[2F/2F]

Nothing. Despite the issues with shooting that we all must have run into, we are quite spoiled in this regard here in the U.S. Public property and/or public view = public domain. It is yours to use artistically and journalistically, for money or not, with a few exceptions such as government buildings, power plants, use of telephoto lenses to look onto private property, etc. You are allowed to shoot and publish children unless part of a court order (e.g. you are a registered sex offender). You are even allowed to publish shots taken on private property that is considered to be a public area, such as a mall or a fair. The very first thing I do with anyone who asks me to stop shooting is to explain this calmly and politely. I carry a printout of the photographer's rights with me. Any more trouble, and the conversation ends with me calling the police, who have backed me up 100% of the time.

"commercial" shooting, as in shooting for hire, having a crew, props, models, set dressings, is another issue altogether and requires permits.

Most of all, once snapped, the pictures are your property, and my not be confiscated regardless of whether you have broken the law in doing so or not or not. They can be collected against your will as evidence in a crime, but even then, you can get them back (if they haven't been quote-unquote destroyed, damaged, lost, erased, etc.)

There is a crime in continuing to take pictures on private property *after* you have been asked to stop. The crime in that case is trespassing alone; nothing else.

In any case, they pictures are your property and may not be taken from you.

What I do try not to do is to be ham-handedly exploitive of any individual who is suffering and/or incapable of at least asking me to stop shooting for one reason or another, even when it is technically allowed. Even though it is allowed, I feel that the camera can be an unfair advantage to the mentally ill (and that means probably 75% of homeless people around here). Basically, I feel that anyone who, whether they are right or wrong, chooses not to ask me to stop, or does not notice me due to incapacity or an unfortunate situation, where a person in a "normal situation" would notice me or ask me to stop, is at an unfair disadvantage to me. If they are not equipped to have the argument, or feel that due to their circumstances they have no right to have the argument, it isn't fair that I shoot them.

I also will not shoot when I can help instead. For instance: someone just got hit by a car and I am the closest person who knows how to render whatever aid I can. I will shoot once I can no longer be of help, however. As the phrase goes, $hit happens, and there's nothing you can do about it in the grand scheme of things. However, I do not value my *possible* pictures more than I value my ability to *possibly* improve a stranger's well being.

Grey areas abound. Do you shoot a parent illegally beating his or her child in public, or intervene? Depending on what you do with your photos, taking the pics instead of intervening could actually do far more for the cause of child abuse prevention than stopping that one beating...but how do sit there are coldly decide that? It's all a heat-of-the-moment gamble.

This is why I love street photography. Every frame is an ethical decision in some way.