PDA

View Full Version : Was asked to DELETE a photo today!



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9

JerryWo
10-19-2011, 10:34 PM
Amazing

I went into DC to take pictures of the "Occupy DC" gang in Mcpherson Park. I got a few good shots of a cool looking black man with dread-locks. He finally realized I was taking his picture and he said, "...my image is my property....".

a public park
a few blocks from the White house
a public park
tents, protesters, spectators
you're protesting
and you want privacy?

He was bigger than me - and I'd already got a few shots, so I wandered off.

Jerry W
Warrenton, VA

lensworker
10-20-2011, 05:44 PM
He finally realized I was taking his picture and he said, "...my image is my property....".

Jerry W
Warrenton, VA
This gent is obviously misinformed - he has no reason to expect privacy in a public place. That point has been previously established by court rulings here in the U.S.

The best short explanation of this issue I have read so far is this: "People have a right to control the way their images is used - not a right to prohibit someone from photographing them in a public place" or words to that effect.

vpwphoto
10-20-2011, 06:05 PM
He also has the fredom of speach to ask you to stop (nothing wrong with that).
IF you are too close and continue to photograph in a harassing way he might choose to get the police involved, public place has nothing to do with it. If he is a private person once he asks you to move on you should, no need to argue anout public places and such.

I am a professional with some 25 years of experiance and few photos are worth upsetting the public about, or spending a night or two in jail. There are lines I WOULD cross as a professional and would be happy to spend a day in jail right or wrong to provide an employer with an image. The world HAS changed, the law is flexible, just becuase you think case law is one your side, upsetting a private person with continued picture taking no mater how cool they look is just itching for a fight. Now if they were involved in a protest line etc fine.. if they are sitting against a tree alone, take the shot or two and move on...

2F/2F
10-20-2011, 10:30 PM
The best short explanation of this issue I have read so far is this: "People have a right to control the way their images is used - not a right to prohibit someone from photographing them in a public place" or words to that effect.

That just isn't the case. Someone can snap your photo in public and pretty much do whatever they want with it.

vpwphoto
10-21-2011, 08:34 AM
That just isn't the case. Someone can snap your photo in public and pretty much do whatever they want with it.

Care to introduce libel law into the discussion? A private individual vs a "public" individual there are different standards as to what is fair. That being said if you participate in a protest you are stepping into the public arena.

Again minding ones own business, sure you can snap a photo.... but continuing to do so, takes a step toward harassment, and depending on the use takes a step toward defamation and libel. Although I do not know a situation where a photograph has been considered libel... then again it used to be just professionals taking photographs for use in professional publications. Personal web-sites posting on facebook and blogs are a whole new arena.

If I were minding my business in a park, and as I take it one of you (cocky thugs with a camera) started photographing at length my families activities, you would be itching for a fight. I just heard a family of "dwarf people" who are sick of being photographed when in public, there is a point of just common human decency. I tried to photograph a women in her 90's that was a public fixture here in Indiana, she declined in a public place... nothing wrong with that, and I kept my honor in her memory. Having a camera does not exactly give you thugs the right to pursue, having a legitimate media credential might, that's all I have on the matter.

Steve Smith
10-21-2011, 08:54 AM
Having a camera does not exactly give you thugs the right to pursue, having a legitimate media credential might, that's all I have on the matter.

A media credential does not (and should not) change the way the law applies to anyone.


Steve.

Rudeofus
10-21-2011, 09:48 AM
Care to introduce libel law into the discussion?
[...]
one of you (cocky thugs with a camera)
[...]
Having a camera does not exactly give you thugs
[...]

Speaking of libel and insulting behavior .... After reading your recent postings here in this thread I am not sure whether you should be the one writing about manners here in this otherwise quite polite forum .... :whistling:

brucemuir
10-21-2011, 10:13 AM
Pot, meet Kettle.

Don't get how 'brandishing" a camera in public qualifies you as a thug.

Sirius Glass
10-21-2011, 11:12 AM
What if I am carrying a thug of water? Is that brandishing a thug? :confused:

vpwphoto
10-21-2011, 11:15 AM
I have followed this thread, My impression of a couple of the folks is that the right to photograph makes "sitter immune" to any objection.

I photograph farmers markets and such, I do not get upset with a member of the public that asks me to refrain. I have been asked to delete a photo from a film camera, I simply assure them I will make a note of it and honor their request.

At a farmers market, park etc, I see no point in arguing about it.

I have seen the on-line collections of would be "ethnographers" with collections of "large people" in embarrassing situations... I do think this boarders or crosses the line of public ridicule or libel.

I was 20 something once and I am sure I acted thuggish too brandishing the law... I honestly think a few of the posters do have a little too much "drama" about the situations, and I guess I suppose I exhibited the same in my previous comment.

Yes I do think a press credential does allow somewhat more latitude to pursue a photograph. A group of "small" people being followed in a Chicago park by a blogging photographer isn't the same as a human interest story by a magazine.

Just being out in public doesn't make you appropriate fodder for a pursuing photographer.... it's all about use intended use, and again with the proliferation of digital media, and easy distribution of photos the rules are changing.

Thanks for listening.

My use of the word "thug" was in as much that some of the post had the flavor of "hey I have this camera, I have rights to photograph in public!!" and it seemed to me that while this is true the photographers forget that there are rights on the other side of the coin too.

Steve Smith
10-21-2011, 11:31 AM
Yes I do think a press credential does allow somewhat more latitude to pursue a photograph. A group of "small" people being followed in a Chicago park by a blogging photographer isn't the same as a human interest story by a magazine.

It's the subject which dictates this, not the photographer.


Steve.

lxdude
10-21-2011, 11:43 AM
What if I am carrying a thug of water? Is that brandishing a thug? :confused:
I knew a guy who was a thugboat captain...

I've played thug-of-war...




There once was a photog thug
Who liked to hang out on apug
While taking a shot
His subject got hot
And popped him right in the mug

vpwphoto
10-21-2011, 11:44 AM
Just for fun..and the total truth!!!!
A fellow human brandishing a large chrome gun told me to stop photographing kids in a near northside Chicago city park for a story I was photographing on crack neighborhoods. Did not argue with the guy, or say a thing, left with the reporter happy he put the gun back in his gym bag and let us get in our Honda and leave. He did not like us "educated white guys exploiting his hood". I to this day understand his perspective as not appreciating our high brow intelectual curiosity in his reality.

vpwphoto
10-21-2011, 11:52 AM
It's the subject which dictates this, not the photographer.


Steve.

Agree Steve... so say you are a family of "small people" who have not "went public" with a reality show.

An APUGer takes photos of you (more than one) and you object -- it's a simple country strawberry festival. Apuger post here that "HE WAS ASKED TO DELETE A PHOTO OR STOP PHOTOGRAPHING"

At what point is which party being the "jerk".

Just a friendly debate folks. Thanks... just stirring the conversation.

brucemuir
10-21-2011, 11:54 AM
It's the subject which dictates this, not the photographer.


Steve.

Precisely.

These days there are few lines between a "blogging" photographer and a credentialed photographer shooting on assignment.
It's just the way it is.

Even "social media" sites have become potent places for both positive and negative change through exposure.

lxdude
10-21-2011, 11:54 AM
Just for fun..and the total truth!!!!
A fellow human brandishing a large chrome gun told me to stop photographing kids in a near northside Chicago city park for a story I was photographing on crack neighborhoods. Did not argue with the guy, or say a thing, left with the reporter happy he put the gun back in his gym bag and let us get in our Honda and leave. He did not like us "educated white guys exploiting his hood". I to this day understand his perspective as not appreciating our high brow intelectual curiosity in his reality.
Well at least we know who the thug was...

BrianShaw
10-21-2011, 11:59 AM
Pot, meet Kettle.


Medical or for-pleasure?

vpwphoto
10-21-2011, 12:05 PM
I should go back as it is no longer there...Cabrini–Green.
There was a hospital in the thick of it where "crack babies" were nursed, where I photographed a Priest and his staff that ran the place. This was about 1992.


I don't consider that guy a thug... perhaps he was the John Wayne of the neighborhood. I wish him peace, I wish common folks peace at the farmers market, or the strawberry festival.
What it comes down to is "what kind of skin bag" you were born into, and where it has taken you.

brucemuir
10-21-2011, 12:06 PM
Medical or for-pleasure?

Are these mutually incompatible?
:p

brucemuir
10-21-2011, 12:07 PM
I should go back as it is no longer there...Cabrini–Green.
There was a hospital in the thick of it where "crack babies" were nursed, where I photographed a Priest and his staff that ran the place. This was about 1992.

Also heavily gang infested.
I'm not surprised at your anecdote.