Doug Kerr
Well-known member
Hi, James,
Thanks for that very nice summary.
Best regards,
Doug
Thanks for that very nice summary.
Best regards,
Doug
It depends on what kind of neighbourhood you are in when taking pictures of groups. You mentioned there could be someone in the group who doesn't want too be photographed . You could get your teeth knocked out,a broken nose and a smashed camera all at the same time. So it is a good idea to be upfront and get approval first. Things can happen very quickly and your cell phone won't save you because you won't have a chance to even reach for it. Fortanatly I have not had any serious problems in this regard. Something to think about.Let's imagine that we would say that it's always proper and decent to ask folk before taking their picture. Well what about a bunch of people pushing and shoving, a line of people across the road, moving pretty fast and traveling with loads, workers and the like, folk on a bus, folk going to a funeral or wedding and the like. Is it practical to ask any of these people consent. After all, it's unlikely that one can get consent from everyone unless one blocked the busy street and detained everyone. So if one says, fine, we do not have to get consent since its a "crowd" and no one can say we are taking pictures of exactly their person, as they happen to be in that general grouping.
So is that an excuse, a reason for letting us off the hook in asking consent, if we claim that consent is required if one holds oneself as a decent person who respects others?
After all, with a 16MP camera and a 28 mm lens, likely as not, all the faces of the people in the picture can be recognized. Are these folk not victimized, each and everyone one of them.
Now I personally have no qualms or uneasy conscience photographing an entire crowd,m except I worry that I might show an illegal alien who could be then recognized and deported. A theoretical consideration. I also find no good reason to ask permission if the person has no knowledge of my action, as I am using pictures just for art. I have no legal need for consent. I am not selling the picture's use for some advertising campaign or book cover and so there is no logical constraint under law and my sense of empathy to prevent me from photographing whoever I want.
However, if the person notices and feels some invasion of their own assumed privacy, and ask the picture not be taken, I will not take the shot. If they ask to delte the shot, I comply and do it in front of them. However, I have no requirement to delete previous pictures I might have taken prior to this confrontation. My sole criterion is to abate their immediateness of discomfort and feeling of violation. If they looked over my shoulder and saw another picture of theirs or asked me if there were others, I would never lie and would destroy those pictures too.
However, if the picture has unique news value or was somehow, (unlikely to be sure) a gem of a shot I had waited for with years of effort, I'd perhaps keep the picture and try to negotiate a financial compensation.
Still for all of us, do we treat crowds as different, allowing us license or do we only take pictures of masses of people when the faces cannot be discerned?
Asher
It depends on what kind of neighbourhood you are in when taking pictures of groups. You mentioned there could be someone in the group who doesn't want too be photographed . You could get your teeth knocked out,a broken nose and a smashed camera all at the same time. So it is a good idea to be upfront and get approval first. Things can happen very quickly and your cell phone won't save you because you won't have a chance to even reach for it. Fortanatly I have not had any serious problems in this regard. Something to think about.
James,
I was not thinking of any risks to the photographer or his/her gear. I'm just considering the logic of excusing oneself, (or not) of the ethical requirement one chooses to make for discipline in asking for permission prior to taking a picture, when photographing a crowd. Imagine they are harmless locals who are not aggressive, happily going on their way to work.
It's like this. If one is such a person whereby one feels a necessity to always get prior consent, (and to me that generally yields just happy faces), then shouldn't those same constraints apply to photographing a group or a line of people?
I am not talking about any considerations of power, just what is decent and proper in our way of thinking.
Asher
Asher
You just have to use your own judgment of when and where and how you want to photograph people. With your gifts you can set yourself up to capture amazing photos in circumstances that most would shy away from.
I was there tonight! Did I stop and speak to him? Remind me?
asher
Despite there being no firm law against it (which there should be) taking some one's photo without their express and written permission is not OK. It is an invasion of their right to decide who, where and when their image is taken and used. Taking and using someone's image against their will is a violation. It is taking something that is not yours to take.
"Ignorance of a persons morals is understandable; ignorance of the law is no excuse"
I am in awe of the level of thoughtfulness and command of language we possess here at times.
Great!! So OPF is not undoing civilization, after all! Until now, we addressed mostly "legality v. individual "Rights" and a tad of common decency. Here we make a new consideration:
I took the liberty of picking out and highlighting this quotation of your Dad's thoughts. The distinction is indeed new to this discussion and helpful in understanding different attitudes. Yes, we have no way of computing each and every persons personal morality, code of ethics or even sense of boundaries. But we can make a good guess! If someone objects to the picture being taken, then I think you'd agree that we can be generous, courteous allow that person their request to be excluded from our photography.
Or are you saying, that might be fine for others, but no one should be saying what I, Tom Dinning,"should" do?
I would argue, that aside from obeying the law, we have a responsibility to be civil and a merit in considering the feelings of others.
Asher
I may not measure up to some but I'm not standing next to them to be measured.
Yes, we know that! Still I doubt you just bluster you way through life as your story in the library suggests. If we trailed you, doubtless you move to the side to let a lady with a walker get by!
Asher
I would stop and chat first. More than photographing in the street, I love talking to those who will pause for a moment and share their time. What I have learnt form such people! Of pleasures, families, health and death, disasters, sorrow and the simple joys of life. The lady with the walker creaks in tune with the squeaky wheels of her supporting frame and her voice is like music to my ears. Even if she stares at me with disdain and tells me to "**** off, young man. Don't annoy me" as I snap a picture. What a pleasure it is to know someone just a little more.
Great, now if your new friend smiles at you and clearly says, "Young man, kindly delete that picture!", what then?
Asher
Well, that's your decision to make!
Saint Tom that used to be Sir Tom-
You are one hell of a Sinner and I gotta respect that!
Charlotte-
Well that can be true yes..as you know everyone has a right to voice and all of us are on our own journeys
through this purgatory we call life- Conversation shows who we are at any given second and at any given second that can change-
C.
Pretty much as it is in Australia, James.
In addition, a photographer can photograph into a private place if they are shooting from a public place and that private place is clearly visible.
Cheers
Tom
I think there is truth to this assertion that "taking and using someone's image" against their will is a violation. But what kind of a violation? First we agree that the law does not enshrine "Rights To Snap Pictures of Others" as a "Right" like that of voting, being an equal before the law and so forth. Taking pictures in public is simply not illegal and in the USA is sort of under the blanket protection of "Freedom of Speech". Certainly, if a person requests their picture not to be taken, then it is civil to obey.
Asher