Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 74,576   Posts: 1,646,747   Online: 995
      
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 58
  1. #41
    Jaf-Photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    496
    ^^^

    I do not lie or cheat.

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,795
    I also do not participate in unlawful conversion of my property.

  3. #43

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    7,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaf-Photo View Post
    ^^^

    I do not lie or cheat.
    You were not being accused of either by me. It was simply your quote of ethical behaviour that prompted me to mention that others were offering to dupe the authority figure or were endorsing this action with the strong possibility of serious repercussions.

    It might have been that the actions which I thought were unlikely to work for the reasons stated were simply a comical exaggeration to make the point that this form of defiance was a reasonable course of action in the face of what I took to be, a belief that such police/security action was unjustified.

    Just a matter of interest what is the law governing photos in an airport in an area where there are no signs prohibiting it?

    If the photographer has the law on his side then unless the U.S. is an authoritarian country in which the law doesn't apply to the law enforcers I'd have thought that the only long term action to change things is a form of civil legal action against those i.e. the police/security breaking it.

    pentaxuser

  4. #44
    yurisrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    New York Metro Area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    260
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaf-Photo View Post
    I forgot to mention one more personal rule.

    If I am taking photographs in a public space which is guarded or attended, I start by presenting myself and explaining why I will be taking photographs. I've never been told no, but if I was, I would respect it.

    I live in a country, Sweden, with very few legal restrictions on photography, but to me it is more about common sense than law.

    If you look at the work of the great masters, very few images required them to break any laws or decorum.
    ^totally agree. Sometimes I have been told it was not allowed and, 99.9% of the time after talking with said personal I'm given the info of whom to contact in order to take photographs in that place. Btw, other than what some may say, the legalities on both sides of the pond are very similar.
    "The real work was thinking, just thinking." - Charles Chaplin

  5. #45
    Jaf-Photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by yurisrey View Post
    ^totally agree. Sometimes I have been told it was not allowed and, 99.9% of the time after talking with said personal I'm given the info of whom to contact in order to take photographs in that place. Btw, other than what some may say, the legalities on both sides of the pond are very similar.
    Great

    As to the laws of photography, there are actually quite a lot of variants, both in principle and detail. It's perhaps not so much a America-Europe thing, as different countries may be liberal or restrictive.

    In Sweden, Parliament almost passed a bill (unintentionally) that would have outlawed street photography. But the politicians realised it in time and amended it to prohibit only sneak photography in the private domain, which is very reasonable.

  6. #46

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    7,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaf-Photo View Post
    First, my personal policy is that if anyone objects to being photographed, I will delete/destroy/surrender the exposure.
    Just to return to this for a moment. If you have a film camera then the only thing you can do to comply with your delete/destroy /surrender is to take the whole film out, expose to light and destroy the whole roll

    Are you saying you'd do this even if the other 15/35 frames were not of the person who objected to the photo after you had taken the exposure? Your quote above implies that this was an after-the-event occurrence. If you had checked with the person in advance and he/she had objected then none of the above options of delete/destroy/ surrender would have arisen.

    If the picture is taken with a digital camera it is simple to show the person, who is objecting, the picture and delete in his presence. No such method is open to a film photographer.

    He/she can either destroy the whole film or at best persuade the objector that he will faithfully return the negative to the objector, promising to have made no prints of the offending negative.

    Things get very complicated. If there is one person only in a scene then it may be possible to check with that person that he doesn't object but if there are several behind him who will be recognised then do you go to all of them. What do you do about the person walking past as you shoot?If you take a picture of your child on a children's roundabout in a park but there are other children on it do you wait until they all leave or seek out all the parents there to ensure that each is OK with a picture being taken? What do you do at fairgrounds, fetes, street parades etc or any other public gathering?

    In the case of the sleeping pilot the fact that he was sleeping in a public place, I'd assume, means that he believed this action was OK to be seen and if so he must accept that it was OK for a picture to be taken.

    While a degree of commonsense and courtesy is appropriate we could very quickly and easily end up in a situation where "street/people in public places" or "pictures of public places that included people" photography would be outlawed.

    Only "officially sanctioned" people photography would be possible. In U.K. airports and I feel fairly certain in U.S. airports also there is officially sanctioned photography taking place all the time. It is called airport close circuit photography. Perhaps the pilot who was sleeping should have complained to the airport authorities. If being a sleeping pilot gets him into trouble then it is likely to be the fault of the airport cameras.

    We used to tell jokes about lack of freedom in the Soviet bloc countries and the myriad of "crimes" that the state could find you guilty of. One such story is about the guide who dutifully chaperoned the Western tourists but who has at the end of the tour to tell them he is to be shot as he had failed the state.

    He appears to be strangely cheerful about his impending execution.The tourists are appalled at the news and as he wants them to continue to enjoy themselves he says: "Don't be concerned, it isn't for anything serious"

    Has photography in public places entered into this Orwellian 1984 category?

    pentaxuser

  7. #47
    jnanian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    17,724
    Blog Entries
    7
    Images
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by pentaxuser View Post
    Has photography in public places entered into this Orwellian 1984 category?

    pentaxuser
    not it hasn't but there will always be people who are rude and obnoxious with a camera ...
    a few months ago i remember someone who crashed a party and was photographing there
    uninvited and obnoxiously and he was offended when the powers that be asked him to stop.
    and another person was photographing people who asked him to stop, and gave him the finger
    but he continued ...

    i think there is an OK way to do this sort of thing, and a not so good way ...

    i have done both ... late night eateries and a drunk guy threatened to break my camera
    after he took it from me, i eventually got it back ... and when i was shooting the equiv. of surveillance
    for a newspaper and a security guard got in my face ...
    i was also hired to photograph at a high security military installation .. they took all the serial #s of everything i owned
    ihad to get a high level fbi security clearance, they searched my car inside and out and under ... and every 16 seconds
    after i was set up documenting what i had to document, someone came up to me and demanded to see my camera badge.
    eventually a MP came up to me, we started talking and i gave him pointers on how to take better photographs .. and
    he ran interference for me for 6 hours ( he's with me ) .. sometimes i even call the police and tell them who i am
    and what i am doing so if someone calls them they know who i am, and so they can keep an eye out for me so i don't get into "trouble"
    id rather not be involved with confrontational-people if i don't have to, and i would rather not be
    bothered by the police ... and i don't mind if they are looking out for me ...

    nothing to do with 1984, just common sense ..

  8. #48

    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Florida
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    101
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    not it hasn't but there will always be people who are rude and obnoxious with a camera ...
    a few months ago i remember someone who crashed a party and was photographing there
    uninvited and obnoxiously and he was offended when the powers that be asked him to stop.
    and another person was photographing people who asked him to stop, and gave him the finger
    but he continued ...
    Now this is apples and oranges.

    1) Your photographer was apparently in private property where the owner of such property has the right to limit the activities that happen in said property. If the photographer was asked to leave and did not comply he can be charged with trespassing. Now if the party was held at a public place (i.e. park) then neither the host of the party nor the guests had a reasonable expectation of privacy and the photographer had the right to photograph them. If he was getting in their face the guests can call law enforcement and complain and the guy can probably be charged with disturbing the peace or something of that nature.

    2)My pilot was in a public place and did not have any expectation of privacy, he was literally sleeping in the middle of a gait in plain view of everybody and he was not being harassed or disturbed since he actually slept through the hole picture taking process.

  9. #49
    jnanian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    17,724
    Blog Entries
    7
    Images
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by drgoose View Post
    Now this is apples and oranges.
    what i am getting at ..

    it is easy to act like kind of a jerk, even though it is perfectly legal.
    (im suggesting the other guy acted like a jerk, you actually acted with tact, which is highly iregular with photographers
    seeing we have a camera, and we think every view is ours for the taking, and to hell with the people who say NO )

    its a fine line ...
    Last edited by jnanian; 05-09-2014 at 08:17 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  10. #50

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,696
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by pentaxuser View Post
    Just to return to this for a moment. If you have a film camera then the only thing you can do to comply with your delete/destroy /surrender is to take the whole film out, expose to light and destroy the whole roll

    Are you saying you'd do this even if the other 15/35 frames were not of the person who objected to the photo after you had taken the exposure? Your quote above implies that this was an after-the-event occurrence. If you had checked with the person in advance and he/she had objected then none of the above options of delete/destroy/ surrender would have arisen.

    If the picture is taken with a digital camera it is simple to show the person, who is objecting, the picture and delete in his presence. No such method is open to a film photographer.

    He/she can either destroy the whole film or at best persuade the objector that he will faithfully return the negative to the objector, promising to have made no prints of the offending negative.

    [...]


    The first sentence is absolutely true. In Australia any photography of restricted areas, including airside aviation features, planes on the tarmac etc., engineering, is prohibited. This also includes passengers inside the plane photographing anything outside the window when taxiing to the terminal. If a photographer photographs something and is stopped by ground or plane crew, he/she will be asked to delete those images (in the presence of those/that staff member). If it is on film, the film will have to be surrendered — there is no second option.You will potentially lose everything on that roll (there have apparently been a lot of this happening in Perth, Sydney and Brisbane!), not just the dramatic angles featuring planes etc. The photography is not allowed, and that's it — there is no half-way point of giving an undertaking to separate the offending photographs from the rest of the benign images on the roll of film. The onus is on the photographer to be aware of regulations and rules and adhere to them. There will always be rambo types in photography thinking they can do what they want — to some extent it is their actions which have painted all other photographers with the same brush.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin