General Photography - Techniques & StylesDiscuss the fundamentals of photography, photographic technique, infrared and macro shooting, and related topics here!
(snip) I would take grave exception to being photographed without my permission; and would nicely, but emphatically, request that the digital image(s) be erased. I would expect that request to be honored. (snip)
That's pretty funny, Brian. And, once that nice request does becomes emphatic, you can honestly expect me to tell you to kiss my behind. I might (just might) respond positively to a polite request, but not so to being strongly told to erase the image. You have no more right to tell me what to do with my camera than I do to tell you what to do with your underwear. And, as long as I'm not breaking the law (and street photography doesn't), a cop would agree. That pretty much ends your emphatic request.
Originally Posted by FHPhotographer
(snip) I have no reason to raise the issue other than street photography without the subject's permission is unethical. (snip)
So says you. In this and all previous related threads, I don't think you've found one person to agree with that opinion. At the same time, street photography without permission is still commonplace throughout the world - many millions, perhaps many billions, of such photos have been taken since cameras were first introduced. Tourists alone probably account for several hundred million street photos each year, without regard to either who might be in the image or permission.
In spite of all that, you still insist street photography without the subject's permission is unethical. I don't remember you ever saying why. I'm certainly willing to keep an open mind, so you tell us (me if you prefer) why it is unethical - why street photography without permission is "not conforming to approved standards of social or professional behavior" as the dictionary defines of the word "unethical."
Notice in the previous paragraph that I don't really want to hear why you "think" it's unethical when you already boldly proclaimed it so. Instead, I want to hear what grounds or authority you are using to support that proclamation. If you are unable to provide that, feel free to say so and only then say why you "think" it's unethical.
Guys it is pointless to come to a meaningful discussion with a person who is dogmatically obstinate and unable to see nor adequately justify his erroneous views.
Unfortunately he cannot see beyond what his one track mind can comprehend. Let's move on and let this fool dwell in his fool's paradise.
I know I'm late to the party, but here's my $0.02...
Originally Posted by FHPhotographer
Are you asking if I have a "special reason," or are you just going to assume that there is one? Since I assume you don't know the difference, I'll respond as though you asked a question: I have no reason to raise the issue other than street photography without the subject's permission is unethical.
To me 'Street Photography' is capturing life. Just think about all the famous photos in Time and Life magazine that raise awareness of issues or show the devastation of large events like a hurricane. Would you call a photo of a family viewing the remains of their house after a flood unethical? What about the people that see that photo and offer support and assistance to the families? 'Street Photography' can be used for editorial purposes without written consent in the United States and is has been used thousands of times a week in newspapers a magazines.
I define unethical as doing something intentionally to hurt, degrade, demoralize or defame someone or their character (a.k.a. Paparazzi). 99% of those doing street photography do NOT go out with such intentions; therefore they are acting in an ethical way.
I understand that if you were someone that ran from the lens in a previous 'life', that you would not want you picture taken. However, you can not condemn all street photography because of you personal views. You know Hitler condemned a lot of things because he personally didn’t like/want them and look what happened there.
I live in the U.S.A. and since I have my rights not to change my behavior by other's opinions, I will not. I am not saying you don't have a right to have an opinion; however you do not have the right to tell everyone that something is wrong and possibly scare away someone with a lot of talent from doing street photography because YOU believe it is unethical.
And no I am not going to debate the laws of shooting in public with you because it is senseless when you already know that street photography is legal.
To me 'Street Photography' is capturing life. Just think about all the famous photos in Time and Life magazine that raise awareness of issues or show the devastation of large events like a hurricane. Would you call a photo of a family viewing the remains of their house after a flood unethical? What about the people that see that photo and offer support and assistance to the families? 'Street Photography' can be used for editorial purposes without written consent in the United States and is has been used thousands of times a week in newspapers a magazines.
I define unethical as doing something intentionally to hurt, degrade, demoralize or defame someone or their character (a.k.a. Paparazzi). 99% of those doing street photography do NOT go out with such intentions; therefore they are acting in an ethical way.
I understand that if you were someone that ran from the lens in a previous 'life', that you would not want you picture taken. However, you can not condemn all street photography because of you personal views. You know Hitler condemned a lot of things because he personally didn’t like/want them and look what happened there.
I live in the U.S.A. and since I have my rights not to change my behavior by other's opinions, I will not. I am not saying you don't have a right to have an opinion; however you do not have the right to tell everyone that something is wrong and possibly scare away someone with a lot of talent from doing street photography because YOU believe it is unethical.
And no I am not going to debate the laws of shooting in public with you because it is senseless when you already know that street photography is legal.
I can sure appreciate a good post when I read one and this is no exception. Well said.
That's pretty funny, Brian. And, once that nice request does becomes emphatic, you can honestly expect me to tell you to kiss my behind. I might (just might) respond positively to a polite request, but not so to being strongly told to erase the image. You have no more right to tell me what to do with my camera than I do to tell you what to do with your underwear. And, as long as I'm not breaking the law (and street photography doesn't), a cop would agree. That pretty much ends your emphatic request.
So says you. In this and all previous related threads, I don't think you've found one person to agree with that opinion. At the same time, street photography without permission is still commonplace throughout the world - many millions, perhaps many billions, of such photos have been taken since cameras were first introduced. Tourists alone probably account for several hundred million street photos each year, without regard to either who might be in the image or permission.
In spite of all that, you still insist street photography without the subject's permission is unethical. I don't remember you ever saying why. I'm certainly willing to keep an open mind, so you tell us (me if you prefer) why it is unethical - why street photography without permission is "not conforming to approved standards of social or professional behavior" as the dictionary defines of the word "unethical."
Notice in the previous paragraph that I don't really want to hear why you "think" it's unethical when you already boldly proclaimed it so. Instead, I want to hear what grounds or authority you are using to support that proclamation. If you are unable to provide that, feel free to say so and only then say why you "think" it's unethical.
Guys it is pointless to come to a meaningful discussion with a person who is dogmatically obstinate and unable to see nor adequately justify his erroneous views.
Unfortunately he cannot see beyond what his one track mind can comprehend. Let's move on and let this fool dwell in his fool's paradise.
I agree with you as well, but I would like to read his answer to my last question. Brian, hint hint.
Guys it is pointless to come to a meaningful discussion with a person who is dogmatically obstinate and unable to see nor adequately justify his erroneous views.
Unfortunately he cannot see beyond what his one track mind can comprehend. Let's move on and let this fool dwell in his fool's paradise.
You got a special gripe with me, or what, Puff? Are you still sulking because I wouldn't sell you a lens? Get over it. You've got to have something better to do, perhaps learning how to offer criticism of the idea without attacking the person offering the idea? You might want to start by looking up argumentum ad hominem.
As always, a pleasure to hear from you,
Brian
You're trying to say 'Street photography is unethical without asking permission.' Sounds like a claim that street photography is a 'bad thing' to me.
You say that you have some personal reason you use to convince people to delete images of you in order to back this claim.
First, what it "sounds like" to you is not what I said.
Second, I did not say I have some "personal reason"; again, and hopefully for the final time, I'll point out that you are using your terms and attributing them to me.
See if you can follow this: you cannot assert that I said something that I did not say. What don't you understand about that very simple, very basic rule of reasonable discourse? If I say it, you can quote it and respond to it; if I didn't say it, you can't. To do so is wrong, unethical, dishonest and dishonorable right down to the ground. You aren't a Limbaugh/Beck/FoxNews fan by any chance, are you?
Here's an idea; let's drop this, I don't think you're getting it,
Brian
To me 'Street Photography' is capturing life. Just think about all the famous photos in Time and Life magazine that raise awareness of issues or show the devastation of large events like a hurricane. Response: you are not a press photographer, that's a different set of professionals standards and ethic that from an amateur with a camera; unless you are working press, you probably shouldn't assume those standards apply to you.
'Street Photography' can be used for editorial purposes without written consent in the United States and is has been used thousands of times a week in newspapers a magazines. Response: again, you aren't a news photographer and editorial use is a lot more complex than you think; you are getting off the topic and into fair use law, you really don't want to go there if you aren't a lawyer.
I define unethical as doing something intentionally to hurt, degrade, demoralize or defame someone or their character (a.k.a. Paparazzi). 99% of those doing street photography do NOT go out with such intentions; therefore they are acting in an ethical way. Response: I'm having trouble getting this point across, but I'll try again; your intentions don't matter and neither does your sense of what is degrading, defaming or hurtful; what matters is how the subject perceives this; the standard is what the other person perceives, not your intention.
I understand that if you were someone that ran from the lens in a previous 'life', that you would not want you picture taken. However, you can not condemn all street photography because of you personal views. You know Hitler condemned a lot of things because he personally didn’t like/want them and look what happened there. Response: dial it back a notch there, partner, unless you are really trying to draw a parallel between me expressing ethical concerns and a genocidal madman.
I live in the U.S.A. and since I have my rights not to change my behavior by other's opinions, I will not. I am not saying you don't have a right to have an opinion; however you do not have the right to tell everyone that something is wrong and possibly scare away someone with a lot of talent from doing street photography because YOU believe it is unethical. Response: ironically, you are supporting my point; if you have rights, and I have some rights, then what rights do the subjects of your photographs have? Some, none, a few but rights that aren't as important as yours? And how did their rights to not have their photographs taken become somehow lesser than your right to take the photograph
And no I am not going to debate the laws of shooting in public with you because it is senseless when you already know that street photography is legal. I've already responded above to the legality issue, other than to say that I don't "know" that, and you cannot assume I do know it.
Brian
Okay, since you took the trouble to respond at length, let me do the same, so see the comments above.
Last edited by FHPhotographer; 10-02-2009 at 06:45 PM.
Response: ironically, you are supporting my point; if you have rights, and I have some rights, then what rights do the subjects of your photographs have? Some, none, a few but rights that aren't as important as yours? And how did their rights to not have their photographs taken become somehow lesser than your right to take the photograph
When they are in public (in the US) they do not have any expectation of privacy. They don't have the right to not have their picture taken by anyone while in public. It's the same reason why reporters and paparazzi can take pictures/video of celebrities in public.
That's pretty funny, Brian. And, once that nice request does becomes emphatic, you can honestly expect me to tell you to kiss my behind. Response: well, if you insist and if it resolves the issue....
And, as long as I'm not breaking the law (and street photography doesn't), a cop would agree. That pretty much ends your emphatic request. Response: don't get into the legality of street photography; it may not be as "legal" as you suppose, and probably not as legal as you want it to be .
So says you. In this and all previous related threads, I don't think you've found one person to agree with that opinion. Response: of course "so says" me, I'm speaking for my position, who else would I be saying something for? Lots of things are customary in lots of places that may not be ethical, to me, to you, or even to many of the people involved, but they continue; to assert ethics are based on what somebody else may do, or what the majority of people may agree to, is the argument of a child and invalid on its face; and by the way, majority opinion certainly doesn't apply in this case, my ethics aren't up for a vote, and I expect nothing of my assertions other than reasonable consideration.
At the same time, street photography without permission is still commonplace throughout the world - many millions, perhaps many billions, of such photos have been taken since cameras were first introduced. Tourists alone probably account for several hundred million street photos each year, without regard to either who might be in the image or permission. Response: True, so I invite you go go to Saudi Arabia and attempt to take a photograph in Mecca; or perhaps onto a Hopi Pueblo, or Cabrini Green in Chicago etc, to find how your notion of legal and ethical behavior stands up to the "law," common or codified, in those and other places; it's contextual and cultural and to assume you get to bring your ethics into another culture (main or secondary) or country, and that those ethics have to apply to anyone and everyone you encounter, is disengenuous.
In spite of all that, you still insist street photography without the subject's permission is unethical. I don't remember you ever saying why. I'm certainly willing to keep an open mind, so you tell us (me if you prefer) why it is unethical - why street photography without permission is "not conforming to approved standards of social or professional behavior" as the dictionary defines of the word "unethical." Notice in the previous paragraph that I don't really want to hear why you "think" it's unethical when you already boldly proclaimed it so. Instead, I want to hear what grounds or authority you are using to support that proclamation. If you are unable to provide that, feel free to say so and only then say why you "think" it's unethical. Response: because the process can be intrusive, insensitive, manipulative, mercenary, misogynistic, mendacious, dehumanizing, racist, sexist, exploitive etc etc; the process assumes the photographer's right to do something is greater than the subject's right to not have it done; it imposes the photographer's intentionality and motive on the subject , and defends in circular argument the behavior by citing that intentionality, in disregard of the subject's possible interests, wishes and perceptions of the act.
As I said in my first comment, " (if this behavior) is ethical explain ... terms such as 'conceal' 'stealth' and 'sneak up behind them'."
stewart
Stewart, let me take a look at these points one by one (above),
Brian
Last edited by FHPhotographer; 10-02-2009 at 06:44 PM.
Paparazzi, amateurs and press photographers are different
Originally Posted by alohadave
When they are in public (in the US) they do not have any expectation of privacy. They don't have the right to not have their picture taken by anyone while in public. It's the same reason why reporters and paparazzi can take pictures/video of celebrities in public.
Of course people have an "expectation of privacy," otherwise why do some people object when they feel that privacy is invaded? And, reporters and paparazzi are not the same thing; unless you're an accredited media photographer, you don't have the same standing; you may want it, you may think you have it, but you don't and you remain an amateur taking photographs of individuals without their knowledge and/or permission,
Brian
Last edited by FHPhotographer; 10-02-2009 at 06:43 PM.
Ok, for the sake of argument...They said no and whats more I putting them up on the web. What would you do?
Tell you what, when you have one and you actually take that position, let me know and I'll give you my actual response; short of that, you are posing a hypothetical and momma didn't raise none of her children to be dumb enough to answer a hypothetical question. I stand by my earlier statement,
Brian
To almost one and all... thank you, to this point this thread has been (with only one notable exception) a reasoned and reasonable frank and open exchange of views. I appreciate the responses and the argument, in the best sense of the word; I have listened and reconsidering my position in light of the responses,
Brian
And, once that nice request does becomes emphatic, you can honestly expect me to tell you to kiss my behind. I might (just might) respond positively to a polite request, but not so to being strongly told to erase the image. You have no more right to tell me what to do with my camera than I do to tell you what to do with your underwear. And, as long as I'm not breaking the law (and street photography doesn't), a cop would agree. That pretty much ends your emphatic request.
Linear Mode
