Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
I don't think that my or charlatan's stance is one sided. What he said, and I support, is the notion to respect other people in public places. we can hopefully discuss this without getting into a rights v. rights discussion--because all you will do is find that people have conflicting notions of their "rights". and given the hysteria of child abductions in our country right now, inconsiderate actions are likely to result in legislative or local bodies passing more restrictions on photography in public spaces.
|
Speaking of what you support, when you say things like "it just seems to be basic common courtesy, in the states at least, to respect others' wishes," why are you only thinking of the parent's wishes and not mine? That's what I mean by one sided. Why weren't you thinking about the parents respecting my wish? Obviously, it's because you don't care about my wishes. Again, one sided...
Now, you might think that I'm being one sided by only considering my wishes but, at least, I have a right to do my wishes. Since they don't have a right to do their wish, I think starting with my wish and then justifying theirs is simply common sense, something this worlds doesn't seem to have enough of. Now, I highly suspect that the parents only wish for their children to be safe, in which case, their wishes are granted! I present no danger, so I am respecting their wish, so why the hell won't they respect mine! Of course, we both know why they don't care about my rights... Which comes back to the ultimate question, "why are they afraid of me." A question that know one has been willing to address...
Just so you know, the discussion of legal rights only came up when Charlatan brought up the false notion that "like anyone, they have the right to their image," so don't talk to me about discussing rights v rights.
Quote:
|
the words used in the OP were interpretations by an observer. We don't actually know the motives of the parents. while you were accused of something unreasonably, none of us know whether those parents have actually had experience with molestors actuallly trying to snipe pictures of their children. if they have, or if there were reports of a lurker snapping lurid photos of kids upside down on the jungle gym, would you still argue that they were acting irrationally?
|
Well, the original post was rather sparse with details, so we don't know what the original poster knew or not. If the woman that accosted simply told me, in a calm manner, that there were reports of a sexual predator in her neighbourhood and I made her nervous, I might have been more understanding. Instead, she yelled at me as if I were off my mind to want to take pictures of my beautiful city. Fuck her...
Quote:
|
I know you were specifically referring to this particular fear or irrationality. but I was using another example to illustrate that people don't want their pictures taken for a number of reasons. I hope you agree with me that you can't decide what their motives are unless they tell you. and in the case where they say something that's unfounded, coming off like an ass (and I'm not saying you did or would) isn't going to alleviate their concerns.
|
It was clear that you were illustrating another reason why people don't want their pictuers taken, it just wasn't clear why... And, to be fair to me, I'm "coming off like an ass" (I don't think so but you're entitled to your opinion) to you and not these irrational parents.
Quote:
|
neither you nor they know what others intend to do with pictures of their children, despite what your intentions are. look, you can't post pictures of children on this forum, regardless of if they are clothed. you can't control what molestors will do with your photos, but you can control the composition and the presentation. let's not get into a discussion of whether parents have a right to protect the image of their children, let's focus on a parent's obligation to protect his or her child because parents will react pragmatically, not legally. and since you are an amateur, I suspect you are unaware of journalist ethics. while not legally binding, they reflect the general consensus of the profession. and since you purport to be acting in that capacity, would you not agree that it's prudent to abide by the ethical considerations the body of professionals have agreed upon?
|
There are two points I'd like to address in this paragraph but I don't like breaking up quoted paragraphs, so hopefully you'll see what I'm referring to, above...
First, you're right about how they don't know what my intentions are with their photos but that's exactly my point. They don't know what my intentions are so why do they assume that my intentions are so sinister? To say that they have an obligation to protect their children regardless of legality is, at the risk of offending you, a cheap cop-out. If a parent killed a bystander enjoying the view of children at play, would you call that a parental obligation? Of course, this is an extreme example but it is no less stupid. I agree that parents have an obligation to protect their children but I disagree that they may be stupid about it.
Secondly, you suspect that, because I'm an amateur, I'm unaware of "journalistic ethics," so lets go with that. Because I'm an amateur, I'm not likely to know journalistic ethics, so why would you expect me to? How would I follow them if I don't know them since, by your own admission, that's the typical case? This isn't really relevent, I just wanted to show you how questionable your reasoning can be.
My real second point is that the conduct of professionals don't reflect the expected conduct of amateurs. To give you a cheesy example, you need a license to cook food for public consumption but you certainly don't need one to cook for yourself! More realistically, one of the advantages of being an amateur is that you're, often, not bounded by regulations that professionals are.
Furthermore, what "journalistic ethics" are you referring to? When I walk past the checkout counter to see
Kirsten Dunst, topless, censored by black bars, on tabloids or the newspaper featuring photographs of arrested suspects hiding their faces from the press, I wonder what
professional ethics you're referring to...
Quote:
if the intent is to get the landscape, and people don't want to be in the picture, then wait until the shot is clear.
if the intent is to get a packed park for ambiance, then snap away. but why become irate when anyone, child or parent, desires to not be in your composition? the scene described in these instances is the exception, not the norm so there really isn't too much issue to get all worked up with one another in this thread.
|
We're not talking about people not wanting to be in my photograph. We're talking about people who think I'm a creep for wanting to take a photograph and thinking that this give them the right to restrict my rights. These are the people I'm objecting to...
Quote:
|
charlatan's point was to be respectful of your "subjects'" wishes and the current social climate surrounding perceived danger to children, and not be an ass. that doesn't sound like a one-sided argument to me, so I chimed in. I think our position is for a balanced and respectful interaction between composer and composed.
|
My point is that the current social climate has become stupid and doesn't deserve respect.
Your position is to appease parents, probably because you think their fear has some merit, and to do what I can while preserving their idiocy.
Perhaps there's some hope in educating parents and a natural first step is to point out their ignorance and show how unreasonable their fear is. After all, you can't solve a problem if you don't know that you have one, right? However, as you can see, no one wants to even address the issue, mentioning other reasons for not wanting photographs taken or threatening the introduction of more restrictive laws, which I find ironic. Lets say it together: "The fear of strangers taking photographs is unreasonable."
When I re-read this thread, I can see that my point really was simply "I think parents should grow a brain if they are to raise children." Actually, it was, to paraphrase myself, that parents should understand that there's nothing to fear. Then Charlatan came in, saying "if someone doesn't want you to do it, don't be an ass and keep doing it," suggesting that taking photographs was being an ass and to simply stop doing it. Well, documenting life is not being an ass and I think this attitude is asinine and, hence, the discussion continues...