I went into DC to take pictures of the "Occupy DC" gang in Mcpherson Park. I got a few good shots of a cool looking black man with dread-locks. He finally realized I was taking his picture and he said, "...my image is my property....".
a public park
a few blocks from the White house
a public park
tents, protesters, spectators
and you want privacy?
He was bigger than me - and I'd already got a few shots, so I wandered off.
This gent is obviously misinformed - he has no reason to expect privacy in a public place. That point has been previously established by court rulings here in the U.S.
Originally Posted by JerryWo
The best short explanation of this issue I have read so far is this: "People have a right to control the way their images is used - not a right to prohibit someone from photographing them in a public place" or words to that effect.
He also has the fredom of speach to ask you to stop (nothing wrong with that).
IF you are too close and continue to photograph in a harassing way he might choose to get the police involved, public place has nothing to do with it. If he is a private person once he asks you to move on you should, no need to argue anout public places and such.
I am a professional with some 25 years of experiance and few photos are worth upsetting the public about, or spending a night or two in jail. There are lines I WOULD cross as a professional and would be happy to spend a day in jail right or wrong to provide an employer with an image. The world HAS changed, the law is flexible, just becuase you think case law is one your side, upsetting a private person with continued picture taking no mater how cool they look is just itching for a fight. Now if they were involved in a protest line etc fine.. if they are sitting against a tree alone, take the shot or two and move on...
That just isn't the case. Someone can snap your photo in public and pretty much do whatever they want with it.
Originally Posted by lensworker
Care to introduce libel law into the discussion? A private individual vs a "public" individual there are different standards as to what is fair. That being said if you participate in a protest you are stepping into the public arena.
Originally Posted by 2F/2F
Again minding ones own business, sure you can snap a photo.... but continuing to do so, takes a step toward harassment, and depending on the use takes a step toward defamation and libel. Although I do not know a situation where a photograph has been considered libel... then again it used to be just professionals taking photographs for use in professional publications. Personal web-sites posting on facebook and blogs are a whole new arena.
If I were minding my business in a park, and as I take it one of you (cocky thugs with a camera) started photographing at length my families activities, you would be itching for a fight. I just heard a family of "dwarf people" who are sick of being photographed when in public, there is a point of just common human decency. I tried to photograph a women in her 90's that was a public fixture here in Indiana, she declined in a public place... nothing wrong with that, and I kept my honor in her memory. Having a camera does not exactly give you thugs the right to pursue, having a legitimate media credential might, that's all I have on the matter.
A media credential does not (and should not) change the way the law applies to anyone.
Originally Posted by vpwphoto
Speaking of libel and insulting behavior .... After reading your recent postings here in this thread I am not sure whether you should be the one writing about manners here in this otherwise quite polite forum .... :whistling:
Originally Posted by vpwphoto
Pot, meet Kettle.
Don't get how 'brandishing" a camera in public qualifies you as a thug.
What if I am carrying a thug of water? Is that brandishing a thug? :confused:
I have followed this thread, My impression of a couple of the folks is that the right to photograph makes "sitter immune" to any objection.
I photograph farmers markets and such, I do not get upset with a member of the public that asks me to refrain. I have been asked to delete a photo from a film camera, I simply assure them I will make a note of it and honor their request.
At a farmers market, park etc, I see no point in arguing about it.
I have seen the on-line collections of would be "ethnographers" with collections of "large people" in embarrassing situations... I do think this boarders or crosses the line of public ridicule or libel.
I was 20 something once and I am sure I acted thuggish too brandishing the law... I honestly think a few of the posters do have a little too much "drama" about the situations, and I guess I suppose I exhibited the same in my previous comment.
Yes I do think a press credential does allow somewhat more latitude to pursue a photograph. A group of "small" people being followed in a Chicago park by a blogging photographer isn't the same as a human interest story by a magazine.
Just being out in public doesn't make you appropriate fodder for a pursuing photographer.... it's all about use intended use, and again with the proliferation of digital media, and easy distribution of photos the rules are changing.
Thanks for listening.
My use of the word "thug" was in as much that some of the post had the flavor of "hey I have this camera, I have rights to photograph in public!!" and it seemed to me that while this is true the photographers forget that there are rights on the other side of the coin too.