KnifeMissile

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.

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...

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.

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...

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...

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...

la petite moi

lindalove, was the example you used the online comic guy from Real Life?

smooth

knifemissile,

I don't appreciate your commentary on my reasoning abilities. you are upset, and you explained your reasoning why, but I value your opinion and I continue to engage you in a civil manner without impugning your intelligence or your reasoning skills. I would appreciate the same courtesy be extend to me from you.

perhaps we have a difference of opinion; or perhaps you should ease off me for a minute and try to understand what I'm getting at instead of advocating for you position so strongly you shut down rational discourse. I'm aware of the dynamic of the politics section of this forum, and at least some of the reasons underpinning your absence from there. why would you want to reproduce that over here in general discussion?

Journalists have a professional code of ethics. it's obtainable. all professional groups have codes of ethics, and none of them that I know of short of the legal and medical profession are regulatory in nature. my point to you is that if you assume the role of a documentarian, and you did, which is different from the casual photographer (that is if you engage in a claim that you not only have a right but an obligation to capture certain images), then at the very least you should comport yourself in a manner consistent with other people in the profession. at the very least, you impung the profession you are claiming to represent by your unethical behavior. now you could use examples of tabloid press, but that doesn't help your case in my opinion. rather, achieving the opposite given that at least some of the basis of the lack of respect the general public has toward tabloid press is it doesn't adhere to professional standards of ethics.

using your "cheesy" example: it's certainly true that you wouldn't need a license to feed yourself. but we're not talking about taking pictures of oneself now are we? at the very least, we ought to produce appropriate analogies if one is to claim their relevence in the disucssion at issue. if you held a public bbq in the park, you would at the very least adhere to the safety guidelines the licensing process detailed--I hope. Do you not owe the people you're feeding, morally and ethically speaking--not necessarily legally--that basic courtesy?

Neither charlatan nor myself suggested that taking pictures of people was being an ass. that's totally unfair to either of us and we tried repeatedly to make that clear. all we suggested was that your mode of conduct can be moderated WHILE you are doing what you wish to do. I never suggested that anyone's rights superceded any one else's, rights and assumptions of obligations tend to collide, precisely why I pointed out that such a discussion would essentially go nowhere. I simply suggested to you to not get into a tiff with me about what your rights vs. parents' rights actually are--because such a discussion is fruitless on a number of levels. 1) we would have to suss out all the relevant case law and local statutes and 2) it's totally irrelevant to how parents are going to act anyway

I didn't tell you to appease parents, but I did recommend rationally speaking to someone and explaining that you harbor no ill will and would like to continue, and if they object, hey no problem, move your kid. I specifically stated that I wasn't referring to your behavior as acting like an ass, so seriously dude, get off your kick. as a fellow photographer, I suggested you consult the profession's ethical code for guidance (which have to do with behaving ethically, and not legally) and warned you that your attitude toward others is going to backfire given the climate right now. stand your ground, demand your rights to take pictures of children when their parents don't want you to, and watch the legislative bodies respond by passing statutes limiting your ability to do so. if that makes you feel vindicated, that's your right, as well, since you seem so keen on justifying your behavior despite its negative ramifications with rights claims.

I already gave you some specific instances that might explain why parents would suspect you without attributing their behavior to irrational fear. you can choose to believe them or not. I don't know the specific details of the original incident nor do I know your particular circumstances. but I can tell you how you appear to me in this thread, where I and at least one other person responded to you in a rational and calm manner, and in my opinion you do not come off very well at all. I didn't say you were acting like an ass to that woman, but I do feel like you are toward me and it makes me wonder just how that interaction transpired between her and you.

I'm really not used to Canadians being so forceful so you've taken me quite aback and to be perfectly frank with you it doesn't reflect nicely on the opinion I beforenow held of you. whether that is of any importance to you is something you alone can judge. I believe I've presented my case clearly, politely, and now repeatedly and if your intention was to run an equally valid but different point of view out of the discussion then you've succeeded. have a good one, knifemissile, and maybe a cold one wouldn't be inappropriate.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Charlatan

Knifemissle.

1) Let's move on from my erroneous assumption about the legality of taking my picture in public. My reasoning came from the need of getting a release signed if you want to use it for commercial purposes.

2) I don't think we disagree here. I am taking the position of rude photographer who, when politely asked to stop, doesn't respect my wishes. You are taking the position of a photographer being accosted by a rude person who objects to being photographed.

The common element here is rudeness.

The person who accused you of "creepiness" was an ass. If she had concerns she should have approached you in a calm rational manner and asked what you were up to and then taken appropriate action (which could have included anything from letting you carry on, to asking you to let her get her kids out of the shot, etc.). The key is communication and, if neccessary negotiation.

I feel like you are coming at this situation and seeing it through the lense of your negative experience and are blind to other possibilities. I have to believe that you can see the situation where someone doesn't want there picture taken and doesn't freak out. Now we seem to have established that they have no rights and that you can do what you please. Answer this: Is this how you want to go through life? Do you want to forego communication and interaction and rely only on what your legal rights are? (clearly I am exagerating here).

The thing to remember is that anyone can be an ass. The question is do you want to be one and how do you react when you meet one?

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

KnifeMissile

I apologize for this. It was not meant as an attack. While responding, I had read that portion, realized how little sense it made and pointed it out to you in an ineffective attempt to get you to question yourself. In retrospect, it was probably as effective as pointing out your spelling mistakes. It was likely just something you had quickly thought up while typing out the rest of your response...

I think I do understand what you are saying and I'm disagreeing with you and telling you why. Just so there's no misunderstanding, you think that anyone who takes public pictures that include people are responsible for reassuring the people that they (the photographer) are no danger. Is this correct?

If it is, perhaps we can just start there...

I used the example of taboids and the newspaper (which you failed to mention) to exemplify the point that journalistic professionals don't appear to follow any sort of ethics that I can see, so I might not want to act "professionally."

Regardless, I'm not part of the press, I'm simply a private citizen and I comport myself as such. Anything else would just be pretentious on my part, including any claims that I represent any profession...

Yes, the are many ways to interpret my "cheesy" example... Which makes it cheesy... Hence, why I told you it was cheesy... So that you wouldn't take it too seriously. My interpretation was that the photos would be for personal use, much like the food you cook yourself.

Well, when Charlatan says "the thing is, if someone doesn't want you to do it, don't be an ass and keep doing it," and you say "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," it suggests that you're saying "that taking pictures of people was being an ass." Obviously, there's a lot of context around all that but you and Charlatans posts do sound like you think that people who take public pictures, despite parental objections, is being an ass, rather than parents objectioning to public pictures are being asses, which I think is far more accurate considering you're doing nothing wrong and their concerns are baseless.

I had forgotten about your request to remove the focus of legal rights to the discussion while I was describing why you were one-sided and I wasn't, as much (it would be hard for me to deny that I'm picking a side). What I had meant to do was just to point out how it came up...

Well, having to explain that I harbour no ill will, even rationally, is appeasing parents, so... Yes, you were telling me to appease parents.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that escalating a parental encounter to a violent confrontation is a useful thing. However, I do want to impart onto parents that their fears are unreasonable, even if it is done calmy (in fact, that would be prefereble).

When a parent approaches you with concern and you reassure them with words like "oh, don't worry. I'm not one of them," you're reinforcing their fears of "them," as if they were something to be feared. They are not. They are figments of our imagination and the short end of a bell curve of an extremely large population...

As an aside, what parents that would support restrictive legislation won't understand is that when they restrict my rights they are restricting their own, for my rights are their rights and the rights of their children. So, when they try to make life hard for me, they're going to make life hard for their children as well. Way to "protect" your children you parental idiots...

Hmm, how do I address this?

Firstly, could you point out the "specific examples" of parental suspicions not brought about by irrational fear? The closest I could find were the third paragraph of post 28 and the fourth paragraph of post 36, neither of which seem to be examples of suspicion, specific or otherwise.

Secondly, I think you will find my demeanor to change from thread to thread (although I'd be interested to see if people agree with my assessment of myself!), so imagine how it may differ from a web forum to a personal encounter! While I have a thread that suggests there's no anonymity on this forum, there is relative anonymity in that you don't know who I am outside of it. For better or worse (either side is debatable), this allows for a change in how we approach communication. Someone who is extremely shy in person may be loud and obnoxious here. I also think my attitude here is atypical of me but you can, of course, judge for youself. I make some really good posts...

Well, you're probably not used to Canadians being accused of kidnapping, either! Out of curiosity, did you have an opinion of me before this thread?

KnifeMissile

A good point. To be honest, I really don't know what I could have done with my accuser. I think I might very well have been more afraid of her than she was of me! She really didn't care what I had to say for myself and the only thing I could think to do was calmly back away.

I don't claim to have any answers, I just think this attitude is ludicrous and do wish that people could see that. Everything I have ever posted in this thread is towards this end...

shakran

Actually, that's wrong. You can take a picture of anyone as long as 1) you're in a public place, or on private property that you have permission to be on and 2) they are in a public place or in a place that is visible with the naked eye from a public place.

To break this down with examples:

Kids in a public park - OK

Kids on the unfenced front lawn of their house - OK

Kids on the fenced in back yard of their house that you have to climb the fence on the neighbor's property to get the shot - not OK

Kids in a gas station that you shoot through the windows while standing on the sidewalk with a regular lens - OK

Kids in a gas station that you shoot through the windows while standing on the sidewalk that's so far away you have to use a supertelephoto lens to see them - not OK.

You may be thinking of the fact that they have a COMMERCIAL right to their image -- in other words if you take their picture and then use it in an advertisement for something without their permission, you're in the wrong.

(But if you take their picture and then use it in a magazine/newspaper/TV news broadcast, you're doing nothing wrong.)

JumpinJesus

As is usually the case in a thread that interests me, I show up late.

So, my opinion is thus: Yes, we have a legal right to photograph anyone in a public place as long as it is not for commercial purposes, but I will always respect the rights of someone who doesn't want their photograph taken.

Some people don't like having their photo taken. If they ask that I don't photograph them, then I don't photograph them. I understand it's a different situation if you're approached in a beligerent manner by someone, but often the situation can be diffused if you are polite about it. When it comes to photographing children, I make it a habit of just not doing it unless I'm specifically asked to. I have this policy not because I'm worried some irate parent will accost me, but because I can't stand Anne Geddes

__________________
"I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

SteelyLoins

That sentiment was noticeably lacking at the Wellstone and King funerals. Little attention is paid to it by gay rights demonstrators, or anti-war demonstrators, either.

The point being, you have the right to dislike what someone else is doing, but you are not a law unto yourself.

Although this is a stereotype, it would probably not be wise to follow that course of action with a typical New Yorker, unless you want your kids to hear some very grown-up language. Come to think of it, a southern redneck would probably react unfavorably to you as well.

You don't own the park. If the other person doesn't feel like giving you the picture, or erasing it, your choices are to recognize that you aren't allowed to tell people what to do, or find some other place to take your kids.