| | | -
Law & Photog rights in The Great White North.
I couldn't post the article but here's the link
(Ambientlight.ca) look for subsection (Law).Just my 2 Loonies worth.
JMK
-
-
My father would ask for permission to take a portrait. [That is after he almost got horse whipped for photographing Amish man, but that is another story.] And then proceeded to take his Mamiyaflex C330 and practically shove the two lenses up one or both of their nostrils!
I always considered that what he did was so intrusive that I rarely take portraits of strangers even though I have the long lenses and close-up tubes so that I would not be intrusive.
But that's just me.
Steve
Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being! Nothing beats a great piece of glass! I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.
-
 
 Originally Posted by Q.G.  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. That is actually pretty funny!
C'mon guys. Can't we all play nicely? QG clearly has a strong and persistent style of questioning (I suspect that JD's references to 'QC' are no accident!), and maybe winks more often than I would be comfortable with if we were drinking together in a bar, but he generally does not get personal without provocation. In my experience, QG will even occasionally concede a point or two...
There are actually a couple of interesting points buried in all this. And it's true, this is an 'ethics and philosophy' forum.
As stated earlier, I agree that it is useful to have an idea of what you can be legally restricted from photographing. Knowledge is power, as they say. So these sorts of summary documents, when accurate, can be very worthwhile. But Domenico's original post also presented a fuller story that raises some interesting questions.
I have mixed feelings about street shooting myself. I accept that some great photos that I admire must have been taken in a pretty intrusive way, but I can also understand why many people would (and do) feel uncomfortable about strangers making a point of photographing them. I have in the past felt compelled to take certain photos that I have later regretted taking. And I have certainly often avoided taking photos that I thought would be good, out of respect for the subject. So I am a bit conflicted. Does this just mean that I cannot be a really good street shooter? Or does it mean that good street shooters deserve the occasional punch in the face, as the price of their art?
Surely plenty of other photographers have wrestled with these issues, no?
-
As with everything, you have to use discretion. There are times when I ask permission, because of what someone is doing or how they look, and there are times I don't, eg. when I want to get a candid shot.
-
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
-
Originally Posted by Q.G. 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 understand what you are saying, but if you keep pushing those feelings you have, what you will see is the society with a lot of self-censorship. Japan is one, for example, and to be honest, it is not a comfortable one to live in...
-
Good grief. Every day this site gets more like Pnut.
It is simple.
Some photographers photograph regardless of what others think. They are the ones whose work makes us think, makes us respond.
Other photographers are afraid to do anything for fear they might offend or upset others. They make pictures of puppies and kittens in baskets.
----------- My Flickr-----------
Anáil nathrach, ortha bháis is beatha, do chéal déanaimh.
✯
-
Originally Posted by Andy K Good grief. Every day this site gets more like Pnut.
It is simple.
Some photographers photograph regardless of what others think. They are the ones whose work makes us think, makes us respond.
Other photographers are afraid to do anything for fear they might offend or upset others. They make pictures of puppies and kittens in baskets. I presume you are one of the former, Andy. So are you prepared to accept the occasional punch in the face from someone bigger than you as the price of being a fearless artist?
-
Originally Posted by iandavid I presume you are one of the former, Andy. So are you prepared to accept the occasional punch in the face from someone bigger than you as the price of being a fearless artist? I am a lifelong non-conformist. I do not blindly follow rules, I question them. If, when I am carrying out a perfectly legal activity someone wants to break the law and assault me, they are welcome to try. They'll simply end up giving me a lot of money.
But don't let me stop you from living your live in timidity Ian.
----------- My Flickr-----------
Anáil nathrach, ortha bháis is beatha, do chéal déanaimh.
✯
-
Gosh Andy. Bad day? I just asked you a question because I am interested in your answer. Not because I wanted a fight. I am not primarily a street shooter, so what makes you think I am living my life in timidity?
I could have responded to your previous post by saying "Bullshit Andy. Your ridiculous views are as black and white as your profile picture." Would that have made you happier? What's the problem?
| |
Adv Reply
