would not be able to handle the avalanche of prosecutions and appeals!

It doesn't matter why you don't want the picture taken If you say you're threatened, offended or simply choose to forbid it, then I believe you. You're certainly right to object if you can't tolerate someone having your picture in their camera to give to the entire world! However, that doesn't mean the person has any legal requirement to obey you! If, however, one is congenial, few photographers would take your picture after a request not to do so. If one is rude, forget about it! You're quest for privacy is lost! More than a few make sure to take a series of snaps, just to make a point!

Some menfolk get around this obvious risk for their wives to be photographed, that they simply have them wear black garments in public, covering them from head to ankles. It's a low cost, low technology solution, although it could be rather hot inside! Nevertheless it does do the job 100% of the time! It can guarantee safety from lascivious eyes and impertinent photo-grab shots! Here in Beverly Hills some of these ladies are so delighted to be able to walk around without these covers. When I've raised my camera to photograph them strolling with family in a mall, a security fellow following them, politely asks one to refrain. I realize the trespass on my part, apologize and put away my camera. We might then chat a while or even stop for coffee. No one is threatened when one responds with mutual respect for other people's intentions.

My right to take pictures wasn't sufficiently compelling, (for me), to outweigh simple common courtesy. In general, most photographers always respect requests for privacy, for ordinary citizens as opposed to movie stars and public figures.

For sure, if you don't want your picture taken, then you have the right in most countries to wear a covering or to stay at home.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old July 9th, 2015, 12:05 AM
Lee Tracy Lee Tracy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 151
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
Lee,

I feel empathy for your predicament in a society overflowing with millions of cell phones and cameras. Imagine we passed laws making it illegal to take another persons picture simply at will. Policing street-happy photographers would take an enormously intrusive police surveillance system, manned in 3 shifts to keep you safe. The courts would not be able to handle the avalanche of prosecutions and appeals!

It doesn't matter why you don't want the picture taken If you say you're threatened, offended or simply choose to forbid it, then I believe you. You're certainly right to object if you can't tolerate someone having your picture in their camera to give to the entire world! However, that doesn't mean the person has any legal requirement to obey you! If, however, one is congenial, few photographers would take your picture after a request not to do so. If one is rude, forget about it! You're quest for privacy is lost! More than a few make sure to take a series of snaps, just to make a point!

Some menfolk get around this obvious risk for their wives to be photographed, that they simply have them wear black garments in public, covering them from head to ankles. It's a low cost, low technology solution, although it could be rather hot inside! Nevertheless it does do the job 100% of the time! It can guarantee safety from lascivious eyes and impertinent photo-grab shots! Here in Beverly Hills some of these ladies are so delighted to be able to walk around without these covers. When I've raised my camera to photograph them strolling with family in a mall, a security fellow following them, politely asks one to refrain. I realize the trespass on my part, apologize and put away my camera. We might then chat a while or even stop for coffee. No one is threatened when one responds with mutual respect for other people's intentions.

My right to take pictures wasn't sufficiently compelling, (for me), to outweigh simple common courtesy. In general, most photographers always respect requests for privacy, for ordinary citizens as opposed to movie stars and public figures.

For sure, if you don't want your picture taken, then you have the right in most countries to wear a covering or to stay at home.

Asher
Yeah how about saying something to Tom about his language and attitude THEN speak to me. This is harassment and sexist. He speaks enormously disrespectfully with no correction.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old July 9th, 2015, 12:13 AM
Lee Tracy Lee Tracy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 151
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
Part of democracy is the risk inherent in societies that depend on goodwill, mutual respect, accountability, rights and equality before law, which we all indirectly control and craft by our elections. But for democracy to work requires some maturity of the culture for social values are respected.

We have folk in our homes, but don't fear being attacked. We walk unarmed in a shopping mall and feel safe in our democratic societies. The ability to randomly record whatever we wish, with few limits, is part of our granted rights in most democratic societies, but not in autocracies.

I am not afraid of my photographs being stolen. I would hope that the exploiter turns out to be a rich corporation and then I will be awarded damages in a court of law!

You project a concocted view of some nightmare-sourced street photographer. I am sorry if this is related to some personal experience which frightened you.

Asher
A man should not presume to speak a woman about safety. Women do not feel safe in the way men feel safe. You are not a permanent target for every pervert out there. You are not whistled at in the street or leered at or ogled. Although male rape exists it is much less prevalent than sexual assaults on women. When you actually know what it is like to be a women with the stuff that goes on, I really wouldn't speak.

FYI it makes no difference what you wear, or what you look like, or where you go, it is inherent in being female. To suggest that one should cover up to avoid such a thing amounts to victim blaming and you REALLY do not want to go there. Men need to keep their eyeballs and their hands and their cameras and their penises to themselves and not try to blame women for their inability to be appropriate and respectful.

And if you want just one example about why asking politely gets you know where, please read Tom's response to the lady he photographed in the library. Asking gets you nothing from him and many others like him. Respect goes both ways. As I said - photographers are responsible for the attitudes against them, not their victims.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1XGPvbWn0A Woman walks around NY filming the harassment she experiences. She says nothing, does nothing, and yet these men feel it is OK to address her, look at her, etc. Until you experience this day and day out endlessly you have no right to speak. FYI it is not acceptable, it is not flattering, and it would not happen if she was a man.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old July 9th, 2015, 12:39 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 33,861
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Tracy View Post
A man should not presume to speak a woman about safety.
Now that is an unsupported statement. On the face of it, it appears to me patently sexist!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Tracy View Post
Women do not feel safe in the way men feel safe.
(Assuming you're a woman with an X and and O Chromosome), then how do you arrive at being able able to fully understand a male's sense of safety? After all, you project a conviction that men feel a sense of "safety" different from that felt by women!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Tracy View Post
to suggest that one should cover up to avoid such a thing amounts to victim blaming and you REALLY do not want to go there.
I don't recognize any "victimhood" here. No crime has been committed. Someone just snapped your picture! So there can be no "victim" blaming, LOL! If there was, then I would support you.

We could say men can't go into stores where there are female shop keepers or assistants, as there is a risk that "men" are predators like those bad photographers. I would argue that there's more immediate risk to women by allowing men to shop than that posed by photographers snapping people's pictures all day!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Tracy View Post
Men need to keep their eyeballs and their hands and their cameras and their penises to themselves and not try to blame women for their inability to be appropriate and respectful."
Some of your statement is reasonable. But men have no need to keep their eyeballs ..to themselves"! From where does that need arise. On the contrary, men and women need to observe, appreciate and respect all the wonders around us and have empathy for others. If anything or person is "beautiful or handsome, folk can stare until their eyeballs pop out and roll off on the ground drunk with ecstasy. Who cares? It's normal for folk to take in everything around them - just impolite to stare!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Tracy View Post
And if you want just one example about why asking politely gets you nowhere, please read Tom's response to the lady he photographed in the library. Asking gets you nothing from him and many others like him. Respect goes both ways. As I said - photographers are responsible for the attitudes against them, not their victims.
What does that prove? Tom? He's a self-disclosed arsehole-curmudgeon, who enjoys testing folks endurance with in-your-face challenges. He makes up for it by actually posting excellent photographs that provide a meaningful experience. Yes he's testy and shocking, but he generally pays the bus fare!

In that story, he was actually right. I support him doing what he did, but my wife was shocked of course! Tom is doing, what I think is a valuable service. He's documenting what life is about without folk posing as superstars, being funny or giving their best face, all fine for a party, but not for the photography he's doing which has come to possess at least a modest quotient of worth.

From this discussion, it appears that you find the "males-ness" of photographers, (or those who use the pictures) and men who toggle women, to be an important factor in your litany of disapproval. If that is valid and justified for all women, then men should be locked, except when required to donate a required dose of chromosomal material to build the next generation.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old July 9th, 2015, 12:49 AM
Tom dinning Tom dinning is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 2,088
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Tracy View Post
Yeah how about saying something to Tom about his language and attitude THEN speak to me. This is harassment and sexist. He speaks enormously disrespectfully with no correction.
Oh,dear. Misunderstood again. I wasn't telling you to **** off, Lee. Only suggesting it a a line of offence or defense.
What's wrong with my attitude that you don't like? Is it that I disagree with you and speak bluntly to it? Isn't that what you stated you also do? You are to be applauded for your forthrightiousness. A little courtesy in return wouldn't go astray.
My language is clear and succinct. It uses grammar and vocabulary common to the English language as found in my current version of Oxford on line. Asher, in his wisdom, sees fit not to recognize some words as suitable for this site and has them substituted with symbols, which clearly indicate to you, incidentally, what the word is anyway. All a bit of a waste of time really, don't you think?
Sexist, indeed. Has it not already been the case that you have recognized yourself as female and that fact provides you with different circumstances on which to formulate an opinion or undergo an experience. Is that not sexist on your part?
On a side note, up until recently I thought Lee was a blokes name and was addressing you with that in mind. Did you notice any point at which my responses changed? Maybe you should go back and be a bloke so I can stop harassing you.
This is a forum of strong minded people with strong opinions about all sorts of things. We are not of one culture, religion, nation or gender. There will be varying ways of expression and contrary opinions. If it were any other way it would not be what it is. I absolutely respect your right to say what you want in the manner you choose. That does not mean I will agree.
Get over it Lee.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old July 9th, 2015, 12:58 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 33,861
Default

I accept, without any need for reasoning, a person's preference to not to have their picture taken! There's no need for explanation, unless there's an inherent clear and present threat by the photographer's behavior.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old July 9th, 2015, 01:37 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 33,861
Default A Different Approach, the engagement by a glance and smile!

A different approach!

Fahim has become quite expert at introducing himself just nmby his open and friendly stance, mannerism and attitude. Even when folk speak only Chinese, Tibetan, Urdu or other exotic language, he's able to win over the hearts of strangers and he then takes an especially intimate photograph. Of course, there may be folks just walking by, carrying a load, or old men playing chess and he'll not stop them to collect themselves in front of his camera for his own convenience. What he loses by his self-insertion to the scene he gains in much deeper access.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old July 9th, 2015, 04:13 AM
Bart_van_der_Wolf Bart_van_der_Wolf is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 4,046
Default

Photographers do not have 'a right' to to take photographs of other people, there is just not a law that prohibits them from doing so (barring some exceptions). Laws are made to restrict the freedoms, usually to protect the less powerful (e.g. national laws restrict governments in their power over its citizens). Such laws are usually only created if they are also enforceable, even if it would be a public benefit to have them if not enforceable, as a moral compass.

So it then becomes more a question of ethics and good taste (or the lack thereof), even if there is not a law against something, yet (because ethics can change as people develop themselves, or dumb their senses). Because there is no law against something does not mean it is a good thing to do, it may just not be enforceable and thus impractical to have the law, or our ethical senses have not evolved, or dumbed down, enough yet. For example, slavery is nowadays considered as unethical/immoral and has become illegal (in large parts of the world but certainly not everywhere) and a violation of human rights. Only a couple of centuries ago things were quite different.

Since we do not know the ethical boundaries of others, and their preference for privacy (even in a public place), we do purposely invade the private space of a person by taking an image of them. Because there is no (enforceable) law against it does not make it acceptable, it remains a judgement call. Why do we want to invade the other person's privacy?

Now, I know that 'privacy' is a difficult concept, because it means different things to different people. But there are some guidelines that may be useful. One could say that privacy is the sensation of being able to do as one pleases, without having to fear or face the consequences, even if one is just doing something silly or even stupid (maybe in retrospect). Because it is private, one is able to correct one's own mistakes, so no harm is done and also not to others.

Invasion of privacy is when people feel they have to change their behavior because they no longer feel they have privacy. This aspect of 'forced' behavior modification by lack of sensed privacy, even led to an architectural design for prisons in the late 18th century by British philosopher Jeremy Bentham, called a 'panopticon'. In short it consisted of a circular building with a central watch tower from which a guard could watch all inmates. However, the inmates could not see who the guard was watching, because he was blinded from being visible from the outside, a one way system. So the inmate was aware that his every move could be seen, but was never sure if he was actually being observed.

So not only could he not see if he was being watched, he also could not see who was watching him. This is a typical instrument of power and discipline, and the subject is rendered vulnerable and uncertain, which leads to unease and behavior modification. That is what invasion of privacy is all about. Not (the lack of) a law that prohibits it, but the not knowing, the sense of vulnerability, and lack of control over if or what will happen as a result.

Especially with the on-line sharing of images, one is no longer certain of how the images are going to be used, and who will be watching them, and what the consequences might be.

So the question then becomes, why do you want to invade the privacy of another person? Personal gratification by exerting power over someone else at the expense of that other person feeling uncomfortable?

Just some food for thought, and probably wasted on the uncivilized cave dwellers that only cater for their personal immediate satisfaction. This doesn't mean that great art cannot be the result, but it usually is (unfortunately) an exception.

Cheers,
Bart
__________________
If you do what you did, you'll get what you got.

Last edited by Bart_van_der_Wolf; July 9th, 2015 at 09:51 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old July 9th, 2015, 04:52 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 33,861
Default

Bart,

Thanks for the welcome addition to this discussion. IOW, we should consider not merely what we have the power and facility to do, but also, (the ethics of the matter), is it what we should do?

It really is an expanded version of the angst Jerome expressed in his insight to having surreptitiously taken a snap of a tableful of friends talking and enjoying each other's company Over a beer or two! He obviously sensed this - of having done something bordering on either, "inappropriate" or "unbecoming" for a gentleman! He had, because of technology, essentially inserted a "virtual spy" at that table. So whether or not they ever would discover that fact, he knew their personal sense of having private conversations and relationships has been compromised. In a sense, as soon as I take your picture that way, I know in my heart that I have an ability to get far closer to you than good manners would allow.

It's that usurped personal advantage over others that is worrysome!

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old July 9th, 2015, 04:54 AM
Tom dinning Tom dinning is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 2,088
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart_van_der_Wolf View Post
Photographers do not have 'a right' to to take photographs of other people, there is just not a law that prohibits them from doing so (barring some exceptions). Laws are made to restrict the freedoms, usually to protect the less powerful (e.g. national laws restrict governments in their power over its citizens). Such laws are usually only created if they are also enforceable, even if it would be a public benefit to have them if not enforceable, as a moral compass.

So it then becomes more a question of ethics and good taste (or the lack thereof), even if there is not a law against something, yet (because ethics can change as people develop themselves, or dumb their senses). Because there is no law against something does not mean it is a good thing to do, it may just not be enforceable and thus impractical to have the law, or our ethical senses have not evolved, or dumbed down, enough yet. For example, slavery is nowadays considered as unethical/immoral and has become illegal (in large parts of the world but certainly not everywhere) and a violation of human rights. Only a couple of centuries ago things were quite different.

Since we do not know the ethical boundaries of others, and their preference for privacy (even in a public place), we do purposely invade the private space of a person by taking an image of them. Because there is no (enforceable) law against it does not make it acceptable, it remains a judgement call. Why do we want to invade the other person's privacy?

Now, I know that 'privacy' is a difficult concept, because it means different things to different people. But there are some guidelines that may be useful. One could say that privacy is theJ sensation of being able to do as one pleases, without having to fear or face the consequences, even if one is just doing something silly or even stupid (maybe in retrospect). Because it is private, one is able to correct one's own mistakes, so no harm is done and also not to others.

Invasion of privacy is when people feel they have to change their behavior because they no longer feel they have privacy. This aspect of 'forced' behavior modification by lack of sensed privacy, even led to an architectural design for prisons in the late 18th century by British philosopher Jeremy Bentham, called a 'panopticum'. In short it consisted of a circular building with a central watch tower from which a guard could watch all inmates. However, the inmates could not see who the guard was watching, because he was blinded from being visible from the outside, a one way system. So the inmate was aware that his every move could be seen, but was never sure if he was actually being observed.

So not only could he not see if he was being watched, he also could not see who was watching him. This is a typical instrument of power and discipline, and the subject is rendered vulnerable and uncertain, which leads to unease and behavior modification. That is what invasion of privacy is all about. Not (the lack of) a law that prohibits it, but the not knowing, the sense of vulnerability, and lack of control over if or what will happen as a result.

Especially with the on-line sharing of images, one is no longer certain of how the images are going to be used, and who will be watching them, and what the consequences might be.

So the question then becomes, why do you want to invade the privacy of another person? Personal gratification by exerting power over someone else at the expense of that other person feeling uncomfortable?

Just some food for thought, and probably wasted on the uncivilized cave dwellers that only cater for their personal immediate satisfaction. This doesn't mean that great art cannot be the result, but it usually is (unfortunately) an exception.

Cheers,
Bart
I don't know where you get your info from, Bart, but it needs some clarification and adjustment, at least for this country.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old July 9th, 2015, 05:00 AM
Bart_van_der_Wolf Bart_van_der_Wolf is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 4,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom dinning View Post
I don't know where you get your info from, Bart, but it needs some clarification and adjustment, at least for this country.
Don't hold back Tom, you usually don't, so do clarify and adjust.

Cheers,
Bart
__________________
If you do what you did, you'll get what you got.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old July 9th, 2015, 09:54 AM
James Lemon James Lemon is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,741
Default Photographers Rights in Canada

Photographers Rights in Canada

Anyone can be photographed in public place without their consent, except when they have secluded themselves in places where they have a reasonable expectation of Pricacy, for example,their homes.

Anyone may photograph and publish a photo of anyone newsworthy, such as public figures, politicians or celebrities, doing newsworthy things in a public place.

Everyone in Canada has the right to take pictures of anything viewable in public, including Buidings,Accidents, Police Officers and Criminal Activities as long as they are taken in a public area.

No person including police and security officers can prevent a photographer from taking photographs in a public place, demand deletion of photographs, or seize cameras, film or memory cards.

Everyone has the right to express themselves through photography, and they have the freedom to publish the photos they take, except when those photographs are used for commercial purposes, a model release is required.

Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms, Every Canadian is guaranteed the right to be secure against unreasonable search or unreasonable seizure of personal property,including cameras,film and memory cards.

Everyone in Canada has the right not to be arbitrarily detained by the police.

Police may detain photographers and seize cameras, film,or memory cards only in exigent circumstances where it is necessary to preserve evidence of a crime and where there is reason to believe the evidence may be destroyed or unavailable or where it is immediately required for the safety of the police or public

Photographers are not required to discuss why they are taking photographs in public or disclose their identity to anyone,except upon the request of a Law Enforcement Officer.

Disclaimer: This information is meant as a guide and is not intended as legal advice. It is limited in scope and has been created as an educational reference. Any individuals that believe they require legal advice on a matter should contact a competent licenced legal professional.

I try to always ask myself do I want to take this picture before I release the shutter. I take Pricacy maters seriously and I don't have any intention of infringing on the rights of others.
I don't photograph homeless people for the simple reason that they have no privacy and live on the street it would be like me coming in to your living room and photographing you while you are eating dinner. I would photograph homeless people if I had a good reason to but I would engage them for a period of time beforehand.

"People who are willing to give up their liberty for a bit of safety deserve neither "

James
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:36 PM.


Posting images or text grants license to OPF, yet of such remain with its creator. Still, all assembled discussion 2006-2017 Asher Kelman (all rights reserved) Posts with new theme or unusual image might be moved/copied to a new thread!