Wow, the world has changed, people are so paranoid about being in a photo

A number of years ago when my grandson was entering his first day in kindergarten, I like so many others was in the classroom taking pics of that monumental day. Everyone else was taking phone pics(shocker eh?) I was the only one with a camera though it was a compact canon sx230 -actually smaller than any phone there. I was with my wife and her daughter. The principal confronted me about taking pics saying some parents didn't like their kids to be in anyone's pics. She said nothing to the 20 people taking pics with phones. crazy huh? I didn't respond as it was the kid's first day of school life and I didn't want him to pay for it for the next 5 yrs. I simply ignored her and went on with my business. I guess phones don't count. I don't have any interest in people pics beyond the grandson and an occasional wife pic. They don't mind. I live in a place where you have to assume everyone else is armed so getting pi$$ed off over taking a pic might be not worth the trouble. I lived in the NYC area for 20 years and I got sick of seeing people and don't find that kind of photography interesting although I realize it's a quick way to become an artist. ;-)

Exactly. Endless examples on the internet of pictures and videos posted pranking and/or making fun of private persons by attention starved jerks "just for the lulz."

UsherFellig said:

NiVoak said:

Just-Visiting said:

Having a camera doesn't give an individual or a group the right to record another person's activity, whether in public or not.

Click to expand...

Sorry to disappoint you but in the UK, EU and USA along with most other states, it does.

You have no right to stop people including you in a picture for non commercial use.

Yes, I am free to photograph that guy picking his nose on the high street. So watch out!

I can even post it to social media if I wish!

UsherFellig said:

Privacy is a right and not a luxury.

Just because Georgia Okeefe, Aldous Huxley, Hemmingway, and the like induged in mind altering narcotics doesn't make their behaviour good or justifiable, despite or in spite of their supposedly artistic credentials.

Click to expand...

What has this got to do with photographing people in public places? Nothing.

UsherFellig said:

If I take a photo of a swan swimming down a river, can I ask their permission, are they aware of my activity; no, however, how much respect do you have for your fellow human and their own life values?

Click to expand...

Birds and other animals are not too worried about being photographed. It is those idiots who go hunting them with a gun, who they are concerned about.

UsherFellig said:

Photography may or may not be a crime, but it isn't a human right.

Click to expand...

Nobody has ever taught you the phrase: "freedom of expression". I am free to make art in public places.

Click to expand...

Well, different places in the world have different laws about what you are free to do with a camera in public places.

And different places in the world have different laws about what you are free to do with images you take in public places of people who have not signed a use consent.

Click to expand...

I tend to stay in Europe where I am free to Insta, the picture of that guy picking his nose.

Yes, the law is different in North Korea, where taking a shot of Kim picking his nose will get me shot.

Immanuel Kant's Humanity Imperative

"Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end."

— Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals

By taking people's images without their consent, we use them as means to achieve our own goals, without respect for their will and autonomy.

tbcass said:

jaymc said:

New York is the same way, more so with their bridges and buildings. Police there thinking you may be a terrorist casing out targets.

Click to expand...

You must be talking about New York City because upstate is not like that at all.

Click to expand...

You are correct; I am talking about NYC.

Boris22 said:

The principal confronted me about taking pics saying some parents didn't like their kids to be in anyone's pics. She said nothing to the 20 people taking pics with phones. crazy huh?

Click to expand...

What's sick about this is these are people selected for the education process of our children and they don't have the common sense of a toad stool yet they are trusted shaping the minds of our future generations. That principal is a walking example of the Peter Principle in action.

ZodiacPhoto said:

Immanuel Kant's Humanity Imperative

"Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end."

— Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals

By taking people's images without their consent, we use them as means to achieve our own goals, without respect for their will and autonomy.

Click to expand...

Our goal can be to celebrate their individuality and autonomy.

Street photos that illustrate the inherent value and dignity of others meet Kant's criteria.

All the great street photographers were and are Kantian.

A lot has been written about Kant and photography (example ).

Chris Noble said:

UsherFellig said:

On global and domestic levels there are also changing attitudes and sensitivities about "privilege," "cultural appropriation," and "colonialism." It is undeniable that many leading names in the history of this genre of photography are/were White males from countries whose history of colonialism and plunder of art and cultural objects is currently undergoing a reckoning or questioning. And in photography the "taking" and "shooting" of people of heritages or genders that have been on the receiving end of that is a very loaded issue in some quarters.

Click to expand...

It's a woke guilt/victim class obsession, with a very narrow but vocal constituency, mostly in leftist communities in the US. Fortunately, most people are not woke, and treat others as individuals, without racial/cultural bias or resentment for past actions by other people long gone.

But I agree, be careful when shooting street around woke people!

Click to expand...

Actually, what you call "woke" people are not mainly who I was referring to, though true, the debate around this issue does include theory or ideology type bystanders not on either end of the "taking" or "shooting" moment. I was referring mainly to the views and feelings of brown, Black, poor, or female photo subjects. In or from places with a history, sometimes not a distant one, of subjugation, exploitation and pillage by vastly wealthier by comparison people of the racial/ethnic/national origin or gender of the "taker" or "shooter." Who have experienced that or carry family memories of that. Who may be scrubbing floors, cleaning toilets or emptying bedpans, for people sharing class, ethnic, gender,or national origin with the "taker" or "shooter."

Sure, some people in some places are happy to be photo subjects regardless. But some are not thrilled and are not charmed or amused. Recent debate and soul-searching about these issues within Magnum and other circles is not "woke." It is overdue mindfulness of one's manners, manners in the broad human sense. Empathy requires imagination, and there is sometimes a failure of this kind of imagination by those who feel entitled to "take" or "shoot" whoever they want and marvel that anyone would dare object to being in the line of fire.

I am starting to think that the Internet may be the WORST thing that has ever happened to the Human Race. Note, AI is included is a factor in what is coming via the Internet. Just about the time that AI Robots are assembling and programming AI Robots is when what we saw in the Terminator will come true.

As for the paranoia that is spreading rapidly that is a result of a large percentage of younger persons actually believing what they see some "influencer" posts as Gospel Truth. As a result if Social Media claims that pictures taken by a stranger on a public walkway is doing it to cause them harm or for some perverted desire. I will also point out that Pervs with cameras are likely quite rare and also extremely careful about not being noticed. I will also point out that in most countries if you are out in public being viewed by everyone present, there is NO requirement for a "model's release" under Common Law. Basically we have a rather large population who are severely misguided and misinformed and pretty much illiterate about History and the Law.