PDA

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



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

vpwphoto
10-21-2011, 12:11 PM
Also heavily gang infested.
I'm not surprised at your anecdote.

BUT I HAD THE RIGHT TO PHOTOGRAPH IT WAS A PUBLIC PLACE!!!!:confused::whistling::cool:

brucemuir
10-21-2011, 12:14 PM
BUT I HAD THE RIGHT TO PHOTOGRAPH IT WAS A PUBLIC PLACE!!!!:confused::whistling::cool:

Yes, you absolutely did.
The question of what is reasonable and prudent in this type situation is always something not to be ignored :p

btw: would love to see the series if you have them somewhere.

lxdude
10-21-2011, 12:34 PM
I don't consider that guy a thug...

The guy with a pistol isn't, but a guy with a camera is?



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.

Guys carrying guns in gym bags and threatening people with them are usually not on their way to church. I don't blame him for not liking people who (in his perception) come into his hood like they were going to the zoo.
But look, the man threatened you and violated your rights. I'm not saying you could have done anything about it except what you did, which was the wise thing under the circumstances. Get real-he was not a nice guy, and you'd do well to recognize that. All this warm-fuzziness toward a guy who just might have shot you had you not done as ordered only goes to show that you didn't belong there.

Jeff Searust
10-21-2011, 02:03 PM
This is another reason to use a Mamiya RB-67. I have had people look at me weird while I take pictures, but 13 pounds of hand held metal and glass with a good swinging grip give me a lot more courage.

lensworker
10-21-2011, 11:25 PM
That just isn't the case. Someone can snap your photo in public and pretty much do whatever they want with it.
I was referring to what a person can and cannot legally do with a photograph as mandated by law - not whether or not the subject is present and able to stop them from using the photograph in question.

corposant
10-22-2011, 02:21 PM
The only time I have ever been confronted was when a group of (somewhat ragged) street performers demanded I pay them $1 after I took a candid of them. I think they were joking...

lensworker
10-23-2011, 08:32 PM
The only time I have ever been confronted was when a group of (somewhat ragged) street performers demanded I pay them $1 after I took a candid of them. I think they were joking......So I take it you didn't give them the dollar they demanded?

lensworker
10-23-2011, 09:05 PM
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.

"Cocky thugs with a camera??"

I fail to comprehend what you feel justifies such name calling and attacks - let alone the assumptions you are making about others who you don't even know. Please explain to us the source of your anger - we'd all like to be able to understand.

I can only speak for myself, but I do not photograph "dwarf people" as you refer to them - or anyone else who is disabled without their permission and knowledge before the fact. Doing so would be exploitative - and just the thought of using a camera to exploit the disabled makes my skin crawl.

Obviously not all photographers feel this way. As for me, I have more respect for my subjects, the art of street photography and for myself than to crawl in the gutter by exploiting disabled persons with my camera. There are too many others who are willing to take that low road. They can take it without my company.

No one (other than you, that is) said anything about "photographing at length" any family or their activities. One of the articles of faith in street photography is that you photograph in a candid and unnoticed manner that does not interfere with or influence the actions or reactions of your subjects. This means that you make perhaps three to six images of your subject and then move on, having never disturbed them or having been noticed to begin with.

This is the way the founder of the genre - Henri Cartier-Bresson - photographed. It is how I endeavor to photograph on the street. HCB is my role model, not the paparazzi of TMZ or any of the stalkers who photograph for the low brow gossip rags on the magazine racks at every convenience mart and grocery store.


Having a camera does not exactly give you thugs the right to pursue, having a legitimate media credential might Apologies, but this statement just doesn not hold water. Here in the U.S., the courts have already ruled that freedom of the press and Article One of the Bill of Rights applies to ALL photographers, not just those who are employed by news gathering agncies or those who possess " legitimate media credentials."

Regarding libel law - libel is defined as "when an image is used to falsely portray someone without their consent." Consent (a signed model release) is not lawfully required for images used for editorial or documentary purposes - and street photography qualifies as documentary purposes.

Hopefully this thread can continue on in a more civil and respectful manner - I did not come here to engage in name calling and verbal combat with others - it serves no constructive purpose. I came here to try to learn about photography and to hopefully pass on a bit of what I have learned over the years.

As Charles Farmer puts it, "We're all in this together."