Rights of Photographers v. Rights of Everyone Else and the ethics of it all!

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, James,

Thanks for that very nice summary.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Tom dinning]

Pretty much as it is in Australia, James.
In addition, a photographer can photograph into a private place if they are shooting from a public place and that private place is clearly visible.
Cheers
Tom

 

[Tom dinning]

This is the reference I use.
http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications...ildren and Young People/taking-photographs-an

Also, the Art Law Society provide on line, email and one on one personal assistance free of charge for specific enquiries. I am a subscriber to ALS and they keep me updated on a very regular basis. I've had many conversations with their lawyers and they are incredibly well informed and helpful.

http://www.artslaw.com.au/

 

[Robert Watcher]

This article is a nice overview of the current status in Canada - as to photographers rights and subject rights

http://zvulony.ca/2014/articles/internet-law/legal-rights-in-a-photograph

The conclusion is interesting "Canadian law has moved to granting more and more rights to the person who takes the photograph, as opposed to the person who commissions it or the person who is in it. The 2012 modifications to the Copyright Act grant broad rights to the creator of a photograph, and only very narrow rights to the person who pays for its creation. As for the subject of the photograph, Canadian courts will not go (or at least have not gone) very far in granting rights to someone who is pictured in a photograph."

 

[Asher Kelman]

How to separate street pictures of individuals from that of crowds?

Let's imagine that we would say that it's always proper and decent to ask folk before taking their picture. Well what about a bunch of people pushing and shoving, a line of people across the road, moving pretty fast and traveling with loads, workers and the like, folk on a bus, folk going to a funeral or wedding and the like. Is it practical to ask any of these people consent. After all, it's unlikely that one can get consent from everyone unless one blocked the busy street and detained everyone. So if one says, fine, we do not have to get consent since its a "crowd" and no one can say we are taking pictures of exactly their person, as they happen to be in that general grouping.

So is that an excuse, a reason for letting us off the hook in asking consent, if we claim that consent is required if one holds oneself as a decent person who respects others?

After all, with a 16MP camera and a 28 mm lens, likely as not, all the faces of the people in the picture can be recognized. Are these folk not victimized, each and everyone one of them.

Now I personally have no qualms or uneasy conscience photographing an entire crowd,m except I worry that I might show an illegal alien who could be then recognized and deported. A theoretical consideration. I also find no good reason to ask permission if the person has no knowledge of my action, as I am using pictures just for art. I have no legal need for consent. I am not selling the picture's use for some advertising campaign or book cover and so there is no logical constraint under law and my sense of empathy to prevent me from photographing whoever I want.

However, if the person notices and feels some invasion of their own assumed privacy, and ask the picture not be taken, I will not take the shot. If they ask to delte the shot, I comply and do it in front of them. However, I have no requirement to delete previous pictures I might have taken prior to this confrontation. My sole criterion is to abate their immediateness of discomfort and feeling of violation. If they looked over my shoulder and saw another picture of theirs or asked me if there were others, I would never lie and would destroy those pictures too.

However, if the picture has unique news value or was somehow, (unlikely to be sure) a gem of a shot I had waited for with years of effort, I'd perhaps keep the picture and try to negotiate a financial compensation.

Still for all of us, do we treat crowds as different, allowing us license or do we only take pictures of masses of people when the faces cannot be discerned?

Asher

 

[James Lemon]

Let's imagine that we would say that it's always proper and decent to ask folk before taking their picture. Well what about a bunch of people pushing and shoving, a line of people across the road, moving pretty fast and traveling with loads, workers and the like, folk on a bus, folk going to a funeral or wedding and the like. Is it practical to ask any of these people consent. After all, it's unlikely that one can get consent from everyone unless one blocked the busy street and detained everyone. So if one says, fine, we do not have to get consent since its a "crowd" and no one can say we are taking pictures of exactly their person, as they happen to be in that general grouping.

So is that an excuse, a reason for letting us off the hook in asking consent, if we claim that consent is required if one holds oneself as a decent person who respects others?

After all, with a 16MP camera and a 28 mm lens, likely as not, all the faces of the people in the picture can be recognized. Are these folk not victimized, each and everyone one of them.

Now I personally have no qualms or uneasy conscience photographing an entire crowd,m except I worry that I might show an illegal alien who could be then recognized and deported. A theoretical consideration. I also find no good reason to ask permission if the person has no knowledge of my action, as I am using pictures just for art. I have no legal need for consent. I am not selling the picture's use for some advertising campaign or book cover and so there is no logical constraint under law and my sense of empathy to prevent me from photographing whoever I want.

However, if the person notices and feels some invasion of their own assumed privacy, and ask the picture not be taken, I will not take the shot. If they ask to delte the shot, I comply and do it in front of them. However, I have no requirement to delete previous pictures I might have taken prior to this confrontation. My sole criterion is to abate their immediateness of discomfort and feeling of violation. If they looked over my shoulder and saw another picture of theirs or asked me if there were others, I would never lie and would destroy those pictures too.

However, if the picture has unique news value or was somehow, (unlikely to be sure) a gem of a shot I had waited for with years of effort, I'd perhaps keep the picture and try to negotiate a financial compensation.

Still for all of us, do we treat crowds as different, allowing us license or do we only take pictures of masses of people when the faces cannot be discerned?

Asher

It depends on what kind of neighbourhood you are in when taking pictures of groups. You mentioned there could be someone in the group who doesn't want too be photographed . You could get your teeth knocked out,a broken nose and a smashed camera all at the same time. So it is a good idea to be upfront and get approval first. Things can happen very quickly and your cell phone won't save you because you won't have a chance to even reach for it. Fortanatly I have not had any serious problems in this regard. Something to think about.

 

[Asher Kelman]

It depends on what kind of neighbourhood you are in when taking pictures of groups. You mentioned there could be someone in the group who doesn't want too be photographed . You could get your teeth knocked out,a broken nose and a smashed camera all at the same time. So it is a good idea to be upfront and get approval first. Things can happen very quickly and your cell phone won't save you because you won't have a chance to even reach for it. Fortanatly I have not had any serious problems in this regard. Something to think about.

James,

I was not thinking of any risks to the photographer or his/her gear. I'm just considering the logic of excusing oneself, (or not) of the ethical requirement one chooses to make for discipline in asking for permission prior to taking a picture, when photographing a crowd. Imagine they are harmless locals who are not aggressive, happily going on their way to work.

It's like this. If one is such a person whereby one feels a necessity to always get prior consent, (and to me that generally yields just happy faces), then shouldn't those same constraints apply to photographing a group or a line of people?

I am not talking about any considerations of power, just what is decent and proper in our way of thinking.

Asher

 

[James Lemon]

James,

I was not thinking of any risks to the photographer or his/her gear. I'm just considering the logic of excusing oneself, (or not) of the ethical requirement one chooses to make for discipline in asking for permission prior to taking a picture, when photographing a crowd. Imagine they are harmless locals who are not aggressive, happily going on their way to work.

It's like this. If one is such a person whereby one feels a necessity to always get prior consent, (and to me that generally yields just happy faces), then shouldn't those same constraints apply to photographing a group or a line of people?

I am not talking about any considerations of power, just what is decent and proper in our way of thinking.

Asher

Asher

You just have to use your own judgment of when and where and how you want to photograph people. With your gifts you can set yourself up to capture amazing photos in circumstances that most would shy away from. Try photographing someone or a group first and then ask if they object. Chances are you'll get more photos of the person 9 out of 10 times.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Asher

You just have to use your own judgment of when and where and how you want to photograph people. With your gifts you can set yourself up to capture amazing photos in circumstances that most would shy away from.

I was there tonight! Did I stop and speak to him? Remind me?

asher

 

[James Lemon]

I was there tonight! Did I stop and speak to him? Remind me?

asher

Hi Asher

Does that nice lady friend of yours still work there?

I was outside waiting while you were still inside paying the bill for lunch. When he came into the restaurant we were at our booth and you made a specific point of getting up and tracking him down in the crowd.


James

 

[Asher Kelman]

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.

I think there is truth to this assertion that "taking and using someone's image" against their will is a violation. But what kind of a violation? First we agree that the law does not enshrine "Rights To Snap Pictures of Others" as a "Right" like that of voting, being an equal before the law and so forth. Taking pictures in public is simply not illegal and in the USA is sort of under the blanket protection of "Freedom of Speech". Certainly, if a person requests or their picture not to be taken, then it is civil to obey. It's important to obey is children are the subject, as otherwise one can make parents feel under existential threat for their little one's safety, however irrational that might be in the particular circumstances.

But excluding children, and also, just for the moment, pictures of a private building, one does go home with "something valuable" without having paid for it or gained some license to do so! So in that sense one has been a hunter! But we do this always so in the common "public space". After all, we breathe out air and other people breathe it in. We occupy space on the sidewalk, and then give up that space for others to pass. But with photography, there is some sense of permanently taking away something of theirs that we didn't arrange to own!

Well, if we'd take a hat or their newspaper, then they would be missing those items. Taking a picture, is just sampling the light reflecting from them and it would be lost to them anyway. They have no reasonable expectation that the light coming from their exposed face should be made hidden or forbidden, just as we do not make it illegal to breathe in air that has been exhaled by anyone else. from others.

So there is no actual loss or damage to the person by the very act of recording the light bouncing off of them continuously! However, if we'd then use this to advertise for a commercial purpose, we might be trespassing on their own "inherent copyright" so to speak of the likeness to exploit as we wish, depending on the law in place where the shot was taken or where the merchandising was executed. But what is lost is the sense of our own civility. If someone requests to decease, and one does not, then we are ripping at the fabric of the society on which our very own existence depends.

A sine qua non of street and other casual shooting, is to refrain from photographing
a person who nicely requests "privacy" I also know of no person who would refuse!​

Of course, s security detail with the "car park attendant syndrome" who wants to make up laws, is going to be given a courteous explanation of the legality of the practice. If however, he's very hostile and adamant, then a photographer might take his picture repeatedly, to make a point and ask him to call the police, if he so wishes. If one acts as a lout and makes folk uncomfortable, destroying their sense of comfort, then one is damaging the very society that we claim to want to document! That's the loss here that we all recognize.

As to any other actions of the photographer, like all other citizens, if they abuse their freedom of choice to, use the pictures for pornography or other nefarious purposes, then they will be held accountable and end up in court or worse! I am not aware of any rising citizens movement,here in the U.S.A., threatening photographers freedom to photograph people, (although the EU has a separate bill in consideration reference a "Freedom of Panorama" which could threaten street photogaphy in general!

Jerome reported he had second thoughts about his photography of people that seemed to extend their private space. No harm was done, but nevertheless is reveals something important about the value of our consciousness in monitoring what we do. Without this, we'd have no self-regualtion! So this is exemplary. That is not a patronizing remark. In fact I'd go so far as to offer the following:

If one hasn't ever had angst on taking pictures surreptitiously, then one needs to question
oneself. We should consider that, although our photography is no legal trespass, it's activity
that's viewed as "borderline", as it has potential, like a hunter's tool, to threaten others,
the homeless, women, and children, especially. We must make sure that we do not do that.

​

​

​

​

Asher

 

[Tom dinning]

It's messy. We could talk all day and simply voice opinions. That's a good thing but it doesn't change anything. Change is brought about by a very effective filtering system we have in Many countries called Democracy. It's not perfect but it's what we have and trust in. It seems to place a reasonable balance between rights, ethics, morals and legality. It allows me personally to make decisions I might otherwise be confused about since my opinion on rights, morals and ethics is in variance with some.
I am reminded of something I learnt as a child from my Old Man.

"Ignorance of a persons morals is understandable; ignorance of the law is no excuse"​

If I follow the law of the country in which I live and photograph a public scene in which there is a person who objects to having their photo taken, the question is a moral one as well as a legal one. There is no law to suggest my morals must be the same as everyone else's. There are laws which govern the taking of photos in public.

I can still be a moral person if I take the photo. Nor does it destroy the fabric of my society. It simply displays that quality of my society which I cherish. For each of us to act with security and safety within a legal framework that has been established by people before me. That legal framework is far from perfect but it's the best one I have and I'm very fortunate to live in a country where the moral, ethical, egalitarian, culturally inclusive considerations have been given due thought. If I were in another country, which I often am, I put my ethics and morals aside, know the law and play along. Note! I do not change my morals and ethics! I obey the laws which govern my behavior. Unfortunately, there are countries where the laws are gray to say the least, even to the point where they seem to made up on the spot by 'moral police' and not representatives of a succinct legal system.

There have been an extensive use of words like: should, shouldn't, must, never, always here in this post, with many variations on what is the case. No wonder we are confused. We come from different countries, cultures and ethical backgrounds. My neighbour does things that I would never do. He's not immoral; he's just Greek. That's not racist, by the way. It's the way it is. He tells me it's Greek so I understand and laughs at me when I ask. He knows the differences and accepts them.

Taking photographs is a new thing. We are still coming to grips with it, along with the Internet and its capabilities. Laws often lag behind changes in our technology. Meanwhile, to ensure some form of conformity we agree to obey the laws of the land until something else comes along that tidies up the loose ends, preparing us for the next onslaught of opinions.

If I have a dog off a lead in a public place and someone asks me to put it on a lead for their safety and we'll being, I must abide by the law or suffer the consequences. If I am in a dog exercising area of a beach and someone asks me to put my unleashed dog on a lead I am not obliged to do so. Both people are aware of the law for each place, or should be. The provisions for each person are clearly stated and each person should be aware of the risks involved in each place.

The law allows me to have my camera 'off a leash' in public. All people are under the same legislation and have no excuse under the law for its ignorance. In today's current technological status, with a camera in every hand, it is highly likely that stepping out into the public will result in you having your photo taken, either by stealth or incidentally. Even our legal representatives use this to survey our streets and the people in them.

Laws are reasonable. At least they are in this country. There's a few of them I don't like but I don't ignore them or add my own morals as a condition of obeyance.

I sit comfortably with all this. Exaggerated fears are not my business. Potentials are not in my capacity to control. I am aware that my morals might be different and even in conflict with others from time to time.

I am happy for the person to remind me of my legal obligations but not of my moral standing. That's just too messy.

 

[Asher Kelman]

I am in awe of the level of thoughtfulness and command of language we possess here at times.

Great!! So OPF is not undoing civilization, after all! Until now, we addressed mostly "legality v. individual "Rights" and a tad of common decency. Here we make a new consideration:

"Ignorance of a persons morals is understandable; ignorance of the law is no excuse"​

I took the liberty of picking out and highlighting this quotation of your Dad's thoughts. The distinction is indeed new to this discussion and helpful in understanding different attitudes. Yes, we have no way of computing each and every persons personal morality, code of ethics or even sense of boundaries. But we can make a good guess! If someone objects to the picture being taken, then I think you'd agree that we can be generous, courteous allow that person their request to be excluded from our photography.

Or are you saying, that might be fine for others, but no one should be saying what I, Tom Dinning,"should" do?

I would argue, that aside from obeying the law, we have a responsibility to be civil and a merit in considering the feelings of others.

Asher

 

[Tom dinning]

I am in awe of the level of thoughtfulness and command of language we possess here at times.

Great!! So OPF is not undoing civilization, after all! Until now, we addressed mostly "legality v. individual "Rights" and a tad of common decency. Here we make a new consideration:





I took the liberty of picking out and highlighting this quotation of your Dad's thoughts. The distinction is indeed new to this discussion and helpful in understanding different attitudes. Yes, we have no way of computing each and every persons personal morality, code of ethics or even sense of boundaries. But we can make a good guess! If someone objects to the picture being taken, then I think you'd agree that we can be generous, courteous allow that person their request to be excluded from our photography.

Or are you saying, that might be fine for others, but no one should be saying what I, Tom Dinning,"should" do?

I would argue, that aside from obeying the law, we have a responsibility to be civil and a merit in considering the feelings of others.

Asher

You thinking I'd agree is drawing a long bow, Asher. No, I don't agree.
And yes, that's what I'm saying. Almost. What tom dinning chooses to do. I will leave ingratiation to the more courteous.
Argue all you like. I'm in it for me. I'm not very charitable to strangers. I don't give at the office either.
I may not measure up to some but I'm not standing next to them to be measured.

 

[Asher Kelman]

I may not measure up to some but I'm not standing next to them to be measured.

Yes, we know that! Still I doubt you just bluster you way through life as your story in the library suggests. If we trailed you, doubtless you move to the side to let a lady with a walker get by!

Asher

 

[Tom dinning]

Yes, we know that! Still I doubt you just bluster you way through life as your story in the library suggests. If we trailed you, doubtless you move to the side to let a lady with a walker get by!

Asher

I would stop and chat first. More than photographing in the street, I love talking to those who will pause for a moment and share their time. What I have learnt form such people! Of pleasures, families, health and death, disasters, sorrow and the simple joys of life. The lady with the walker creaks in tune with the squeaky wheels of her supporting frame and her voice is like music to my ears. Even if she stares at me with disdain and tells me to "**** off, young man. Don't annoy me" as I snap a picture. What a pleasure it is to know someone just a little more.

 

[Asher Kelman]

I would stop and chat first. More than photographing in the street, I love talking to those who will pause for a moment and share their time. What I have learnt form such people! Of pleasures, families, health and death, disasters, sorrow and the simple joys of life. The lady with the walker creaks in tune with the squeaky wheels of her supporting frame and her voice is like music to my ears. Even if she stares at me with disdain and tells me to "**** off, young man. Don't annoy me" as I snap a picture. What a pleasure it is to know someone just a little more.

Great, now if your new friend smiles at you and clearly says, "Young man, kindly delete that picture!", what then?


Asher

 

[Tom dinning]

Great, now if your new friend smiles at you and clearly says, "Young man, kindly delete that picture!", what then?


Asher

"Sorry lady, but it's no longer yours. It's mine."
See. A variation in morals within a legal framework. Works beautifully. Instead of me being pissed off because I didn't get the photo, she is because I didn't delete it. Now the question becomes: who has the greatest entitlement to not be pissed of. There isn't a law for that either way in this country.
In this country the standard procedure is to 'get over it'. In some countries I might be flogged, stoned, jailed or shot for my efforts. Then I would choose differently.
I, personally have no issue with 'getting over it'. It's a great democratic leveler. If there is nothing I can do to change that fit within our democratic framework, I'm happy to get over it or vote differently. People objecting to my behavior is part of that democracy. Me ignoring it is as of equal value. I'm sure you have your fair share of objectionable people. Donald Trump might be up there with the best of them, I reckon. If he becomes president of the U.S. You deserve what you ask for. I might also consider booking a seat on the first plane to Mars.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Well, that's your decision to make!

That, speaks for you.

 

[Tom dinning]

Well, that's your decision to make!

You sound just like Christine (with a deeper tone).
Did you place an emphatic emphasis on the "well"?
And did you look down at me with that look she gives me when she doesn't agree and will never forget it and some day it will come back at me and then I'll be sorry and she'll then tell me she told me so?
Or did you pat me on the head in a patronising manner suggesting I'm only a lout from Australia after all and what would I know about morals.
In a strange way, I know I'm never going to change and never going to change others. By putting it in words and responding to your inquiry I can clarify my thoughts, examine my motives and actions and am reassured that what I do is OK. What you do is OK as well. Its just a different OK.
Thanks for that.
There's a lot worse things that go on that could concern you or I and there's **** all we can do about it. Carrying guns in public in the US concerns me greatly. How about you? The dress of some people in Darwin is downright offensive at times. But if I go out in public I'm stuck with it. Alcohol is killing people in their droves here yet people can sell it cheaper than water in any quantity they wish. People can smoke in the streets. What's that about? Teenagers are allowed out of their homes when there are old people about. Very unpleasant! I sat next to a bloke the other day at the bus shelter who stunk of sweat, dogs and alcohol. It was so unpleasant I asked him to go have a wash ( Yeah, right!). I could have and have a guess what the response would have been.
You know, some days its up to me to be a bigger person than those around me and bite the bullet.
How moral is that? Bloody hell! Almost saint-like.
How does that look in print?
Saint Tom of the Outback
I like it!

 

[Charlotte Thompson]

Saint Tom that used to be Sir Tom-

You are one hell of a Sinner and I gotta respect that!

Charlotte-

 

[Tom dinning]

Saint Tom that used to be Sir Tom-

You are one hell of a Sinner and I gotta respect that!

Charlotte-

Gotta say, Charotte, I feel,like I'm on your level now. Sinners unite!
The self - riotous can go **** themselves.

 

[Charlotte Thompson]

Well that can be true yes..as you know everyone has a right to voice and all of us are on our own journeys
through this purgatory we call life- Conversation shows who we are at any given second and at any given second that can change-

C.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Well that can be true yes..as you know everyone has a right to voice and all of us are on our own journeys
through this purgatory we call life- Conversation shows who we are at any given second and at any given second that can change-

C.

Unlike a good red wine, it is not getting better with time. So unless the principals object, this will be removed from view.

Asher

 

[Charlotte Thompson]

nooooo objections

C.

 

[Martin Evans]

I have just mentioned this thread to my wife, who came in to see what I was up to!

Her comment was that if past photographers had been so concerned about invading people's privacy, we would not have today many of the images that we so value. Street scenes of slum children playing in streets with no cars; the faces of soldiers coming ashore from landing craft onto the beaches of Normandy; the photos of men and women going a bit wild on VE day, etc.

These images that we see in books and periodicals have been published repeatedly, without the subjects' permissions. I hope that no self-rightous social theoretician now suggests that they should all be destroyed in the name of privacy.

Martin

 

[Martin Evans]

Pretty much as it is in Australia, James.
In addition, a photographer can photograph into a private place if they are shooting from a public place and that private place is clearly visible.
Cheers
Tom

There are well defined exceptions in the UK.

A while ago I was taking photos of interesting bollards in streets. There are some very unusual ones outside an official building in Cambridge city centre, so I squatted down and lined them up in my viewfinder. Just as I was taking the picture an official ran out, waving and shouting. I was outside the local law courts, and apparently it is legally forbidden to photograph any individual inside, entering or leaving a law court.

We then had a friendly discussion, I explained my photographic interest and showed him that although the bollards were just outside the big glass doors, the viewpoint could not include any person inside, and he went away mollified.

I could have been stroppy - and many photographers have become oversensitive about restrictions on their rights to click away, and get deliberately aggressive and provocative when challenged by petty officials. However, I feel that is counterproductive. They may be petty officials bent on 'doing their duty' but they are also human beings and usually amenable to open friendly reason.

Martin

 

[Tom dinning]

Hi Martin.
I hope you cleared your internet history before your wife saw what you were really up to.
Once upon a time I used to worry about leaving the iron on or the door open when I went out. Now I worry about dying and not clearing my internet history.
What will people think?

I like the occasional bollard as well. I was photographing a few nice ones at a craft fair in Tassie when I was put apon by a crafty woman with hairy legs and wearing a kaftan. "You can't photograph my stall", she said, with a degree of hostility and finger pointing.
Änd why not?" in inquired, with all the sincerity and bewilderment I could muster.
"You might copy my designs"
So, now I'm thinking to myself: why the **** would I want to make a set of antimaccassars from dogs hair and spider saliva in vermilian and tangerine?
"Actually, I was taking photos of the bollards" I replied innocently, but not convincingly.
"Why would you want to take photographs of bollards? " she asked, showing a degree of amazement I've only seen on my grand daughters face when she saw me naked for the first time. (and the last)
The questions begged an answer, but I politely refrained.
The motives for a photographer are universally misunderstood.

 

[Tom dinning]

MArtin has raised an important point here, bless his East Anglian heart.

Is is fear that lends us not to have our photograph taken by an unknown person?

 

[Martin Evans]

Obviously a lot of us are thinking about this dilemma, which is usually an ethical rather than a legal one:

I think there is truth to this assertion that "taking and using someone's image" against their will is a violation. But what kind of a violation? First we agree that the law does not enshrine "Rights To Snap Pictures of Others" as a "Right" like that of voting, being an equal before the law and so forth. Taking pictures in public is simply not illegal and in the USA is sort of under the blanket protection of "Freedom of Speech". Certainly, if a person requests their picture not to be taken, then it is civil to obey.

Asher

From time to time a group of spectacularly dressed and strangely embellished "Goths" have a get-together in the Yorkshire coastal town of Whitby. Every year they attract more and more photographers, both professional and amateur, and lately some photographers have been upsetting both the Goths and the locals by increasingly intrusive photography. In an effort to lay down some principles for courteous behaviour, one pro photographer ("Miss Sadie Batz" who may also be a Goth) has posted these guidelines:

https://www.flickr.com/groups/wgw/discuss/72157651449695900/

I think they represent a sensible balance between capturing good images and not upsetting individuals. Has anyone any logically sound objections to anything Miss Sadie is suggesting?

Martin.