-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Was asked to quit shooting
- Thread starter Neverlost99
- Start date
- Status
S
Shadowsurfer
Guest
I grew up in the seventies.Must be something in the water because there didn't seem to be as many perverts, back then, as there are today.
I do think many parents overreact, though.
The perverts were there on the prowl even then. But we were more streetwise perhaps and word soon got around and we knew Mr B the swimming pool attendant liked young boys and gave him a wide berth.
I know parenting is different, and that is a lot of the reason. However, I feel a huge part of the reason that parenting is different is the massive change in privacy with the introduction of the internet and modern social media. Plus, the internet and cable news have come along, and I feel people hear a lot more fear-mongering based on rare events than They did in the past.
S
Shadowsurfer
Guest
I happened to read this article on Spiked today. On one hand if you dare to photograph children in a public place you risk being on the receiving end of a lynch mob, but now the "experts" are trying to make it just another life choice that must be accepted. The Spiked article is worth reading.
From the free and easy sixties and seventies, that I traversed whilst growing up, we have somehow arrived to live in a neurotic society with a "bogey man" around every corner. Im sure the press and television are to blame. Fear sells copies and views.
Street photography was my first love photographically and I love the genre when it is done properly with respect towards the subjects. It even got me a job working for a local news magazine when I first moved to Italy.
But now it is just too much hassle. Maybe because I was young and in my twenties I could get away with it without comment because we all know young people are not creeps. And maybe a guy with grey hair photographing the comings and goings on the street must be a creep, " a dirty old man" was my mothers definition.
In general now photography is more difficult, I have had problems photographing buildings. I was photographing some light and shadow effects on a façade and a woman ( who never appeared in the shots I took) demanded to see my pictures. I should of just told her to F*** off, but to avoid hassle I just let her see the LCD.
I have an archive of pictures showing life in our Italian town in the eighties. It is becoming history now. With the new rampant neurosis, will future generations be able to look at how life was " back then" in 2022. They might be able to look at some newspapers of the time with all the faces of the people blurred out for reasons of "privacy".
From the free and easy sixties and seventies, that I traversed whilst growing up, we have somehow arrived to live in a neurotic society with a "bogey man" around every corner. Im sure the press and television are to blame. Fear sells copies and views.
Street photography was my first love photographically and I love the genre when it is done properly with respect towards the subjects. It even got me a job working for a local news magazine when I first moved to Italy.
But now it is just too much hassle. Maybe because I was young and in my twenties I could get away with it without comment because we all know young people are not creeps. And maybe a guy with grey hair photographing the comings and goings on the street must be a creep, " a dirty old man" was my mothers definition.
In general now photography is more difficult, I have had problems photographing buildings. I was photographing some light and shadow effects on a façade and a woman ( who never appeared in the shots I took) demanded to see my pictures. I should of just told her to F*** off, but to avoid hassle I just let her see the LCD.
I have an archive of pictures showing life in our Italian town in the eighties. It is becoming history now. With the new rampant neurosis, will future generations be able to look at how life was " back then" in 2022. They might be able to look at some newspapers of the time with all the faces of the people blurred out for reasons of "privacy".
Michael Fryd
Forum Pro
To be fair, people want to be able to control the use of their likeness. This extends to parents wanting to be able to control use of their children's likenesses.
Imagine that you were walking along the street, and a photographer took a photo of you. The photo turned out wonderfully, and he sold a print for $15K in a gallery. Would you be happy with someone else making $15K on a photo of you, and you had no say in the process whatsoever?
Now I am not talking about what it legal or not. I am talking about how people feel. People want to be able to have some sort of handle on their privacy.
In terms of privacy, there's a big difference between a photo taken 50 years ago and a photo taken today. 50 years ago, if some guy at a park took a photo of kids in a park, that photo likely would not be seen by anyone other than that guy. Today, if some guy takes a photo of kids in a park, it is plausible that the image could be shared on the Internet and viewed by millions.
In the USA, it's generally legal to take photos of people in public when you are on public property. If you are in a public park, taking photos ok kids playing, you may not be breaking any laws. This doesn't mean that the parents are going to be happy, nor does it mean that the parents are going to have a good understanding of the law.
Keep in mind the fact that an activity is legal, is not the same as saying it is something you should do. For instance, if you see someone walking past you on the street, it's generally legal to volunteer to them that you think they are ugly. That doesn't mean that this is something you should do.
The question here, is not one of legality, but one of morality. Is it ethical to incorporate someone's likeness into your art when they object to you doing so?
I'm not suggesting that I know the answer, just that it's an important question to consider.
S
Shadowsurfer
Guest
It has never crossed my mind, that I should control my sons likeness.
It would not bother me at all. I might ask him for a print though. The history of photography is full of this type of photography. Bresson's man jumping over a puddle for example.
People have been made neurotic. I do not give a F**** if somebody photographs me in a public place. It cannot harm me in any way. A photograph cannot steel my soul.
And what harm will be done by a picture on the internet, seen by millions?
The problem is that today we have a lot of neurotic self aware people who think their right to a so called "privacy" trump everybody else's rights.
Probably not and when I shot for a local magazine I would desist if sombody objected. Just good manners
I think the answer is that we all need to relax a bit.
Richard B99
Senior Member
You are right, “nobody thought twice”. That’s in its own way was a terrible oversight. It turns out 50 years later that we find out that those most like to be a danger to kids are those closest too them or those who spend time engaging and striking up a relationship in any manner to groom them. There are too many reports from 50 years ago of children being abused over many years without any intervention by anyone. It’s a real shame that we need to be more vigilant but that is the real lesson of the past, not that they were the good old days.
S
Shadowsurfer
Guest
When we were teenagers we knew by word of mouth who the perverts were.Must be something in the water because there didn't seem to be as many perverts, back then, as there are today.
I do think many parents overreact, though.
Mr B the swimming pool attendant was so well known that his name was used a an insult in our gergo at school; "you are a real B****** we would" say.
We all knew the local newspaper shop owner paid "half a crown" extra for extra services to his "good paperboys".
Michael Fryd
Forum Pro
Different people care about different things. The fact that something is not important to you does not mean it isn't important to others.
Suppose I shot a photo of your son playing on a swing set in a public park. Are you suggesting that you would have no problem with me using that photo in an advertisement for the swing set manufacturer. After all, you seem to have no desire to control the use of your son's likeness.
Now you may point out that use in an advertisement is "commercial use." But that's a legal distinction. If you don't care to control use of your son't likeness, then it doesn't matter whether the use is commercial, artistic, instagram, or personal use.
I was once shooting a model who had just turned 18. Her mother was proudly telling me that when her daughter was 15, she was earning $500/day plus airfare. Apparently some guy paid her that to take photos of her feet for his "personal collection." While that mother was clearly OK with it. I don't think I would be happy with someone whacking off to photos of my 15 year old child's feet.
Again, you could take the position that no harm is coming to the child. But you could also take the position that no harm comes to a person when someone hacks their phone and releases to the world their private sex tape.
Like it or not, people want to be able to exert some control over their privacy. As you have pointed out, we don't have universal agreement as to where to draw the line as to what people should be able to control.
Yes. History is full of lots of things. In retrospect, many of the things that were common in the past, are now considered to be bad. Slavery is one example. It used to be quite common, and acceptable in the USA. Society no longer thinks that's the case.
While it doesn't steal your soul, unwanted publicity can cause quite a bit of aggravation. Suppose someone posts a photo of you with a caption that makes you look foolish. That could easily hurt your social standing with people you know who recognize you. If you are a salesperson, it could undermine your air of authority. Bad publicity can absolutely cause non-physical harm in today's society.
Suppose someone snuck a camera into the girls locker room at your daughter's school, and posted nude photos of her on the Internet. Would you say that no harm is done by posting that photo on the Internet?
In fact, are you suggesting that we legalize naked photos of children (as long as the child was not aware that the photo was taken). By your reasoning, if the child didn't know there was a hidden camera there, how could it possibly harm the child?
Now, you might say that there is a difference between a naked photo of a child and of a child paying on a swing set. That's a fair thing to say, but the key difference is that you think one is wrong, and the other is OK. Why should you be the one who decides which photos are acceptable of other people's kids?
It's a tough question. Why do you think you have a "right" to take photos of people in public, yet people don't have a right to "privacy"?
The problem here is that we have conflicting rights, and it is not always trivial to decide on the best compromise.
Some will suggest that it is good manners to refrain from taking anyone's photo when they object.
I agree. We should have a relaxed conversation on the topic. We don't need to call people neurotic, simply because they have different values than we do.
When our older daughter was in 1st or 2nd grade, (about 1980) a neighbor's dog wandered into the outdoor gym class. My daughter told the teacher that she would walk the dog home, and the teacher let her do that. Cannot imagine that happening today.
About 10 years ago I was taking photos of a kids soccer game in a public park. One of the mother's asked me what I was doing. When I told her that my grandson was playing in the game, she said okay. She didn't check, so I could have been lying. I'm not sure I would say that if it weren't true.
A few years ago I was in Key West for Fantasy Fest. One evening my husband and I attended the "Red Party", As the title suggests, all attendees must be wearing red as the predominate color. Fantasy Fest being what it is, there were mobs of people, mostly guys, taking pictures everywhere.
Fast forward and I was at a coworkers house for an after work visit. I told her I had been in Key West and she started to laugh and said "wait until I show you a picture a friend of mine sent me." She then pulled up on her computer a picture from the Red Party and pointed out two women smiling for the camera and all in red including devil horn headbands. She pointed to her friend and seemed shocked that the woman was naked, except for the devil horns and wearing red body paint. She got even bigger shock when I pointed out that the second woman in the image was me, except I was wearing clothes.
I don't expect privacy in public places, especially not at a street party. So my rule has always been to act and dress as if my boss, my grand children, or even my deceased parents would be seeing me.
Fast forward and I was at a coworkers house for an after work visit. I told her I had been in Key West and she started to laugh and said "wait until I show you a picture a friend of mine sent me." She then pulled up on her computer a picture from the Red Party and pointed out two women smiling for the camera and all in red including devil horn headbands. She pointed to her friend and seemed shocked that the woman was naked, except for the devil horns and wearing red body paint. She got even bigger shock when I pointed out that the second woman in the image was me, except I was wearing clothes.
I don't expect privacy in public places, especially not at a street party. So my rule has always been to act and dress as if my boss, my grand children, or even my deceased parents would be seeing me.
Phil A Martin
Veteran Member
I can't speak for the USA but in the UK, any professional photographer engaging with children, would have to undergo a criminal records check and rightly so.
Phil A Martin
Veteran Member
There are stories that relate to this issue in James Joyce's The Dubliners and that was published in 1914. This is hardly a new issue but thankfully it's no longer ignored. The event organisers were quite right in "politely" asking the OP to stop.
It violates no laws! There’s nothing the police can do about it if you’re in public. You can choose to be polite and not shoot children, but it is legal to do.
Last edited:
cnyphotoguy
Leading Member
Obviously depends on the country/local laws, but for anywhere that yes, it is completely legal it doesn't mean that you won't be harassed by others in the area or the law if they show up. Thus, the recommendation to just not do it.
"Suppose someone snuck a camera into the girls locker room at your daughter's school, and posted nude photos of her on the Internet. Would you say that no harm is done by posting that photo on the Internet?"
Of course that is illegal. So you choose the most extreme examples to make a point. That is not the same as taking photos in a public place.
Some people get mad when they see me wearing a mask. That is their problem, just as it is their problem if you take photos in a public place. Of course if they get violent, that becomes my problem too.
I agree of someone asks you to stop taking photos of them, you should agree even if you have the legal right.
What do you say to photographers who are taking photos for a news organization? Should they stop taking photos of a newsworthy event if someone asks them to stop?
Of course that is illegal. So you choose the most extreme examples to make a point. That is not the same as taking photos in a public place.
Some people get mad when they see me wearing a mask. That is their problem, just as it is their problem if you take photos in a public place. Of course if they get violent, that becomes my problem too.
I agree of someone asks you to stop taking photos of them, you should agree even if you have the legal right.
What do you say to photographers who are taking photos for a news organization? Should they stop taking photos of a newsworthy event if someone asks them to stop?
People can ask you anything they want, and we should be polite. But it is legal to photograph anything you wish when you’re in public. You can’t be ordered to stop. Your camera and photos cannot be confiscated. Parents who feel threatened by photography need to understand what is and isn’t an actual threat.
Let me clarify: ANYWHERE in the United States.
S
Shadowsurfer
Guest
If it finished in a local newspaper I would be quite pleased.
If it was used for advertising then they are breaking the law, and no commercial photographer would dare do such a thing.
But even though a lack of correctness was shown , it would not bother me too much. I would ask them for some payment, but I would not lose any sleep.
Some parents do not mind prostituting their daughters. The antics of Mr Epstein and Ms Maxwell prove this point. Some mothers willing let their daughters fall into the clutches of these two animals.
At least here that is a crime. Most sex tapes are not made in public places by strangers.
It is quite easy and the law is simple in most countries. If you are in a public place I can photograph you and I cannot complain if sombody photographs me.
I dress and behave in public with this in mind.
Slavery still exists in some African countries. It seems some cheap Chinese goods are made my slave labour in a certain part of the country. Nobody seems to mind too much as we only seem to worry about bad white guys from the 18th and 19th century who died long ago and not the guys doing it right now. Some big corporations even get some financial rewards and we save money at the shops.
The law of slander and libel protect me.
This is a crime and the guy would spend some nice time in prison if he did that in most countries.
Again we are talking about breaking the law and again the perpetrator would serve time in the perverts section of our local jail where life is not too sweet.
Because the law says it is legal for me to take pictures of anybody in a public space. The law says I can decide to publish for non commercial use. It is my right.
In a public space people do not have a right to privacy. The law has decided this in most jurisdictions. Privacy and Public Space is an oxymoron.
No, the law is clear in most jurisdictions.
That is what i said. It is a question of being civil.
Unfortunately a lot of people are neurotic in the medical sense of the word. A lot of people believe the world revolves around their so called "rights" even when they do not jhave them.
- Status
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum