Reading mode: Light Dark

Human, again (WARNING)

Go to last post
--he looks like he is about to jump you!
NIkondude.

' Nothing is so firmly believed as what we least know'
 
Gordon Peffer said:
I wonder if he appreciates being shown like this. You did get his
permission, of course.

G. Peffer

--
'I am no Einstein' Einstein
Click to expand...
No need to get his permission. He's in public, he's visible from public space, no laws were broken getting this image, and its use in these forums is completely legal.

As photographers, we should be advocating our rights to take and display our photos, not spreading false impressions of a Draconian law that doesn't exist!
 
Here in Canada you can get sued for taking pictures in public without permission. And people have been sued. I am not in agreement with the law, but this poor guy . . . .
--

'I am no Einstein' Einstein
 
Gordon,

Let me start with the location f this photograph: Sydney, Australia.

We do not have a privacy law, which requires a permit for photography taken in public places. To my knowledge your assumption about Canada is also wrong - the law you are refering to exists only in Quebec. I may be wrong here - I am not a lawyer. The only other country in so called western world, which has similar laws is France. I wonder how journalists in Quebec and France take photos for news stories.

Yes, he is a "poor guy". That is why I took the photograph, it's not meant to be nice to look at.

--
Ted Szukalski

Photographic gallery: http://www.digital-photo.com.au/
 
Gordon Peffer said:
Here in Canada you can get sued for taking pictures in public
without permission. And people have been sued. I am not in
agreement with the law, but this poor guy . . . .
Click to expand...
If that law actually exists in Canada--which I find hard to believe and would need some kind of cited source to buy--and would apply to this situation were it taken in Canada...what a crazy invasion of photographer's rights! How do newspapers cover stories? How do street photographers document their experience of the city? This is a clear violation of First Amendment rights from the US perspective...and that ought to be a fundamental right for all citizens in thier home country!

What, really, is the difference between walking around and looking at stuff and taking a picture so you can look at it later? If someone doesn't want you seeing them in public, then they shouldn't be going out in public where they have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
 
I stand corrected. It is a Quebec law and it is a bit nutty.

Nevertheless pictures of streetpeople are a dime a dozen. What's the purpose of the picture? Is he a kind of human scenery because he is derelict? To show off a new lens?

Gordon
--
'I am no Einstein' Einstein
 
Again, you are talking your specific reality only.

Few years back you would not see ANY homeless in Sydney at all but these days they are growing in number at an alarming rate. This is in a country that has a very good social support.

"dime a dozen" really is not the case at all. Most Sydney people living in suburbia and not working in CBD may have never seen homeless.

The purpose? Gordon, I took the picture to show off my new lens.

How about you visiting my website to get a better picture what I do with my photography, please.
--
Ted Szukalski

Photographic gallery: http://www.digital-photo.com.au/
 
Looking at something with your own two eyes is one thing. Taking a picture is another. If you want to look at your picture later there's no problem. The problem is that the picture is distributed, and very widely at that.

If someone is playing music too loudly outside (jerks with 500 watt subwoofers in their cars) don't you have a right to your own quiet space outside?

Gordon Peffer
--
'I am no Einstein' Einstein
 
--
'Doesn't mean everyone's a nut.

But how many peanuts have to be in your candy bar before it's considered 'nutty' ? ;)

Now we're into universals! This is a serious academic question relating to the chocolate/peanut ratio in candy bars. What is essentially a nutty candy bar.

OK. Enough.

Gordon
 
Gordon Peffer said:
Looking at something with your own two eyes is one thing. Taking a
picture is another. If you want to look at your picture later
there's no problem. The problem is that the picture is distributed,
and very widely at that.
Click to expand...
I agree with your perspective that there is a difference between taking a picture and using that image for a specific purpose. For instance...

Taking a picture through someone's bedroom window of them disrobed: not allowed. Using that picture for any purpose: obviously not allowed, as it shouldn't exist in the first place.

Taking a picture of someone in public, in full view, with no reasonable expectation of privacy: allowed. Using that picture in an editorial, educational, newsworthy, satirical, critical, or "fine art" use: allowed under right to free expression of ideas. Using that picture to promote a commercial product, service, religion, or private group (such as the KKK), or placing it in a context in which it did not occur: not allowed. Using the picture while placing it in a truthful and accurate context: allowed--this is a news-type usage that is a primary source of information...all it does is simply establish one or more facts.

How far and wide the image is distributed is totally irrelevant. What is relevant is how it's being used. This image is being used in a critical, educational, and possibly editorial way by posting it in these here forums. I see no problem with it whatsoever.

Anyone who says (and I'm not implying that you are saying this, because it seems clear to me you're not in support of that crazy Quebec law) that this image is not being properly used here, and should not be used in this way, is quashing a societally valuable conversation about homelessness, which I believe you'll find if you peruse this thread. Trying to quash discussions like this about the environment in which we live seems like something of a fascist endeavor. ("Don't talk about that! Don't think about that!")
Gordon Peffer said:
If someone is playing music too loudly outside (jerks with 500 watt
subwoofers in their cars) don't you have a right to your own quiet
space outside?
Click to expand...
Yes, one does have a right to relative quiet. That's why there are noise ordinances. I don't see the relevance of bringing this into the discussion, however.

This is the problem with analogies. I'm sure that you have a point in bringing this up, and this is similar to this photography situation in some way, but it's not obvious to me how. It invites me to accuse you of trying to draw absurd parallels between the two situations where there obviously are none. (I argue fairly, or I at least try to, so I won't do this.)

However, my point remains--I don't like analogies because they're frought with misdirection and problems in a discussion such as this one. Let's not discuss what this situation is like, let's simply discuss the thing itself and I think we can steer clear of a lot of miscommunication. :-)
 
I'd love to read about this law your mentioning since I live in Montréal, Québec and have NEVER heard of it.

I think you are mistaking our belle Province with France where there is such a law.

--
------------------
V. Merlen
PBase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/vmerlen
 
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1014&thread=20407178

http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1998/1998rcs1-591/1998rcs1-591.html

The essence is that people have a right to privacy that can only be overweighed by the public's need to be informed. The case was the use of a photo of a girl sitting someplace in an art magazine. The decision is nuanced, but does seem to differ significantly from US law and probably most of Canada's.

Incidental captures seem "okay", as those of public figures (or those who have made themselves "newsworthy").
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top