Just thinking about the previous posts and thinking that if the subject was in a good mood would they really mind the camera . Most people don't go around hating people with camera's and most photographers don't shove cameras in peoples face and if they did I think you could expect a angry response.When I did shoot people I'd use a tripod or stay in one place while people walked around me (using a tripod can be dangerous on a narrow side walk and could be a misdemeanor or city ordinance ) ,the longer I stayed in one place it seemed like the more people didn't mind me. That was 30yrs ago ,my be things have changed if I did start again I'd use my 4x5 speed graphic on a tripod.
No one needs to accept the actions of a person who breaks the law as being some how equivalent to someone well within the law.
I don't believe Ian was suggesting the two actions are in any way equivalent.
The paparazzi in this country routinely get their asses kicked and gear destroyed for acting "Well within the law."
While assault or destruction of property is clearly outside of the law, our judges consider mitigating factors before deciding innocence or guilt, and sentence accordingly.
Additionally, jury nullification commonly comes in two forms, "Not responsible," or "Responsible" with damages in the amount of $1.00.
Those who provoke a fight, get in a fight, lose the fight, and then sue, are generally greeted with little or no sympathy, and deservedly so.
Just thinking about the previous posts and thinking that if the subject was in a good mood would they really mind the camera . Most people don't go around hating people with camera's and most photographers don't shove cameras in peoples face and if they did I think you could expect a angry response.When I did shoot people I'd use a tripod or stay in one place while people walked around me (using a tripod can be dangerous on a narrow side walk and could be a misdemeanor or city ordinance ) ,the longer I stayed in one place it seemed like the more people didn't mind me. That was 30yrs ago ,my be things have changed if I did start again I'd use my 4x5 speed graphic on a tripod.
Mike
Mike
Bingo. For those out shooting in public places there hasn't been much of a change. One out a couple hundred people will accost you whether you pointed the camera at them or not and you don't go into seedy areas without care.
Thomas,
I have no idea what happens with the paparazzi and their targets.
Been lurking for a while, had to register just for this thread.
One thing I think has been missed here. The OP stated the subjects put up their hands to shield themselves from the camera, the OP thought it made a good picture, and took it.
Why does this matter? Because BEFORE he snapped the shutter the subjects CLEARLY made their desire to not be photographed known. This is completely different than if they came up after the fact, and in no way is catching life as it happens, it is staged, rude, and generally being a A__.
Let me clarify something. I firmly believe that our rights to photograph anything in public should be upheld. I do not however think that when someone explicitly asks (or demonstrates their desire) to not be photographed before said photograph is taken, that some law or piece of paper is a substitute for basic human courtesy.
Are you allowed to take their picture anyway? Sure! But I personally would not feel one single gram of sympathy for you if you did and wound up in the morgue for it (even though I would want the murderer brought to justice). I know that sounds harsh, but it is honestly how I feel.
Once again, remember, they showed their desire to not be photographed BEFORE the op fired the shutter!
If you can not be bothered to extend some basic decency to other people, then I see no need in extending it to you.
But I personally would not feel one single gram of sympathy for you if you did and wound up in the morgue for it (even though I would want the murderer brought to justice). I know that sounds harsh, but it is honestly how I feel.
Adv Reply
Originally Posted by jd callow 
