All the time. Now, whenever I want to commit a crime, I have to wear a disguise.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Stealthy street shots showing you busted
- Thread starter dpcane
- Start date
Try to remember that disagreeing with Skanter is automatically wrong.
(Sheesh, you'd think you would have learned this already)
He doesn't seem to have a problem with violating people's right to privacy OR breaking the law.
Loading…
www.dpreview.com
skanter
Veteran Member
No, you are usually wrong because you are generally clueless about photography - it has nothing to do with me.
Your photos speak for themselves. Still trying to comprehend how you have more than 46,000 posts - amazing!--
Sam K., NYC
“I’m halfway between tightrope walker and pickpocket.” — HCB
—
Native New Yorker:
http://www.blurb.com/b/7943076
__
Street Gallery:
http://skanter.smugmug.com/NYC-Street-Photography
__
Recent Photos:
https://skanter.smugmug.com/Recent-Photos
Last edited:
kevinparis
Veteran Member
Being European, and Europe based, I do not have a deep understanding of the laws as they pertain in the US.
I don't take your interpretation of the law as it stands as being accurate, as frankly you come across in all your posts as being a narrow minded buffoon whos word or opinion I do not value one bit..
My understanding is that it is OK to shoot without permission in a public space for non commercial purposes.
Whether bars and restaurants are regarded as public spaces I have no idea, I would think under most interpretations they are.
k
I don't take your interpretation of the law as it stands as being accurate, as frankly you come across in all your posts as being a narrow minded buffoon whos word or opinion I do not value one bit..
My understanding is that it is OK to shoot without permission in a public space for non commercial purposes.
Whether bars and restaurants are regarded as public spaces I have no idea, I would think under most interpretations they are.
k
skanter
Veteran Member
It’s fine and legal to shoot inside a private restaurant FROM outside - which is a publc place.
The poster has no idea what he’s talking about, which was apparent even before he said this.
46,000 + posts with this kind of cr*p. . Gotta be some kind of record.
--
Sam K., NYC
“I’m halfway between tightrope walker and pickpocket.” — HCB
—
Native New Yorker:
http://www.blurb.com/b/7943076
__
Street Gallery:
http://skanter.smugmug.com/NYC-Street-Photography
__
Recent Photos:
https://skanter.smugmug.com/Recent-Photos
Last edited:
Son Of Waldo
Leading Member
you didn't include his scolding (but oh so honorable) interpretation of the law which he 'SUPPORTS'!!! so here it is (again):
"The law in the US states that you are not allowed to take a picture of a person without permission, when they have "A reasonable expectation of privacy."
and
"Both of these pictures seem to be taken in restaurants, which mean you violated their rights. I not only approve of this law, I SUPPORT it. Unless I am mistaken about the locations, (In which case you have my apology) then you have no regard for the rights of other people."
Yet just a few days ago he posts this thread in which the second shot sure looks like 'A reasonable expectation of privacy' infraction to me. No Dave, I don't care if you were staggering around or on a pogo stick 'outside of the legal boundaries' of the wine bar, peering in with your pointed camera. Looks like the woman could be whispering something along the lines of 'I wish that strange man would just leave already, what in the hell is he doing?' to which the guy is responding 'Don't worry honey, he'll stagger away soon enough'.
Last edited:
skanter
Veteran Member
He admitted he likes to get “reactions” from people when he shoots them - in this case - in a private cafe. The owner had the legal right to throw him out. What a hypocrite!
Again, it is perfectly legal in the USA to shoot into a private place from a public one, i.e. the street. A little document called the First Ammendment.
M
mschf
Guest
Well, I agree with you, and I think most others did too, caveat being "it depends" but seems you didn't want to hear that the decision whether or not to show those types of photos isn't all that clear-cut. Personally I try my best to never get spotted, I think I'm pretty good at keeping myself "unnoticeable" but if my photo does end up showing awareness by the subject, I have to make a judgement call on it, in a nutshell does the person in the shot look like he's put off and/or do I feel put off about taking the shot.
When I first read your OP, I got the impression you wanted to have an argument because of your choice of words: "sneaky", "busted", "spy photography", "creepy"... I think your wording ensures that people will react defensively.
And the above is 100 percent accurate. You have a problem with someone being 100 percent accurate?
Those people were sitting OUTSIDE, and had no "reasonable expectation of privacy."
I hesitate to say what I think. What you're doing is comparing someone shooting indoors to someone shooting outdoors and claiming their the same thing.
Second of course in Europe the laws are MUCH stricter. In France for example you're not allowed to shoot anyone, indoors or outdoors without permission.
So essentially, you're simply lying out of a trite animosity to me, because I so often make you look the fool.
Son Of Waldo
Leading Member
The CCR of 'street photogaphy': C(ommon courtesy), C(ommon sense), R(udimentary photography skills), none of which appear to be a strength of yours, Dave.
M
mschf
Guest
Everyone who replied,, if not most, understand what you've made the thread about, as I said though, you've phrased a few things that are bound to provoke. It's like you were a corporate sales rep and I called you a peddler while wanting to discuss your product warranty... of course you're going to take issue with the term "peddler".
Which line is anyone blurring exactly?
Again, "sales rep"/"peddler". Your argument isn't what touched nerves, it's your terminology. "Spy photography"?.... what's your thing... landscapes maybe? Would you be ok with me saying you're a rocks and twigs photographer?
If you want to really think of it as spying, then that's what it's been going way way back. You're free to think of it this way; however, I'm sure most here who practice the street genre will agree that you, as someone who I suspect does not practice it, doesn't understand the motives of the photographers. You base all this on images indicating the photographer got "busted"... well, so what? Either getting that eye contact is intended, or inconsequential to the context, or the photographer needs to practice not standing out like a ballerina at a country music concert. This has nothing to do with being "sneaky", not in the way you want to believe it does.
Waist level shooting has absolutely nothing to do with trying to not be noticed. Waist level provides a perspective that is favored by some for certain compositions. I do a lot of WL shooting and honestly, I often feel like I'm signalling my presence more than I would if I was composing at eye level.
Someone out there just wanting to shoot images of hot chicks doesn't make those images automatically "street photography". Same goes for shots of random, average persons. If your gripe boils down to saying the genre has become watered-down through every Tom, **** and Harry shooting monotonous, poorly composed, contextually vacant things and calling it "street", I'll agree with you, the genre used to have a much narrower definition and I'd welcome returning back to a narrower one. But, as I mentioned, images of people looking right at the photographer are, and always were, part & parcel of "street". Sometimes there's a reason for it, sometimes the "glare" wasn't intended but it still wouldn't ruin the shot if the real intent was successfully captured, sometimes yes, they're shots that probably should've been tossed and never shown... but guess what? Rather than lumping us all into one basket, perhaps ask the photographer(s) you have a beef with and judge each one's motivations individually.
Well, I don't call it "spy photography"
Well, it's not "spy photography".
Every photographer notices. To learn the reason(s) for deciding to keep and show that kind of image, as I've said, you should be interviewing individual photographers.
Easy Rider
Veteran Member
Yes taking photos of people in public is the same as espionage.
Oh wait, no its not, that's a completely insane statement.
--
Praise and blame, gain and loss, pleasure and sorrow come and go like the wind. To be happy, rest like a giant tree in the midst of them all.
Oh wait, no its not, that's a completely insane statement.
--
Praise and blame, gain and loss, pleasure and sorrow come and go like the wind. To be happy, rest like a giant tree in the midst of them all.
Last edited:
M
mschf
Guest
I'm too lazy ATM to look this up but from what I remember, that is not the law in France, it's an oversimplification. Permission is not required unless the image is used for commercial purposes (advertising, for example). I think French law on this applies essentially the same as in the US and most other countries.
Here you are defending someone who goes into a private restaurant, while I'm objecting to it, and you turn around and ACCUSE ME of not being courteous. To add insult to injury you have the nerve to say that people drinking in an OUTDOOR cafe have a "reasonable expectation of privacy."
Seems to me that you're leaving no stone unturned to be a fool.
Last edited:
skanter
Veteran Member
Martin, as you probably know, on a regular basis someone will come to these forums attacking and insulting street photographers, describing them as “sneaky”, “unethical” or “illegal”. These are almost always people ignorant of the genre.
There is usually an attempt to explain or inform them about the law and the ethical and artistic POV of the Street Photographer, but it is usually fruitless.
Your effort, however, is appreciated!
Son Of Waldo
Leading Member
whomever untuned the stone on you is the fool.
Easy Rider
Veteran Member
Martin wrt France you are correct.
Sadly in Germany they have made it illegal unless the shot is of larger groups of people and no one person is obviously the focus of the shot.
Of course I highly doubt this will stop German street photography.
Funnily enough a few weeks back as you know I was shooting at st Paul's cathedral. A German woman approaches me and asked am I a journalist and were my photographs for a newspaper. I said no. She just stood staring at me confontationally. She was eating a sandwich so I said to her ah that sandwich, are you a chef? Is it for a newspapers food article. Of course my underlying tone was 'p off and leave me alone.' She stood there befuddled by my questions and then walked off.
Just a bit of a tangent while I wait for my popcorn to heat up
Sadly in Germany they have made it illegal unless the shot is of larger groups of people and no one person is obviously the focus of the shot.
Of course I highly doubt this will stop German street photography.
Funnily enough a few weeks back as you know I was shooting at st Paul's cathedral. A German woman approaches me and asked am I a journalist and were my photographs for a newspaper. I said no. She just stood staring at me confontationally. She was eating a sandwich so I said to her ah that sandwich, are you a chef? Is it for a newspapers food article. Of course my underlying tone was 'p off and leave me alone.' She stood there befuddled by my questions and then walked off.
Just a bit of a tangent while I wait for my popcorn to heat up
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum