What are the rules...legal, moral, ethical, etc.

darren said:

Hi Larry, you could use that academic argument to support why you
take pictures of homeless people passed out on park benches and
around heating ducts with your $500 camera. I don't choose to.

Click to expand...

DarrenH said:

DarrenH said:

Bingo! I wish I was more of an historian, but I believe
photographs of children working in sweat shops during the early
part of the 20th century were instrumental in part in passing child
labor laws in the United States. There are definitely subject
matters where visual presentation of the problem can result in
changes in a society. I'd toss the Viet Nam War in as another
example.
--
Larrym

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

but darren, what if it's not just an academic argument? that was one of the points i tried to make about the original poster and his photo. in my opinion that photo, the way it was shot and cropped and they way it was used don't seem to meet the criteria of something done in the right way for the right reasons, or used in the right way. but that doesn't mean nobody should ever take pictures of the homeless at any time for any reason. it's not fair to accuse larry of using disingenuous arguments as a cover for crass exploitation when you don't have any evidence to support that. do we even know what he shoots? or in what way, or how?

the fact is that for lewis hine it wasn't an academic argument and it wasn't a rationalization after the fact. it was a crusade to push for needed changes and it worked. there is a whole history of "concerned" photography that seeks to inform, cajole, shed light, to critique, to pose questions, etc.

i'm not ready to condemn mike prec. i think that his questions and concerns after the fact show us something. i imagine that he might have had some instinct or compulsion to take such a picture that came from a good place. it's just that he lacked a clear, defined purpose or way to express what was nagging at him. but if he worked on his skills and techniques and decided on a serious project that tried to show something new, or important or compelling about the plight of the homeless. or the disparities in our society, some causes and effects. or to show some humanity in someone forgotten or overlooked... then more power to him

someone mentioned that the subject had been done to death. well in some respects yes, that makes it harder to avoid cliché's and find a purpose in the work.

but on the other hand the problems continue and get worse. we can't forget them and ignore them from now on just because there have been so many photos done already. there's always room for an honest, sensitive and human look at people and their situations and problems. we just have to make sure that we're careful in how, why, when and how much we do it.

Larry Mendenhall said:

Ahh! One of those ignore the problems and they'll go away people,
huh? ; )

Seriously, smart comments from me aside, I don't believe it's an
academic argument to support social issues through photography.
You're assuming that photographers would do that for a less than
noble reason. Maybe. Yet there are many that do it for good
reasons, too.

Click to expand...

If you feel you're serving society through your art, that's fine. But most people aren't. They're benefitting from someone else's misfortune.

I won't puff myself up enough to state that I am in the position to "make a statement". Cuz I'm just a shutterbug. And that's all any of us here are. So let's keep our true position in perspective.

Then neither of you are in a position to pretend you're interested in making social commentary with your so-called 'art'.

Thanks for helping me out.

Larry Mendenhall said:

Will Perlis said:

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/childlabor/

Here you go: Historian in a Click.

Click to expand...

Thanks! It was going to be one of those things I'd wake up at 3 in
the morning trying to think of the person's name. Whew!

; )

Larry Mendenhall said:

So maybe the ethical differentiation depends on intent. If you're
showing the folks back home a freak show it's bad but if the intent
is social change it's good.

Click to expand...

Personally, that would be my opinion.

--
Larrym

Click to expand...

Sorry, didn't fully read the last two messages.

I would dare speculate that 90% of the people who take photographs of homeless people and tell others it's "art" or "to make a statement" are full of hot air. So I don't do it.

Who am I do decide if Joe P. Homeless wants ME putting a photograph of him onto the internet for some self-serving "statement"?

DarrenH said:

Larry Mendenhall said:

Will Perlis said:

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/childlabor/

Here you go: Historian in a Click.

Click to expand...

Thanks! It was going to be one of those things I'd wake up at 3 in
the morning trying to think of the person's name. Whew!

; )

DarrenH said:

So maybe the ethical differentiation depends on intent. If you're
showing the folks back home a freak show it's bad but if the intent
is social change it's good.

Click to expand...

Personally, that would be my opinion.

--
Larrym

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

darren said:

Sorry, didn't fully read the last two messages.

I would dare speculate that 90% of the people who take photographs
of homeless people and tell others it's "art" or "to make a
statement" are full of hot air. So I don't do it.

Who am I do decide if Joe P. Homeless wants ME putting a photograph
of him onto the internet for some self-serving "statement"?

Click to expand...

Hey, Darren, thanks for the discussion it's a been a lot of fun. Anything that gets us to seriously reexamine or positions is a good exercise.

But just to get back to one of the basic questions Mike raised.

yes. In this case the man has no reasonable expectation of privacy. Different legal issues are raised, however, when the discussion expands to how it's used. But this picture can legally be taken. It doesn't mean I want to go out take pictures of homeless folks personally.

The other question:

Now your arguments come into play. And I don't necessarily disagree with yours completely. Neither would I disagree with your 90% estimation though I might say it may be 5 or 10% on the high side.

The point I think we're disagreeing on is whether documenting social concerns like homeless people, war photography, sweat shop laborers is ALWAYS unethical or whether there are some circumstances where it actually provides a benefit.

Anyway, that's my last 2 cents on the subject so the last word is yours if you want it.

And like I said, it's been fun!--Larrym

It should be interesting to see how the "Girls Gone Wild" lawsuit plays out:
http://www.doane.edu/owl/Archive0102/9_20/w2.html

Mike Prec said:

I took the referenced picture last summer in downtown Detroit, Mi.
Actually this is a very tightly cropped portion of a picture taken
with a Kodak 4800 at 84mm. It was taken in a public area (Grand
Circus Park) around noon with hundreds of people around.

Warning: You may not find this picture pleasent to look at. I make
no statements or assumptions about this man.

http://www.pbase.com/image/1006514

What are the rules? Is this picture legal? I obviously did not ask
permission to take this picture or to post on pbase. Do you think
it was ethical for me to take this picture and/or post it
publically? Do I need this man's permission?

I believe it to be legal as long as I do not use in an
advertisement or make any kind of misrepentation about this man. I
did feel uncomfortable taking the picture and am not sure this kind
of picture should be made public.

I do not wish to put down Detroit. I often travel to Toronto and
see much more of this there even though Toronto is a beautiful city.

Photography is more than just sunsets and interesting macros, etc.
Do you think people want to see more of this?

Mike

Click to expand...

I took this a few years ago in NYC.



It made me wonder... "who is/was this man, and how did he end up like this?" The sign he's holding is a huge part of that question. Did he write these songs? Is/was there intelligence or talent in this human, and what happened...???

I don't feel any moral misgivings in the least. Photography can express so many things. Seeing a homeless person can certainly elicit feelings. Such feelings might motivate one to take such a photo, and thereby share or express such feelings with others who might never see the site.

Profit from such a photo? That's a personal thing. I suppose you could donate a portion of such proceeds to a charity to make you feel better.

Regards

Mike Prec said:

I took the referenced picture last summer in downtown Detroit, Mi.
Actually this is a very tightly cropped portion of a picture taken
with a Kodak 4800 at 84mm. It was taken in a public area (Grand
Circus Park) around noon with hundreds of people around.

Warning: You may not find this picture pleasent to look at. I make
no statements or assumptions about this man.

http://www.pbase.com/image/1006514

What are the rules? Is this picture legal? I obviously did not ask
permission to take this picture or to post on pbase. Do you think
it was ethical for me to take this picture and/or post it
publically? Do I need this man's permission?

I believe it to be legal as long as I do not use in an
advertisement or make any kind of misrepentation about this man. I
did feel uncomfortable taking the picture and am not sure this kind
of picture should be made public.

I do not wish to put down Detroit. I often travel to Toronto and
see much more of this there even though Toronto is a beautiful city.

Photography is more than just sunsets and interesting macros, etc.
Do you think people want to see more of this?

Mike

Click to expand...

--Owen WestClearwater, FL

BTW... no permission was asked for or given.

Owen West said:

It made me wonder... "who is/was this man, and how did he end up
like this?" The sign he's holding is a huge part of that question.
Did he write these songs? Is/was there intelligence or talent in
this human, and what happened...???

I don't feel any moral misgivings in the least. Photography can
express so many things. Seeing a homeless person can certainly
elicit feelings. Such feelings might motivate one to take such a
photo, and thereby share or express such feelings with others who
might never see the site.

Profit from such a photo? That's a personal thing. I suppose you
could donate a portion of such proceeds to a charity to make you
feel better.

Regards

Mike Prec said:

I took the referenced picture last summer in downtown Detroit, Mi.
Actually this is a very tightly cropped portion of a picture taken
with a Kodak 4800 at 84mm. It was taken in a public area (Grand
Circus Park) around noon with hundreds of people around.

Warning: You may not find this picture pleasent to look at. I make
no statements or assumptions about this man.

http://www.pbase.com/image/1006514

What are the rules? Is this picture legal? I obviously did not ask
permission to take this picture or to post on pbase. Do you think
it was ethical for me to take this picture and/or post it
publically? Do I need this man's permission?

I believe it to be legal as long as I do not use in an
advertisement or make any kind of misrepentation about this man. I
did feel uncomfortable taking the picture and am not sure this kind
of picture should be made public.

I do not wish to put down Detroit. I often travel to Toronto and
see much more of this there even though Toronto is a beautiful city.

Photography is more than just sunsets and interesting macros, etc.
Do you think people want to see more of this?

Mike

Click to expand...

--
Owen West
Clearwater, FL

Click to expand...

--Owen WestClearwater, FL

as far as i'm concerned this has nothing to do with what we're discussing because it's obviously a commercial use not a news or editorial use.

however, where i live we have something called the "naked mile" where students run naked through the streets of campus. tons of people of course take photos and shoot video, and many videos similar to girls gone wild are on the market featuring the naked mile. a local attorney specializing in entertainment and intellectual property law was telling me that video was usually acceptable in cases like that but that stills were usually held to stricter standards of true editorial use.

I have no idea what case law she was basing that opinon on, or even if it was true. but it is interesting. i can't for the life of me see why that is or how those tapes could possibly be seen as editorial. yes, the events have news value, but those tapes are not in the least structured like news coverage, they're not marketed as news, and they certainly aren't shown in standard news outlets. they are sold as purely commercial products.... strange (i should add that it's only my guess that they're not structured like news coverage, they certainly don't seem that way on the commercials do they? has anyone here actually seen one of them?)

aruzinsky,

In a very modern world with camcorders and digital cameras almost in everyone's hands, this dumbass needs to think a little bit, before she displays her udders in a public bar--or in public for that matter. Maybe next time she'll think. From what I understand, it's pretty obvious there are cameras all over the place. She just wants some money. I hope they don't give it to her.

Jason Busch--'I do just about everything in my CCD's...'

The key phrase in the article is "But courts have recognized a right not to have one’s image commercially exploited."

Makes sense to me. If someone were selling my photo without my permission I'd sue their ass.

aruzinsky said:

Mike Prec said:

I took the referenced picture last summer in downtown Detroit, Mi.
Actually this is a very tightly cropped portion of a picture taken
with a Kodak 4800 at 84mm. It was taken in a public area (Grand
Circus Park) around noon with hundreds of people around.

Warning: You may not find this picture pleasent to look at. I make
no statements or assumptions about this man.

http://www.pbase.com/image/1006514

What are the rules? Is this picture legal? I obviously did not ask
permission to take this picture or to post on pbase. Do you think
it was ethical for me to take this picture and/or post it
publically? Do I need this man's permission?

I believe it to be legal as long as I do not use in an
advertisement or make any kind of misrepentation about this man. I
did feel uncomfortable taking the picture and am not sure this kind
of picture should be made public.

I do not wish to put down Detroit. I often travel to Toronto and
see much more of this there even though Toronto is a beautiful city.

Photography is more than just sunsets and interesting macros, etc.
Do you think people want to see more of this?

Mike

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

In LA signs are often posted for planned events where filming or TV coverage is going on. If you don't want to be recorded, you stay away.

On the other hand lots of "innocent" people are recorded on the street during the filming of (commercial) movies with no notice at all.

And I think I remember a case where a scene in Woody Allen's "Manhatten" showed some guy and his girlfriend. However, the guy's wife didn't like it, a divorce went down, and the guy sued Woody but lost because of "no expectation of privacy" even tho' the movie was a commercial endevour.

Will

darren said:

Makes sense to me. If someone were selling my photo without my
permission I'd sue their ass.

aruzinsky said:

Mike Prec said:

I took the referenced picture last summer in downtown Detroit, Mi.
Actually this is a very tightly cropped portion of a picture taken
with a Kodak 4800 at 84mm. It was taken in a public area (Grand
Circus Park) around noon with hundreds of people around.

Warning: You may not find this picture pleasent to look at. I make
no statements or assumptions about this man.

http://www.pbase.com/image/1006514

What are the rules? Is this picture legal? I obviously did not ask
permission to take this picture or to post on pbase. Do you think
it was ethical for me to take this picture and/or post it
publically? Do I need this man's permission?

I believe it to be legal as long as I do not use in an
advertisement or make any kind of misrepentation about this man. I
did feel uncomfortable taking the picture and am not sure this kind
of picture should be made public.

I do not wish to put down Detroit. I often travel to Toronto and
see much more of this there even though Toronto is a beautiful city.

Photography is more than just sunsets and interesting macros, etc.
Do you think people want to see more of this?

Mike

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Will Perlis said:

And I think I remember a case where a scene in Woody Allen's
"Manhatten" showed some guy and his girlfriend. However, the guy's
wife didn't like it, a divorce went down, and the guy sued Woody
but lost because of "no expectation of privacy" even tho' the
movie was a commercial endevour.

Click to expand...

it was a commercial endevor, but that person wasn't being exploited commercially, he was incidental to the scene and the movie.

the same goes with still images, if someone is just a face in the crowd they usually don't have a claim. there is not set definition of what would make one a "featured" player, but the more people in the shot and the smaller/less prominent a person is in the shot the less likely that they have a claim... that again comes from the same attorney i was speaking of.

that's why you often see large crowd shots from real events in ads and stock photos... like a whole section of a football stadium etc. obviously they didn't get releases from all those people

aaron said:

as far as i'm concerned this has nothing to do with what we're
discussing because it's obviously a commercial use not a news or
editorial use.

Click to expand...

Not being a lawer, I am unaware that legally "news or editorial use" is not considered legally "commercial." Morally, I see no diffference because journalists exist for profit. For example, there is a local TV news show that uses the same "stock footage" of extremely fat people walking down the street every time there is news concerning the health issues of obesity. The purpose of showing this stock footage is to help sell commercial time on TV. And, I doubt that many of these people like having their fat overhanging guts and rear ends immortilized on tape.

aaron said:

... there is not set definition...

Click to expand...

Aaron,

That's what makes for lawsuits.

My guess is she would win this one, but more probably it will be settled out of court.

Will

aruzinsky said:

aaron said:

as far as i'm concerned this has nothing to do with what we're
discussing because it's obviously a commercial use not a news or
editorial use.

Click to expand...

Not being a lawer, I am unaware that legally "news or editorial
use" is not considered legally "commercial."

Click to expand...

There is a difference, whether or not you are aware of it. The best I can do to explain it is that editorial use involves informing people about issues and events (like being healthy, making informed choices as to political issues, etc.). It is something portrayed as factual. Commericial use is when an image is used to help Company A sell Product XYZ to consumers John and Jane Doe and facts are less important. For instance, is Tide REALLY better than Cheer?

Morally, I see no

aruzinsky said:

diffference because journalists exist for profit.

Click to expand...

Excuse them for making a living. Some people like to eat and live somewhat comfortably. Do you work for free?

aruzinsky said:

For example,
there is a local TV news show that uses the same "stock footage" of
extremely fat people walking down the street every time there is
news concerning the health issues of obesity. The purpose of
showing this stock footage is to help sell commercial time on TV.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, TV news, newspapers, etc. have to sell advertising to stay in business. But they're not showing obese people just for the helluva it. There are health issues involved with obesity, smoking, drinking too much Diet Mt. Dew [ that's me! ; ) ] etc. If TV journalism was all about selling commercial time on TV you'd probably see a lot more stories on go-go dancing and the latest swimwear.

aruzinsky said:

And, I doubt that many of these people like having their fat
overhanging guts and rear ends immortilized on tape.

Click to expand...

irrelevant to the issue of expectation of privacy in public places.

--Larrym

Will Perlis said:

My guess is she would win this one, but more probably it will be
settled out of court.

Click to expand...

It'll be interesting to see what happens. I think she'll have a tough time saying she had a reasonable expectation of privacy. The producers will probably fall back on the old pornography argument which would run something like this: "This is a legitimate work documenting the loosening of society taboos on public nudity". Followed by calling on the right to free speech clause in the Bill of Rights.--Larrym

aaron said:

as far as i'm concerned this has nothing to do with what we're
discussing because it's obviously a commercial use not a news or
editorial use.

Click to expand...

Aaron from the point of view of the photographer what is the difference? if the photographer gets paid for the use of the picture from their angle it is commercial.

When you mention news or editorial I also cannot always make the distinction .. good news channels sell advertsing, the more their viewers the more ads they sell .. editorial the same .. am I missing something?
--Mark in UK

Larry Mendenhall said:

aruzinsky said:

aaron said:

as far as i'm concerned this has nothing to do with what we're
discussing because it's obviously a commercial use not a news or
editorial use.

Click to expand...

Not being a lawer, I am unaware that legally "news or editorial
use" is not considered legally "commercial."

Click to expand...

There is a difference, whether or not you are aware of it. The best
I can do to explain it is that editorial use involves informing
people about issues and events (like being healthy, making informed
choices as to political issues, etc.). It is something portrayed as
factual. Commericial use is when an image is used to help Company
A sell Product XYZ to consumers John and Jane Doe and facts are
less important. For instance, is Tide REALLY better than Cheer?

Morally, I see no

Larry Mendenhall said:

diffference because journalists exist for profit.

Click to expand...

Excuse them for making a living. Some people like to eat and live
somewhat comfortably. Do you work for free?

Click to expand...

No need here for anybody to excuse anybody. I did not say that journalists are immoral. I just said that (good or bad), I do not see a moral difference and I still don't as explained below.

Larry Mendenhall said:

Larry Mendenhall said:

For example,
there is a local TV news show that uses the same "stock footage" of
extremely fat people walking down the street every time there is
news concerning the health issues of obesity. The purpose of
showing this stock footage is to help sell commercial time on TV.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, TV news, newspapers, etc. have to sell advertising
to stay in business. But they're not showing obese people just for
the helluva it. There are health issues involved with obesity,
smoking, drinking too much Diet Mt. Dew [ that's me! ; ) ] etc. If
TV journalism was all about selling commercial time on TV you'd
probably see a lot more stories on go-go dancing and the latest
swimwear.

Larry Mendenhall said:

And, I doubt that many of these people like having their fat
overhanging guts and rear ends immortilized on tape.

Click to expand...

irrelevant to the issue of expectation of privacy in public places.

--
Larrym

Click to expand...

I still don't see a moral difference, because I do not accept that an intended end justifies the means. I believe that morality applies to "means" without deference to intention. For example, there is no such thing as a "white lie." Also, there is a saying, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." I believe this is true. Whereas, it may be true, in some sense, that the actual "ends" does justify the means, it is not for us to presume to know what those actual "ends" will be. Such presumption is, itself, immoral. Just my opinion, but that is what the poster asked for.

Mark_A said:

aaron said:

as far as i'm concerned this has nothing to do with what we're
discussing because it's obviously a commercial use not a news or
editorial use.

Click to expand...

Aaron from the point of view of the photographer what is the
difference? if the photographer gets paid for the use of the
picture from their angle it is commercial.

When you mention news or editorial I also cannot always make the
distinction .. good news channels sell advertsing, the more their
viewers the more ads they sell .. editorial the same .. am I
missing something?

--
Mark in UK

Click to expand...

a few people have remarked similarly on the comment i made above.

what you have to remember is that these terms, commercial and editorial have to do with the USE of an image, or the definition of content

it's like profit or non profit organizations, the fact that the organizations workers get paid doesn't make it a commercial enterprise. yes, in some such places the workers are volunteer, but that isn't what defines the nature of the organization

a news organization itself (at least most of them) is a commercial enterprise. but the content in it's product is divided into editorial content and commercial content. the editorial side is theoretically news, information and opinion that is produced or procured by the paper or magazine by it's editorial staff ostensibly to inform the public and observe and comment on society. and they generally pay their contributors of this content. the commercial side is the paid advertising from third parties that are not produced by the editorial staff, nor (usually) subject to input or editing from the staff or publisher. it is not presented as being the view, an observation, or a statement from the paper or magazine itself. and it's not presented as news or information in the publics interest. it's designated and intended purpose is to promote or sell a product or service.

so while it's certainly true that the journalistic integrity and worthiness of most local tv news and lots of other papers, tabloids and magazines is questionable at best, there is still a distinction between content used to sell a commercial product or service which is paid for by the outside providers of those products and services and content put forth by the editorial staff with no intent to sell an outside product

in the case of the photo in question a clear distinction would be that photo being used in a story about the homeless problem in detroit (which is huge!) or even as a stand alone photo with just a caption "man sleeping downtown." as opposed to the acme medical supplies company using the photo saying "our crutches are #1 with the homeless".... or the ponchatrain hotel using the photo and saying "come stay at the best, anyplace else and you might as well be out in the cold" (ugh)

so the question of the outcome of the video tape lawsuit impacting whether he could use his photo editorially is what i was commenting on. those tapes are the product itself, for sale commercially in the same way a movie is. "we have naked girls for sale, come check it out" not, "here is the story of mardi gras, what makes the girl next door come down here and take her clothes off? catch our insightful examination of this question"

the tape producer might be able to successfully argue that there isn't enough of a distinction between a true documentary and his tape, but that's what he'll have to do, he'll have to argue that it's not in fact a commercial use. the question isn't about expectation of privacy, it's about commercial exploitation of a person or likeness. so the outcome won't affect the kinds of uses we were talking about when the tape subject was brought up

now if the guy was going to put together a tape called "homeless on parade" and sell it as an entity by itself with the purpose being simply to gawk at them and pay for the privilege....