Don't leave home without it!

[Q.G.]

See how easy it is to be indignant about photographers thinking they may treat people as 'camera fodder', and still have a point?

I have already pointed out that we live in the 'middle ground', yet some persists in a it's-entirely-their-fault attitude, and keep pointing towards the fact that it is not forbidden to annoy other people.

And i do stand to the point about "growing up", etc., yet perhaps would rather phrase it differently.
The OP did "purposefully made myself visible before shooting because I wanted to see some kind of reaction".
And when that reaction wasn't one he liked, the paper should absolve him of any responsibility.
He "purposfully" provoked the reaction. He was artistically driven to provoke a reaction. So it is indeed a rather weak position he moves himself in complaining about it.

And the "It is not forbidden, so there!" argument is still a very poor one.
Why do people think that because they can show a paper on which it says it is not necessarily forbidden, that anything that they do would be quite o.k.?

[Moopheus]

And the "It is not forbidden, so there!" argument is still a very poor one.

Actually, in many instances, it is exactly the point. Often, the photographer is faced with someone who says "you can't do that" and they mean in a legal sense; hence the threats to call the cops, to sue, etc. I have been told, for instance that my photographs were not allowed for "security" or because there was a copyright on the building I was photographing. All of these people believe the photographer is doing something that is against the law, and they are frequently wrong. It may be the photographer is breaking the law--for example, they may be trespassing. Therefore, it is in the photographer's interest to be knowledgeable about the law.

[jnanian]

I'm amazed a confrontational bozo would stop and take time to read, but it's good to see it worked out.

DaveT

i was thinking the same thing ...

[Q.G.]

Actually, in many instances, it is exactly the point. Often, the photographer is faced with someone who says "you can't do that" and they mean in a legal sense; hence the threats to call the cops, to sue, etc.

Nope. They object to it personally.

They may try the same ploy, and resort to legalities to support their view. That's true.
But have no occassion to do so, unless they feel provoked.

But the reall issue is not whether the law permits or forbids.
The real issue is whether you can understand why people do not like to be provoked.
The secondary issue is whether, if someone doesn't understand that that is the issue, it would be unfair of us to expect that he would understand anyway that hiding behind legalities is silly. Perhaps not?

I have been told, for instance that my photographs were not allowed for "security" or because there was a copyright on the building I was photographing. All of these people believe the photographer is doing something that is against the law, and they are frequently wrong. It may be the photographer is breaking the law--for example, they may be trespassing. Therefore, it is in the photographer's interest to be knowledgeable about the law.

That's a different matter. There you are dealing with people who think that they should tell other people what to do, perhaps because they just are like that, perhaps because they feel that is their duty.
They indeed are frequently wrong, and there it might help to know the law (it often will not though. Only make matters worse.)

[Domenico Foschi]

I want to inform you guys that I have included QG in the ignore list so I won't be able to read his remarks, hence to reply to them.
My intention with this thread was to be useful to the community with this bit of info, if the all thing gets hijacked by a bellicose member of APUG,...well there is little I can do.
Let's keep the fun in what we do.

[Q.G.]

A pitty that you rather go into hiding than stand up for what you did.

Life is extremely simple: if you do not want to be confronted with opposing views, make sure that you do things such that nobody can think you are not doing the right thing. Or not tell anybody about it.
As long as we don't manage that, there is no escaping discussion and debate. Especially if you 'go public' with what you do in a part of a discussion forum devoted to ethics.
And that is how it should be.

Anyway, i would have loved to hear why, for instance, artistic intent might make any difference. Why you would think that purposfully provoking a reaction gives you the moral high ground when that reaction turns out to be one you do not like.
Why you would believe that because, and as long as, the law does not prohibit what you do, it is quite o.k. what you do, no matter what it is.

So there is a lot you can do.

Pitty you choose not to.

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thank you, Domenico, for posting a very useful document.

As for QG - it's impossible to win against you, brother/sister. The rest of us will just have to give up and succumb to the fact that your opinion is superior.

I relish the reality and good thing that this isn't a competition or anything, but a thread recognizing the kind gesture of a fellow photographer who brought forth a document that might help the rest of us in a pinch.

[jd callow]

Anyway, i would have loved to hear why, for instance, artistic intent might make any difference. Why you would think that purposfully provoking a reaction gives you the moral high ground when that reaction turns out to be one you do not like.
Why you would believe that because, and as long as, the law does not prohibit what you do, it is quite o.k. what you do, no matter what it is.

QC
Why don't you start another thread?

As it is there is no debate here. You stamp all photography where an anonymous subject knows they are being shot as "sticking your camera in thier face" and obnoxious -- when infact it is not necessarily the case (have you ever shot on the street, at a festival, parade, social event etc?). You ignore the opinions of others, set up straw men and throw out insults in an effort to elevate a minor aspect of the original post to a personal crusade.

It is tiresome, annoying, arrogant and obnoxious.

I have stated my opinion twice (which is one more time than is needed), you have continued to highjack the thread and drone on like a broken record. Feel free to have the last word with me and I'm sure you will repeat yourself as many times as others offer a differing view.

In the end (and for the 3rd time from me) the point of the post was to offer an excellent document to help guide others and that might also have use while shooting.

[Thomas Wilson]

QC
Why don't you start another thread?



It is tiresome, annoying, arrogant and obnoxious.

.

A pretty fair description of the post which Domenico wisely deleted.

I suspect it was more illustrative of his true demeanor than either he or you would care to admit.

[Q.G.]

So let's get belligerent.

I have (repeatedly) stated that there is a large middleground.
So you can only think that i "stamp all photography [etc.]" if you do not bother to read at all. You will have your reasons.

What i do not ignore is that the OP stated (clearly, for all to read) that he purposely provoked an reaction.

Tiresome, yes. I grant you that.
As tiresome as hearing "the point of the post was to offer an excellent document", ignoring the point that it is questionable whether it is excellent, and all that.

You say there is no debate here. And yes, i do agree.
You say that it is obnoxious. And i could indeed agree to that too. Look at post #51, and you see that that is purposefully so.

I do find this whole thread rather dissatisfactory too, mainly because i still do not know why, if i had a paper that said that it is not against the law to be obnoxious, tiresome, arrogant, annoying like this in a thread on a discussion forum, it would be o.k.

Could i have made the point any more clear?