Response to KM09

Speaking of which, I recently found this quote on another site. I don't know whom it is from (he just called himself "Bob"), but he seems to be someone in the artistic world. Here are his thoughts on street photography:

"Most 'street photography' is itself pointless, exploitative, vacuous crap
masquerading as insight and concern, but hiding a boundless vapidity.
Its pompous, pseudo-profundity is chaff thrown out to hide the true
depths of its shallowness."

Now, I'm not an art critic, so I can't really comment on this. But even aside from its potentially abusive nature, it sounds like there are those even in the artistic world who think that a lot (not all, he did use the word "most"), of it is, well, not quite as impressive as some of you think it is.

KM09 said:

Speaking of which, I recently found this quote on another site. I don't know whom it is from (he just called himself "Bob"), but he seems to be someone in the artistic world. Here are his thoughts on street photography:

"Most 'street photography' is itself pointless, exploitative, vacuous crap
masquerading as insight and concern, but hiding a boundless vapidity.
Its pompous, pseudo-profundity is chaff thrown out to hide the true
depths of its shallowness."

Now, I'm not an art critic, so I can't really comment on this. But even aside from its potentially abusive nature, it sounds like there are those even in the artistic world who think that a lot (not all, he did use the word "most"), of it is, well, not quite as impressive as some of you think it is.

Click to expand...

One person's chaff is another person's masterpiece. It's all subjective...

I need to bring my participation in this to a close, so I will say this. Most on here, including me would disagree that laws should be put into place that prevent people from making images with other people in them in public. We risk losing too much that has nothing to do with photography if that happens.

But I hear you..I hear the other "You's" that don't post here but air their concern to me directly. So I listen, because I think it is really important to do so and in this dialog might emerge the answers in how we should all move forward.

None of us wants to live in a world where people are too paranoid about being exploited to be who they are in public. None of us wants to live in a world in that the recording of one of life's brilliant but respectful candid moments is no longer legal to pursue.

But this is all coming to a head and something has to give, the fact that it has occurred in France and the UK is a symptom of a bigger problem. And for some of us who are professionals and live the photographic life, this is of paramount importance, we don't want our work to be the last of it's kind.

So KM09, look at the work of the real street shooters, Bresson, Frank, Winogrand, Harvey, Allard and Webb and consider the impact it has had on our lives. And to the rest of you, please, for once consider the people you photograph and post on the internet if you have no other need to other than personal ego stroking. For that too, is having a negative impact in some cases.

Consider going back to making prints and sharing them with your circle of peers who can both appreciate your work and honestly critique it without fear of Net-Retribution posts on their work if they don't care for yours.

But most importantly, consider the people you are photographing and that if we don't do something to move forward in this, it could very well be done for us.

Good luck and good light...

--

'Digital is like shaved legs on a man - very smooth and clean but there is something
acutely disconcerting about it.'

Dan Nikon said:

Every time you reply to my post, it is all about your rights

Click to expand...

No, it is about OUR rights, all of us.

KM09 said:

KM09 said:

You won't change anything.

Click to expand...

Famous last words...

Click to expand...

No, Im afraid Brian is right. You are just so lacking.

I think you should have a look at one of my posts describing how things work in France before defaming a whole nation.

First it is never a criminal court, just a civil court. All you are liable for is damage, as long as there is no defamation involved (in a French court to be sued for defamation, you need to make a false claim with a will to cause damage, obviously not the case of any of your shots, and even you would decided to defame a stranger, you would get a 1 week suspended sentence or so). Usually damages are very very very low, but the important part is the astreinte . (already explained)

Second, if something is newsworthy, it is not a problem to publish, and anyway, it's the editor that would be sued in case of problem. But in France, a politician having an affair is not considered newsworthy, except if he already used his private life with a political purpose. A president can have a walk in Paris pushing an illegitimate daughter's pushchair, it's not going to be in the news the next day. (at least that happened in the 90's and didn't make it nto the news)

Third, it's different from defaming because you can be sued for a photo that is true and with a comment that is true.

There is a report abuses link on the bottom of every flickr page ...bet the OP didnt even use it ...so much for the fight.

The flickr page that was provided by Dan is childish, idiotic and mean but it does not require such a drastic response as the one he suggests. We should not erode our freedom in the name of childish idiotic behavior , its bad enough that its been eroded by other more dangerous idiots that blow up planes.

The social pressure for this type of thing to stop will grow and it will sort itself out....in this case I dont mind a bit of social manipulation/engineering by the media, we certainly get enough of it on a daily basis, but please no more laws.

Dan may want thing to go back as they were a few years ago where only a few restricted and privileged number of people could get their photos/videos seen but I dont think people will allow this. The ease and ability to show your work to others around the world is one of the most wonderful things that came out of the internet and long may it live.

If you abuse the system you may suffer consequences and if you have been offended by someone then you take them to court, thats the normal procedure, not censorship.

I've tried to read as many posts over these two threads as I can handle/stomach, but after this recent outburst, one thing has been made clear...to me, and that is you are obsessed with this cause to the point of irrational fanaticism, and no amount of contrary opinion has made you open your mind even in the slightest to other lines of thinking. You've made assumptions based on nothing but your opinions throughout both threads to the point where I think you hold them to be true and absolute. Your extremely generalized comments about how street photographers think and feel are absurd to the point of offensive.

While I am finished with these threads even though you may or may not respond strongly to me, I just have to say that if you are this maniacally obsessed with any of the thousands and thousands of other issues in life as you are with this one, I would be worried about having a nervous breakdown...and this is not said with any malice in mind. Good luck to you.

KM09 said:

Yes, I misread that. Sorry. But you still didn't get my point. Crippling photography isn't the issue. Some of you seem to think that if your activities are curtailed, it would have a crippling effect on society. I'm saying that's a bit delusional.

Click to expand...

I think many see it as a curtailment of freedom of expression. (That is why I sent you the previous court rulings, because it's clear that that is the interpretation taken in at least one of the rulings.) I'll leave you to argue with others on this front.

KM09 said:

There's no other way to say this: I simply don't believe you. I doubt Dan Nikon would either, unless you have some kind of "magic touch," or something. Again, do celebrities love being photographed by the paparazzi and then having that image published?

Click to expand...

I think you're making the mistake of equating 'paparazzi' style photography with more general people/street photography.

I'd like again to emphasize that there's a difference between connecting to someone and letting them know that you are watching them, and seeing how they respond, allowing them to communicate to you that they don't want to be watched, versus giving them veto power over your ability to express using their image. I encourage you to recognize that this would change the dynamic considerably, because it shifts the status quo.

KM09 said:

It's the same relationship. I guess one could say that the paparazzi are to celebrities as street photographers are to ordinary people.

Click to expand...

No, I don't think that's necessarily the case; you're point seems right: it's the relationship. I don't see a paparazzo even attempting to forge a relationship with his/her subject.

KM09 said:

KM09 said:

That's what the proposed UK law would do. It's terrible. They're probably going to lose the election.

Click to expand...

And you think this issue is why? They're just feeling the wrath of the street photographers?

Click to expand...

Ha. Ha. Encroaching nanny state. Even people who don't want their photos taken realize when their civil liberties are being curtailed. But I didn't mean this issue will topple the election. Just that it serves them right...

KM09 said:

Thanks to Dan Nikon, you've even been SHOWN some of this abuse today, and he's told you about others. Why can't you accept this?

Click to expand...

Let's be brutally honest: Dan Nikon has given one example. The same guy over and over again. That doesn't mean I don't believe he has further evidence, especially as he claims to have been in the biz 25 years or so. And if it's some idiot in the corner of flickr getting 58 hits total, then I'm not so worried. Dan has taken the trouble to explain why he believes what he does, but let's not pretend it was that example that was supposed to convince me.

I also agree with the line of argument about the role of the 1st Amendment, and the fact that many abuses are already covered. But I'll defer to others on that, since I don't want to argue on two fronts at the same time.

KM09 said:

XandXor, you know what? You seem somewhat more reasonable than some people here, but as pointed out in my paragraph about getting permission, I do think you are somewhat in denial, so my conversation with you is getting pointless. I actually don't mean that in a "mean" way. It's just true.

Click to expand...

Well, it's possible we're talking somewhat cross purposes. I don't advocate the kind of aggressive street photography that bothers you. I agree with Dan Nikon that we need to develop a respect for the people we interact with. Although I think that goes without saying. And so I don't think I experience the problems because maybe I don't do enough aggressive photography.

In any case, one of my very favorite photographers today is a 'street photographer', who has even won acclaim for presenting tough subject matter with respect. I think that's half a world away from paparazzi. And I am confident that much of that work could not have been done had consent been required in writing. And it is a service to society. No, society will not collapse, but it does form an essential part of the way we see ourselves now, and in the future. Despite what you may think, taping American Idol is not a good enough record of our true state of being.

andy.

KM09, a word of advice, since you are new here: if you make a point that you want to refer to repeatedly, bookmark your own post and copy the link. Repeatedly putting the onus of thread hunting on your audience will hinder your cause.

KM09 said:

Yes, tko, I did. I guess you're going to have to do some thread hunting, because I'm not going through it again. Now, true, I never wrote down the law word for word, but that's not really my job. But I've stated all the principles. Lemonchot has helped with this as well. Read some of his posts if necessary.

Click to expand...

onlooker said:

And as I said to KM, what sanctions do you propose? How are we do discuss anything, if KM refuses to say exactly what he wants to do? Flat out taking the right to photograph in public is not going to work, ever. It is not going to happen. I am sure you can see that.

Click to expand...

KM will make vague references to France, but I think you have to realize that politically it is most in KM's interest not to get pinned down. Classic vague politicking.

KM,

would you be willing to divulge your political affiliation? It's just that I want to know if I've wasted my time with a clinically paranoid tea-partyer*. I would appreciate if you could assuage my fears.

• yes yes, I know some of them are libertarians with nowhere better to go, but you don't give the impression of being a libertarian.

andy.

KM09 said:

karma13612 said:

I KNOW this is a photography forum, but since KM09 opened the door on Obama and cell phones, I really need to respond.

Obama is not using our cell phones to track us.

Obama is utilizing modern communications to contact his supporters so we can work together to get some decent progress in this country using the 'grass roots' approach.

Click to expand...

Wrong. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10453214-38.html

Click to expand...

I see paparazzi being talked of as evil incarnate, and how they damage poor celebrities, and how we should be outraged and ban street photography because of that. Just to inject a bit of reality here. I have no great sympathy for paparazzi because I have no interest in hunting people with my camera, but if you folks think that overall celebrities would thank you for shutting them down, you are delusional. Publicity is gold in Hollywood. Even with occasional leaches, it is a symbiotic relationship.

Who is Dan Nikon and why is he an authority?

If a public beach is designated topless or nude and the local governing authority has a "no photos" ordinance, then everyone should respect that. That is not the kind of all encompassing legislation you are talking about. Such a place can hardly be regarded as "public" anyway in the sense that we are discussing.

If a young lady decides to go topless in some public place and thereby ruins her reputation, I (and any other sane person) would consider her to be the cause of her own demise. It may be because someone takes her picture or it might be because the wrong observer sees her at the wrong time.

I have often felt sorry for college students who are caught in pictures in some compromising situation during "spring break" celebration or some similar event. Such imagery could certainly hurt their chances at future employment, for example. I do not hold the photographer accontable as it was their choice. A drunken stupor is no excuse.

In the larger sense, what you are saying by demanding strict controls on photography is that people in general should not have to suffer the consequences of their own behavior. My personal opinion is that this sort of thinking will ultimately lead to the demise of our society.

You keep using the example of the Government tracking people by way of cell phone as some sort of significant example, even though it is largely unrelated. I will tell you that I don't care whether the Government tracks me or not except I would hate to see such a waste of taxpayer dollars. They would find me to be an extremely boring subject. In fact, I have a Blackberry with a GPS in it and I leave it enabled all the time. I am well aware that my location can be exactly determined by that hardware. If I were to want to go somewhere that nobody could track me, I would turn my phone off. How silly can you get!??

XandXor,

I said that I didn't want to continue our conversation further, but that's a really good question and I think I should answer it. I am very much an independent, and have increasingly found myself disliking both parties. But it's so funny that you would ask if I'm one of those tea party people, because I was thinking the same exact thing about most of you. In fact, one thing that kept running through my head throughout this that I bet a lot of you are also the "you're never going to take my guns away from me" type -- you know, Second Amendment freaks. Now, if that's NOT true, I also have to wonder if some of you who feel so passionately about the First Amendment take a very different position on the Second Amendment. Kind of like, I think, the ACLU. You know, having an almost religious zeal about the one amendment, but pretty much disregarding another.

Anyway, and if I offend some people here with this (as I've probably offended you enough already), no, I am NOT a tea partier, and pretty much think that they're nuts. In fact, I am VERY much in favor of universal healthcare. Remember, just because I'm writing on this forum about this issue, doesn't mean I'm a single-issue guy. But I take issues one at a time, not what some party tells me to think. I think it's fair to say that I agree with Michael Moore on healthcare, guns, and to an extent, capitalism, **** Cheney on national security, and Pat Buchanan on immigration. So what does that make me politically? Probably other than "independent," there's no word for it. I like to think that it means that I can think for myself.

I just can't take any more time on this, so I'll write just a brief closing message. Then you can all go back to talking amongst yourselves about how great street photography is. One thing I want to emphasize again is that in most cases, I'm all for freedom of expression. For example, unlike MANY people (including many politicians and even Supreme Court justices), I'm against any law/amendment that would ban flag burning. I hate flag burning, and don't know what would possess someone to express themselves in that manner, but I do think it's part of a free society. As long as the flag they are burning is their own flag, not one they stole from someone else's flagpole. And yes, I know, that would be theft anyway, but that's not the point. The point is that when someone burns a flag, he/she is expressing him/herself THROUGH him/herself and ONLY through him/herself.

That problem with non-consensual street photography (with, without permission, is exactly what it is), is that you're involving another person in your expression. There is another side to the equation. And, as I think many of you know, though may not admit, is that if you had to ask permission, many would not grant you such permission. You don't think that's reasonable? Maybe not, but it's their life, not yours, and I don't think you have any right to interject yourself into it. Which when you PUBLISH (again, that's the key here) the image, you are doing. And to me, this is the essence of the case against non-consensual street photography. Ultimately, it's doing onto somebody something that they don't want done onto them. Now you may think that in doing so, you're providing some great service to society, but I think that's debatable. Remember, even in countries in which restrictions are taking place, if you could make a case that the image is truly in the public interest, it's acceptable even without permission. But getting back to my point, such a law requiring permission would simply prevent people, not guilty of any crime whatsoever, from having something done to them that they don't want done to them. To my mind, that's exactly what laws are for.

KM09 (in the previous thread) said:

Quite simply, I would like to see, and will spend the rest of my life fighting for if necessary, is a law in the United States restricting street photography.

Click to expand...

I have sworn to protect the constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic, and I will do so against you and your ilk.

You are acting like a sociopath here in that you are showing a distinct lack of empathy for the thousands of street photographers who practice their art in a compassionate and consensual manner so that you can stop the one or two who take photos of others in public places to humiliate or for other juvenile purposes. And I don't believe that it is hyperbole to suppose that the ratio is on the order of a thousand compassionate artists to a couple of juveniles.

Certainly your exhortations to search Google images for "street photography" turned up little to support your arguments. The 238th picture is of a woman who seemed uncomfortable with her picture being taken, but it was used as an example of such and not as an attempt to humiliate. I went 500+ images deep into the search results and I have reached the conclusion that this example tends to refute rather than buttress your assertions.

How deep did you have to dig to find examples of people using their cameras to humiliate people in public? I am beginning to suspect that you were somehow humiliated by someone posting a compromising picture of you so now you are on a crusade against anyone who takes pictures in a public place.

KM09 said:

If people decades from now want to learn about culture in 2010, they could pop in a DVD of American Idol.

Click to expand...

I don't think you could have picked a more sociopathic TV show if you tried. Is that how you would like to see American culture recorded for posterity? A panel of sociopaths, completely devoid of empathy, humiliating a long line of people attempting to share their talent and creativity? I think that we need people such as street photographers to show what life is really like, not the canned and contrived corporate media that is far removed from reality, especially in the "Reality Show" genre. Here you have provided one of the strongest arguments against limiting individual creativity that I've seen in these two threads.

KM09 said:

First of all, I really don't appreciate the condescending attitude (the shred of logic comment, etc.). While I didn't really want to go down this road, as I really don't want to make this about myself, I can assure you that I want to a college that most people would consider "elite," and work in a profession in which logic/analysis is an essential component. Not to be, whatever, but there is no doubt in my mind that a lot of what I've said hasn't been understood because it is over the head of some of the participants.

Click to expand...

So now you are not only displaying sociopathic behavior, you are exhibiting hypocrisy. You object to what you consider a condescending statement by one person(though I agree your argument is lacking in logic) then in the same paragraph sink even lower by making a sweeping statement impugning the ability of "some of the participants" to understand what you are saying. Your comment is both condescending and patronizing.

KM09 said:

Your premise that somehow EVERYTHING that goes on in public is everyone's business (even the kind of images that the very sensible and professional photographer Dan Nikon linked to) just by virtue of it being in a public place, that just by being in a public place, you need to be consenting to basically performing on the world stage (again, which the Internet basically is), and, maybe most of all, that limiting one's right to serve as "big brother" against one's fellow civilians WITHOUT PERMISSION (again, if you get permission, it's a totally different story) would somehow turn us into some kind of tyrannical state, is what lacks logic.

Click to expand...

Most street photographers will try to make eye contact, smile, and try to get the subject to nod or otherwise indicate that they are OK with having their picture taken. Suggesting that the photographer get a signature changes the whole dynamic. Now, instead of consenting to an anonymous picture, the subject is being asked to identify themselves and sign a piece of paper. Many who would be OK with the photo would not be willing to sign a piece of paper(I have found this to be true when attempting to get model releases signed).

In fact, trying to get that signature and have the person identify themselves is far more of a "Big Brother" act than taking an anonymous photograph, and even if you could get the legal basis for "expectation of privacy" redefined(good luck with that) there is no way to enforce it without employing even more "Big Brother" tactics.

You claim you are looking out for the average joe... Well, that's what Karl Marx said, as well as Stalin and many others. I'm not going to invoke Godwin's Law, hopefully you get the point.

Cont'd...

There is already law and precedent that can be used to issue takedown notices if a humiliating or compromising picture is posted. There is no need to dismantle our freedoms or redefine "expectation of privacy" to effectively deal with a few juveniles.

Part of the reason this country is in such a mess(kids forced onto Ritalin & other drugs, education reduced to uselessness, etc.) is because of people failing to take responsibility for their own actions and what happens in their personal space. American jurisprudence is rife with examples of unintended consequences, where(well-meaning or not) laws are put into effect that do more harm than good. Many people want a nanny state that will tell them what they can and cannot do at every turn, and this is killing us as a nation and as a people. Today, an artist such as Gillian Lynne would be drugged out of her mind on Ritalin/prozac/etc. in her early years in school and we would all be poorer for it -- read the second paragraph about her early life and education here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gillian_Lynne#Early_life_and_education I encourage you to view the TED video of a presentation by Sir Ken Robinson that is cited as source material for that paragraph. Your crusade is IMHO one such example and I will do everything I can to prevent efforts such as yours from making it into the law books, or if they do I will support efforts to test and overturn them on appeal.

Before you bring up the Obama/cell phone example again, it's worth mentioning that none of the last 5 US Presidents have upheld their oath to protect and defend the Constitution and in any case using the growth of the Police State in America is in itself no justification to further erode our freedoms.

While you are spouting off about the Constitution, I do hope you realize that the Constitution does not mention anything about a right to privacy. That so called right has been derived from other articles in a rather convoluted fashion. My opinion on the Constitution is that it should be ammended to specifically guarantee a right to privacy and spell out exactly what that means. Of course, the Supreme Court has been about as willing to redefine the meaning of common words as Bill Clinton and even that might not be a solution to the problem. Until that happens, issues like the one you have brought up will continue to be controversial. If the ammendment addresses photography in the manner you are after, then so be it.