Ethical dilemma - how to photograph folks?
Cat(h)
The sensitivities of taking shots of anonymous people in public places
was brought to my mind from a response given to another thread here.
I used to be quite self conscious, worried that people might take
unkindly to me taking their mugshots, but now am a little less so.
Still, I find myself keeping the camera to myself in certain
circumstances, and missing what would otherwise have been really good/
interesting shots.
How do you guys handle taking pictures of people? Have you developed
your own rules about it?
Just wondering.
Caít() (who could never earn a crust as a pap - thank goodness!)
Peter
news:b2091139-ba51-4903...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
The sensitivities of taking shots of anonymous people in public places
was brought to my mind from a response given to another thread here.
I used to be quite self conscious, worried that people might take
unkindly to me taking their mugshots, but now am a little less so.
Still, I find myself keeping the camera to myself in certain
circumstances, and missing what would otherwise have been really good/
interesting shots.
How do you guys handle taking pictures of people? Have you developed
your own rules about it?
Just wondering.
Ca�t() (who could never earn a crust as a pap - thank goodness!)
I follow a simple rule. I never intrude on privacy.
Bear in mind that I do not do portraits, but will do people if part of a
scene.
I ask if the shot would disclose the identity of the person, or if the shot
is of a child.
Asking can be a delicate question, or it can be subtle. e.g. with people at
the Mermaid parade in NY I simply point my camera in an obvious fashion.
I have asked bikers if they mind if I take a few shots. They have never said
no. The drawback is that they tend to pose.
--
Peter
Charles E Hardwidge
news:b2091139-ba51-4903...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> was brought to my mind from a response given to another thread here.
> I used to be quite self conscious, worried that people might take
> unkindly to me taking their mugshots, but now am a little less so.
> Still, I find myself keeping the camera to myself in certain
> circumstances, and missing what would otherwise have been really good/
> interesting shots.
> How do you guys handle taking pictures of people? Have you developed
> your own rules about it?
> Just wondering.
>
The UK has a range of laws that might govern this including terrorism and
harassment laws but the main one is it's unlawful to publish photos that may
identify an individual without their consent. This is fairly loose and
there's a public interest defence but there's limits of stupidity and
carelessness I'd rather avoid.
My personal line is that I won't publish anything that compromises an
individuals integrity or ridicules them. I'm not in it to make people look
ugly or stupid, pull stunts, or leave them feeling exploited. If there's a
"must take" shot I'd probably take it but would hope they'd sign a release,
or where it's unflattering that there's a strong public interest.
I think, this is important from a personal branding point of view. Also, if
people start pulling stunts that makes photography involving people more
difficult in general. Contracts and the heat is a PITA. People are entitled
to some dignity and provoking trouble isn't good for society. I might never
be a pap but it's sunny in banana republics... o_O
Speaking of which, I couldn't resist it and nearly got caught doing it but
got a money shot of a Punk couple on the way home from my afternoon shoot.
(What is it with me and gooey couples?) It was fairly close and from the
rear end so nicely framed and anonymous. (Every time she walked her hips
wiggled a set of bells. It was bloody annoying and loud.)
--
Charles E Hardwidge
philo
> The sensitivities of taking shots of anonymous people in public places
> was brought to my mind from a response given to another thread here.
> I used to be quite self conscious, worried that people might take
> unkindly to me taking their mugshots, but now am a little less so.
> Still, I find myself keeping the camera to myself in certain
> circumstances, and missing what would otherwise have been really good/
> interesting shots.
> How do you guys handle taking pictures of people? Have you developed
> your own rules about it?
> Just wondering.
>
I certainly admit to sneaking some shots...
but I often just walk up to the people and start talking...
A lot of times, when they see the camera it's obvious they don't want
their picture taken...so I honor that.
OTOH: Others don't mind if I snap away and don't seem to even notice...
picture taking is getting so common it's barely noticed.
One day I saw an old guy who looked very photogenic...
so I just walked up and started talking to him...
finally I said: "Do you mind if I take a few photos now?"
He said, "No problem, I'll get out of your way if you want."
After I stopped laughing...he agreed to let me photograph him...
he never thought of himself as a photographic subject!
turbo
> harassment laws but the main one is it's unlawful to publish photos that
> may
> identify an individual without their consent. This is fairly loose and
> there's a public interest defence but there's limits of stupidity and
> carelessness I'd rather avoid.
space, and photography is not forbidden anywhere , including that of
children, except in one or two high security places like the MOD, or
airforce bases.
Harrassment is the only no-no and so unless you follow an individual and
keep snapping , that doesn't stand up to examination in any court. You are
photographed hundreds of times everyday , in streets, petrol stations,
buses, etc and NO ONE asks your permission. How do you think the Police get
away with even taking cameras into peoples houses, as they take the front
door off the frame ( and then show it on TV) with several programs each and
every night.. The only exception I might take and its my decision, is when
the guy is built like the proverbial 'brick-s**t- house, and not likely to
ask questions before demolishing me and the camera....
Pete
> A lot of times, when they see the camera it's obvious they don't want
> their picture taken...so I honor that.
>
> OTOH: Others don't mind if I snap away and don't seem to even notice...
> picture taking is getting so common it's barely noticed.
>
>
> One day I saw an old guy who looked very photogenic...
> so I just walked up and started talking to him...
>
> finally I said: "Do you mind if I take a few photos now?"
>
> He said, "No problem, I'll get out of your way if you want."
>
> After I stopped laughing...he agreed to let me photograph him...
> he never thought of himself as a photographic subject!
How true: many people will be very flattered by being asked (even if they
decline); some get very nervous just seeing a camera; and we must remember
that some believe a photograph steals their soul.
turbo
.... the main one is it's unlawful to publish photos that may
> identify an individual without their consent.
Suggest you tell You-Tube, and take a look at Canary Wharf...
2 parts and 10 minutes of sheer genius..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cvay_r2FK8
part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VLGMOrYF7E&NR=1
Peter
news:JeBMm.6094$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
Does that make it right?
--
Peter
Peter
We are talking ethics, not legality.
Your last sentence says it all.
Why doesn't Shorty Nerd have lesser rights than the big guy you describe.
Lack of ethics and lack of good taste give street photographers a bad name.
Picking you nose in public and then licking your finger is legal, but what
do you think of a person who does just that?
--
Peter
turbo
> We are talking ethics, not legality.
IT IS NOT illegal take photographs of anyone in a public place... Full
stop.. after that the choice of what and who to photograph is yours.
turbo
>> 2 parts and 10 minutes of sheer genius..
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cvay_r2FK8
>>
>> part 2
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VLGMOrYF7E&NR=1
>>
>
>
> Does that make it right?
If it was illegal as per the original poster , then why did plod not take
any action..
Charles E Hardwidge
"turbo" <tu...@nospam.yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:97BMm.6091$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
You need to calm down and read my comment again. I've touched on terrorism
and harassment but the main focus is it's unlawful to *publish* a photo
where an individual is identifiable. This involves degrees of prominence and
there's a public interest defence. Having a big mouth or carrying an
attitude doesn't make the law or potential for legal action go away. If you
don't believe me hire a lawyer on your dime or find out the hard way.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Cat(h)
> > We are talking ethics, not legality.
>
> The original poster made the point of it being illegal, and lawful..
Er, no she didn't.
>
> IT IS NOT illegal take photographs of anyone in a public place... Full
> stop.. after that the choice of what and who to photograph is yours.
I talked about sensitivities, and how experienced photographers here
would deal with it, and whether they had developed their own rules
about it.
Caít()
Cat(h)
Once again, the OP refuses to be misquoted. Go read again.
Caít()
Peter
Legal <> ethical
--
Peter
Peter
Ca�t()
These "legal fixators" forget that laws vary in different jurisdictions.
Glad you read your posting the same way I read it.
--
Peter
Charles E Hardwidge
I'm not watching any timewasting Libertarian propaganda bollocks so you can
post the executive summary. And, yes. I know enough about the law and
politics to be bored shitless before you get started. So keep it short.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Cat(h)
> "Cat(h)" <cathy...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e76baf97-2e47-4028...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 17, 6:00 pm, "turbo" <tu...@nospam.yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > We are talking ethics, not legality.
>
> > The original poster made the point of it being illegal, and lawful..
>
> Er, no she didn't.
>
>
>
> > IT IS NOT illegal take photographs of anyone in a public place... Full
> > stop.. after that the choice of what and who to photograph is yours.
>
> I talked about sensitivities, and how experienced photographers here
> would deal with it, and whether they had developed their own rules
> about it.
>
>
> These "legal fixators" forget that laws vary in different jurisdictions.
> Glad you read your posting the same way I read it.
>
That's probably because I wrote it the way I meant it. That and
actually reading before posting are sometimes underrated skills ;-)
Caít()
turbo
And, yes. I know enough about the law and
> politics to be bored shitless before you get started. So keep it short.
BULLSHITTER,
that short enough.
You know F... all about law..
turbo
> Charles E Hardwidge
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2007/07/heir_to_blair_o.html
quote...And what is the relevance of the pretentious rubbish that Charles E
Hardwidge wrote?..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/notesandqueries/query/0,,-10562,00.html
quote... Charles E Hardwidge, Bristol United Kingdom
Make a steel plate with a hole in it to go around your neck then pack the
underside with explosives. Set it off and the resultant explosion will send
your head shooting into the air, which will be quite painful but a wonderful
final trip in the split seconds before your senses give out.
Mark, Bristol UK
Suggest you go back and join in the conversation in newsgroup
talk.religion.buddhism in the thread "Maharisi School, Pedophilia and damage
to children".. Seems you make a habbit of speaking out of your arse.
Savageduck
> Ca�t()
Personally, I make it obvious I am a photographer who is taking shots
in the area. If I manage a capture such as these;
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_0573w.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_0568w.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/SLO-Brew-40e.jpg
I will depending on circumstances (there will be times when
conversation with any of the subjects would not be prudent) approach
the subject(s) and offer to share my work.
Most will be interested to see the work and do not feel threatened.
Most are happy to be part of the scene.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
celcius
news:2009111712352338165-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
I like your third one. It's a great photo.
Personally, when in a public place, I tend to use a longer lens.
When on the Way to Compostela, I took these photos of people (amongst many
others):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cosmar/2940239912/in/set-72157608028222091/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cosmar/2940267530/in/set-72157608028222091/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cosmar/2940229844/in/set-72157608028222091/
This way, I don't run into problems and yet, they are respectful of these
people.
Cheers,
Marcel
Savageduck
Well on Friday I am off for a month in Africa, so we shall see what
photo-ops present themselves. I will do my best to return intact,
though I will not be roughing it too much, I am getting too old for
that.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
tony cooper
When we were in Kenya, it was illegal to photograph policemen or
police stations. Our driver about had a heart attack when he saw me
taking one photograph. I was not photographing a police station, but
there was one in the area that might have been in the background.
Supposedly, the Masai don't like having their photographs taken. The
actuality is that they don't like if you don't pay them. The sad
thing is that payment - by our standards - is a pittance. Ten Kenyan
shillings (about 60 cents at the time) is enough that they will not
only allow the photograph, but pose and ham it up for the photo.
It is expected that you will haggle for anything. Just paying the
price asked is almost rude in their eyes, and certainly foolish.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Savageduck
I will be in the less camera averse South Africa for the entire month I
am away.
Most of the time I will be in the more urban Cape Town and
Johannesburg. I will be taking side trips to the Cederberg of the
Western Cape, a cheetah park in the Magaliesberg, and an outing to the
Sterkfontein Caves and their hominid fossil sites.
If I have time after that a drive up the East coast from Cape Town is a
possibility. That area around Knysna and the Tsitsikamma Forest and
National park is one I am familiar with.
It has been some time since I was last there in 2001, If you have never
been to Cape Town, you are missing one of the great beautiful cities of
the World. For 2010 however, with the World Cup being held there I
would expect major tourist gouging. Best to go now, or later in 2010
when the excitement is over.
This will give you an idea of the place, dominated by Table Mountain.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Tablemountain_capetown.jpg
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Noons
> How do you guys handle taking pictures of people? Have you developed
> your own rules about it?
> Just wondering.
I always make sure the camera is quite visible so no one can claim I'm
"sneaking-in a photo". Then again I use film rangefinders or film slrs, so it's
easy to be conspicuous.
In a public place? The biggest and most open smile, before, during and after
taking the shot: works every time.
In private places, again: a warm, friendly smile is worth a minute of talk.
If someone asks, I just show them the camera and the fact it's film.
That's usually enough: film photographers are mostly respected, digital
photographers are often despised. Sign of the times?
;) (just kidding!)
celcius
"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2009111714404684492-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
Hey Savageduck,
Bon voyage!
Have a great trip and enjoy yourself!
I bet it's a very long trip, but worth every bit of it.
Cheers,
Marcel
>
Savageduck
Thanks Marcel.
I have a few things planned and some old friends to visit. As far as
travel time goes, we are talking about 35 hours in the air and airports.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Peter
Have a great trip. It looks like a beautiful place.
--
Peter
Vance
> On 2009-11-17 14:04:56 -0800, "celcius" <celciu...@hotmail.com> said:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
> >news:2009111712352338165-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
>
> >>> On Nov 17, 6:00 pm, "turbo" <tu...@nospam.yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>>> We are talking ethics, not legality.
>
> >>>> The original poster made the point of it being illegal, and lawful..
>
> >>> Er, no she didn't.
>
> >>>> IT IS NOT illegal take photographs of anyone in a public place... Full
> >>>> stop.. after that the choice of what and who to photograph is yours.
>
> >>> I talked about sensitivities, and how experienced photographers here
> >>> would deal with it, and whether they had developed their own rules
> >>> about it.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's off topic - but you should have a blast. I'm doing SA,
Mozambique and Kenya towards the end of next year for a few months.
Vance
Savageduck
> On Nov 17, 2:40�pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>> On 2009-11-17 14:04:56 -0800, "celcius" <celciu...@hotmail.com> said:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>>> news:2009111712352338165-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>>> On 2009-11-17 10:21:00 -0800, "Cat(h)" <cathy...@yahoo.com> said:
>>
>>>>> On Nov 17, 6:00 pm, "turbo" <tu...@nospam.yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> We are talking ethics, not legality.
>>
>>>>>> The original poster made the point of it being illegal, and lawful..
>>
>>>>> Er, no she didn't.
>>
>>>>>> IT IS NOT illegal take photographs of anyone in a public place... Fu
> ll
>>>>>> stop.. after that the choice of what and who to photograph is yours.
>>
>>>>> I talked about sensitivities, and how experienced photographers here
>>>>> would deal with it, and whether they had developed their own rules
>>>>> about it.
>>
>>>>> Ca�t()
...and you enjoy your trip.
Would that be during, or after the 2010 World Cup?
I suspect that The World Cup will degrade the experience of travel in
Southern Africa in 2010 into an opportunity to gouge fans and tourists.
I understand through the period of competition air fares between South
African cities have already more than doubled. Accommodation in the
major cities will have at least a 10% premium. I understand some
European travel agencies are already putting game/travel/accommodation
packages together which are 30% more expensive than if the plans were
made personally.
...and British Air, Lufthansa, and SAA have already announced price
increases for flights between Europe and SA through the World Cup
period. Travelling to SA then is not going to be the bargin it is now.
I hope The World Cup in South Africa is successful, but I fear it will
become an ugly mess and I would plan to avoid the area at that time. If
you are a football fan, enjoy, but be wary of the threat to your wallet.
Kenya and Mozambique should be just fine.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Noons
>
> It's off topic - but you should have a blast. I'm doing SA,
> Mozambique and Kenya towards the end of next year for a few months.
Which part of Moz?
Albert Ross
wrote:
>> The UK has a range of laws that might govern this including terrorism and
>> harassment laws but the main one is it's unlawful to publish photos that
>> may
>> identify an individual without their consent. This is fairly loose and
>> there's a public interest defence but there's limits of stupidity and
>> carelessness I'd rather avoid.
>Absolute balderdash.. There is no expectation of privacy in a (UK) public
>space, and photography is not forbidden anywhere , including that of
>children, except in one or two high security places like the MOD, or
>airforce bases.
>Harrassment is the only no-no and so unless you follow an individual and
>keep snapping , that doesn't stand up to examination in any court. You are
>photographed hundreds of times everyday , in streets, petrol stations,
>buses, etc and NO ONE asks your permission. How do you think the Police get
>away with even taking cameras into peoples houses, as they take the front
>door off the frame ( and then show it on TV) with several programs each and
>every night.. The only exception I might take and its my decision, is when
>the guy is built like the proverbial 'brick-s**t- house, and not likely to
>ask questions before demolishing me and the camera....
>
Quite. I believe it's also forbidden to photograph plain clothes
Police or military even out of uniform. How do you know? And why don't
the operators of the CCTVs routinely arrest themselves?