Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,821   Posts: 1,581,817   Online: 1153
      
Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 99
  1. #71
    Markok765's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,270
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Aggie
    Getting back to the basics of this thread, you Roger seem to expand it into different areas to try and belittle people who for one reason or another do not wish to have their photograph taken. Why do you feel the need to call those who so wish it, to be ashamed? Why do you call them small minded? Why can't you accept that not everyone thinks like you?

    Granted there are security cameras everywhere. So be it. When a person is confronted with a choice as to having that photo taken or not, Why can't you accept that that person made a choice? Some countries it is not a right to photograph whatever you want or whom ever you want. My example of the Hopi Reservation is just that. Many and that means right here on apug have in the past claimed that the reservations should and are public lands. They are not. Photographers, and this means a person carrying a camera, have visited the Hopi rez especially during their ceremonial times. Those photographers were rude, and interrupted the ceremonies to the point that in a few instances the ceremony came to a halt until the offending photographer that positioned themselves right in the middle of it as they claimed it was there right, could be ejected from the rez. Laws were enacted to halt it by banning cameras. It is not that I'm saying ban a camera. I'm saying think before you use that camera. Some shots are not going to be offensive to anyone. There are a lot og good grab shots. Then there are those that for one reason or another would upset the subject. We see it a lot today with parents of children. To say again that a person should put a bag on their head to go outside is the most asinine thing I have heard in response to this thread. To demand that you have the right no matter what will give ammunition to those who do want to ban the use of cameras. Common courtesy, smiling, being open and asking permission when you think it might cause trouble goes a long way to keeping that right you so dearly want. Is it that hard to respect another human being? Do you have to demean them by name calling just because they don't want their picture taken? As to the remarks about farting, Ben Franklin had it right in the late 1700's, read his book called, "Fart Proudly" It actually takes your stance. As to vomiting, well that is not something that is controlable. If it were to happen, then you just happened to be covered by what is an act of God, or Mother nature, take your pick. That person if they were being photographeed, and chose that moment to hurl, I would laugh until I cried to see you covered with your right to photograph it. Yeah I do equate them. It is not an assualt, it is what they say,,,,shit happens. You take pictures in a street setting, and well anything can and sometimes does happen. You sound more like a papparazi type than a street photographer.
    Wow, long thread
    Marko Kovacevic
    Blog
    Youtube

  2. #72
    dmr
    dmr is offline
    dmr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Hicks
    Anyone who does not want their picture taken in the street is voting, as clearly as possible, for people not being allowed to photograph them in the street. If this is not a vote to ban street photography, it is hard to see what is.
    I don't see it that way at all. If I had my choice in the matter, I would choose not to be photographed by J. Random Camerafan, but there's no way I want that desire to be in any way made into law or even custom.

    It's kind of hard to explain. I'm not at all ashamed of the way I look, and for being (something I admit usually under extreme duress) "49 and holding" I think I'm rather well preserved, actually.

    It's just that I feel a whole lot more comfortable on the rear side of the camera.

    I don't think I'm bad looking in any way, but when I see myself in casual snapshots I often cringe! 9 times out of 8 they catch me with mouth open, hair out of place, dumb expression, eyes closed, hair in eyes, hair in mouth, I'm sure you know what I mean. I just get this "oh {shoot}" feeling when somebody (other than me) pulls out a camera and starts snapping away when I'm in view.

    When I'm in public, or at a function where people are taking pictures, I know it's gonna happen. I just put up with it, but it's far from my favorite thing to have happen.

    Am I making sense here?

  3. #73

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    415
    Quote Originally Posted by dmr
    "... I would choose not to be photographed by J. Random Camerafan, but there's no way I want that desire to be in any way made into law or even custom... Am I making sense here...?"
    Consummate sense!

  4. #74

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this thread. I think it has probably run its course now, and all that is likely to follow is repetition and personal attack, so I propose to stop posting and suggest that others might like to do otherwise.

    Cheers,

    Roger

  5. #75
    David H. Bebbington's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    East Kent, United Kingdom
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,364
    Images
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargazer
    Oh yes, and another thing!

    I noticed just the photographers of Picture Post were mentioned. No, they didn't always go 'incognito'. in fact they very often didn't, especially with their street shots of children. In fact some shots were not as spontaneous as they appeared, because they were rehearsed and even 'set-up'. Grace Robertson took some well-known pictures of children, she would spend hours with them.

    There's a lot of myth-making about photographers of the past.
    This is an interesting point - if I dare say so, I think it underlines what I was saying earlier about public attitudes to photography changing. In the heyday of Picture Post, journalists with the right middle-class accent and sufficient self-confidence/arrogance (delete as appropriate) could normally expect a deferential attitude from the "lower classes" (the social parameters of the time have been caught very well by the British comedian Harry Enfield and his "Mr. Cholmondely-Warner" character). Rather different today!

    A further example of the change in attitudes is the iconic "Migrant Mother" picture by Dorothea Lange. DL, representing the Farm Security Administration which was dispensing the aid which had probably saved the mother in question from starvation, was able without difficulty to get the subject's cooperation without payment of a fee and use the resulting pix free of charge for FSA publicity purposes.

    Fast-forward 60 years, and the little girl in the picture, now of pensionable age, instructs a lawyer to sue the US Government for violation of her rights and a share of the very large sums of money which vintage prints of "Migrant Mother" are now fetching at auction. I believe the case was thrown out of court, but it sure does illustrate the change in attitudes!

    Regards,

    David

  6. #76
    David H. Bebbington's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    East Kent, United Kingdom
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,364
    Images
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by willie_901
    I could care less if someone takes my photograph when I'm in a public space.

    You may think you have some right to privacy when you are in public, but you don't. In public there is no privacy. In an urban or suburban environment we are constantly being photographed.

    Get over it.


    willie
    Just a factual observation here - if there is no restriction on photography in public places AND (emphasize AND) no restriction on the use of the resulting pictures, then situations will occur on a daily basis where, for example, a perfectly innocent picture of a teenage boy and girl, walking down the street hand in hand and not engaging in behavior remarkable in any way, turns up in a newspaper to illustrate an article and captioned "Sexually transmitted diseases rocket as drug-crazed teens indulge in reckless promiscuity." You and no doubt all other readers can imagine ways in which pictures of themselves could end up being used in similarly defamatory ways. People are without doubt over-reacting hysterically, but their concerns do have some basis in fact, and the basis is as I have described above!

    Regards,

    David

  7. #77
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,704
    Images
    122
    I think there is a difference between taking a photograph for your own use and having it published. If it is published and the people involved are recognisable then a model release is required (at least in UK) and that means that the people shown have given permission for its use so the situation you mentioned should not happen.

    Steve.
    "People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.

  8. #78
    Andy K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sunny Southend, England.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    9,422
    Images
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Smith
    I think there is a difference between taking a photograph for your own use and having it published. If it is published and the people involved are recognisable then a model release is required (at least in UK) and that means that the people shown have given permission for its use so the situation you mentioned should not happen.

    Steve.
    That model release business is a bloody nuisance. I cannot legally publish any photographs I make during the summer season because at any one time there could be up to 5,000 people in frame!


    -----------My Flickr-----------
    Anáil nathrach, ortha bháis is beatha, do chéal déanaimh.

  9. #79
    David H. Bebbington's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    East Kent, United Kingdom
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,364
    Images
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy K
    That model release business is a bloody nuisance. I cannot legally publish any photographs I make during the summer season because at any one time there could be up to 5,000 people in frame!
    My impression of the current legal situation is that you can publish pictures taken legally, so long as this is done in a neutral way. Examples of legal use might include your personal website or blog, a camera-club exhibition or other exhibitions, and indeed press use in a neutral editorial context (for example, if you took pictures of visitors to Southend and these were published with an article entitled "Southend just as popular as ever" or "Southend sizzles in heatwave."). The problem, as I indicated, is putting pictures through channels (such as picture agencies) in which they could be used for any purpose (such as the one I described). It is here that you will get nowhere without a model release (and you should be glad, since otherwise your risk of being sued would be acute!).

    Regards,

    David

  10. #80

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,355
    A few points: (sorry Roger, this is far too interesting a subject - and important - to let it drop!)

    I agree implicitly with Aggie over her comments about Reservations.

    It is also an issue in Australia with regard to the indigenous aboriginal population whose rights have been ridden over roughshod, and to whom the idea of photographing sacred sites is deeply sacrilegious and offensive (my goodness the complaints about having certain areas of Urulu "off-limits"...). It is also the situation in many areas of the world where westerners don't think twice about their role as tourists and consumers.

    David H Bebbington's point about the class system in the earlier part of the 20th century, and how photographers and being photographed were perceived -
    Yes, I agree, I think things have changed fundamentally. People don't respect photographers (usually middle and upper-class) and cameras in the way they did, they have their own and take their own pics, and a crucial point that no-one's mentioned: any photograph nowadays is likely to end up on the internet, people are well aware of this possibility and that increases reluctance to be photographed. It feels different being seen in a respectable magzine in the '30's (guv') and being seen in a front room on the other side of the world.

    On model releases - they exist to protect the photographer (from possible come-back from the model). It is not the same as seeking informed consent from a subject (which is to protect the subject).

Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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