street photography ethics

hadi · 04-19-2016, 08:03 AM - **1 Like**

what are your thoughts on the street photography ethics? is there such a thing? should there be?

i've always been a little uncomfortable with street photography for that very reason. not everyone enjoys getting their pics taken. and thats understandable. but at the same time, a public place is public place. the right of a person to be in public is the same right as a photographer to take their pic.

on instagram, i see some people taking some incredible pics of candid shots of strangers. they are generally loved by other people.
but then you get a few people hating on them as we didn't get the permission of that individual to take/post their pics.

i'm diving more into street photography and i'm getting the same love/hate from people. some people are loving it. others are hating on me for taking strangers pics and posting em up.

i get it, an art piece is designed to make people feel something/anything. let them feel love/hate/anger/etc.

with social media being in just about everyones pockets these days, people often times tend to overshare everything from the last meal they had, to being cheated or or whatever it is. when out on the streets, they are constantly being videotaped via surveillance without them thinking twice.

i get that certain parts of the world react differently to cameras. some welcome it, others are terrified of it. some want to strike a pose, others run away.

what are your thoughts?

Last edited by hadi; 04-19-2016 at 08:31 AM.

**sholtzma** · 04-19-2016, 08:44 AM - **1 Like**

Well, it does matter what culture you are shooting in. You'd want to know the customs/expectations of people in that culture regarding photography in general and street photography in particular.

That said, increasingly anyone in public is photographed (or subject to photograph) whether they know it or not and whether they like it or not. From CCTV cameras run by security/police, to store cameras, to camera phones that capture people in backgrounds, to people photographing anything and anyone, no one in many countries should expect any privacy on a public street.

You should not present photos of people that show them in an embarrassing or defamatory way. Nor may you use anyone's image for commercial purposes without a signed release from the person. But other than that, why wouldn't it be morally permissible to take a photo of someone on a street?

I was once in a public park in downtown Atlanta, and a large festival was taking place at the park that day. It was a lovely day, and as you can imagine, many people had cameras of one kind or another and were taking pictures. I started to photograph the faces of some children who were watching someone (a magician?) at a booth. The kid's faces were full of wonder and joy and concentration. When all of a sudden, a married couple stormed over to me to tell me not to take pictures of their kids (who were among the group I was photographing.) They complained about how their kids' images could get used in porn sites. They weren't accusing me of contributing to porn; they were just worried that any image I put out in public could get used by nefarious people creating online porn. I was so taken aback that I yielded to their concern. But, frankly, with all the cameras there, no doubt lots of people probably took photos of their kids that day. I should have told them to relax and leave me alone--and that if they did not want their kids' photos taken by strangers, they could keep their kids inside or disguise their kids if they went out. I don't have patience anymore for people who expect privacy in public.

Similarly, if some folks "hate on you", that is their problem. Ignore them. Better yet, remind them that they sacrifice their privacy when they go out in public. Assure them that they may stay in their houses forever if they wish.

**todd** · 04-19-2016, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by sholtzma

They complained about how their kids' images could get used in porn sites. They weren't accusing me of contributing to porn; they were just worried that any image I put out in public could get used by nefarious people creating online porn.

I've heard this argument before, and know people who will not post any pictures of their kids online etc. I've never understood this. Their kids were not naked in these photos so how could there be a market for them in porn? Maybe they understand child porn perverts better than I do, but any time I've seen anything about it, in movies, etc, they're into viewing -naked- children. Anyway....

In this day and age, we should never be surprised by any reaction we get out there when we're shooting. I've rarely ever asked for permission. When I can't get away with being stealthy, I make it obvious, and whoever objects is going to have to say something to me, which has been pretty rare too. People who just scowl at me are simply ignored haha... And I reap what I sow out there... I catch people all the time taking pictures of me while I'm shooting. Nothing more interesting than an old fat guy laying on the ground taking a picture with a big camera haha...

Murfy · 04-19-2016, 09:06 AM

In the US you have a right to take a photo anywhere in a public place - and that is my thought, there is nothing legally wrong with it (as long as you are not invading someone who has a sense of privacy, like a bathroom, dressing room, long lens into a backyard).

I was a witness to a recent local facebook story where this woman posted a story of a "pervert" (her words) who was taking photos at the local grocery store of people. She complained to the grocery store and they did nothing, she called the police who said he didn't do anything illegal. She called her husband down who then scratched up this guys car and broke the windows out (he was later arrested) and she blasted the guy on facebook for being a pervert (it was shared something like 500K times) and looking up dresses (I doubt he did that). And I was the weird one who defended his right to take a photo in public (I was apparently a pervert like him) I thought the story seemed fishy - after all, she took a photo of him taking photos and not of looking up skirts, and that was ok for her to photograph. My guess is she just didn't want her picture taken and he ignored her or whatever and then she threw the big fit after police told her he did nothing illegal.

Turns out the guy was a paranoid schizophrenic who took pictures of everyone everywhere he went because he believed the government was watching him and the camera helped him figure out who was "ok" and who wasn't. Otherwise harmless (I worked with someone like this, who also had schizophrenia, and had no plans to harm anyone, instead of a camera, he carried a notebook about every person he met) Everyone then said he needed "help" because he took a photo in a supermarket. Who is to say he didn't have help? he just had one person who may have had a mental issue herself, who went overboard with her reaction to being photographed. FWIW - the guys camera was like a little pocket camera on a cord. She used her cell phone to take a photo of him

What is ironic, how do you think they arrested her husband for breaking out the car windows? Because of the camera in the grocery store parking lot! Everyone everywhere is being photographed. My mother is on google maps because she was outside when the camera drove by her house.

I don't know why I shared that story and it was probably off topic, but I felt bad for the guy because I think what he did was ok. Now I don't like having my picture taken and my biggest fear is someone will take a photo of me and make a meme of it or make fun of me, but my photo is being taken any time I leave my house anyway.

People have no clue at all how often they are photographed or video taped. Iphones and camera phones are stealthier than big old cameras, if someone really wanted to use a photo for a bad purpose - they would use the camera you can't see.

tvdtvdtvd · 04-19-2016, 10:00 AM

I enjoy street photography but am certainly not aggressive about it. I try to make it as obvious as possible to appear to be photographing
things other than people; buildings, cars, signs, etc. If and when a person does scowl or visibly react in a negative fashion, I usually shift
my focus or lower my camera. As such, I've never had anyone confront me to not take their picture. Nonetheless, I'm prepared for that
scenario:

"Please sir/madam, I'm trying to take a picture of that building/car/sign. Would you kindly mind stepping aside?" Much more snarky
responses could be deployed, but that should suffice to diffuse the suspicion of the unwilling subject. And another candid scene will
appear shortly thereafter...

As an aside, shooting from the hip allows for much stealthier photo opportunities than shooting at eye level. I've made many of my best
candid photos with a Yashica-Mat. I've long practiced shooting from the hip with a (D)SLR. The tilt-able screen of the K-1 will bring back
the convenience of live view.

bakerking31 · 04-19-2016, 10:39 AM

I would draw the line at shooting pictures specifically of children. It's just asking for issues.

If someone was specifically taking photos of young children, I would approach them. I don't care about your rights to photograph in a public space, if it comes to you taking photos of kids and I don't know who you are or why you are doing it I will make a point to prevent it.

hadi · 04-19-2016, 10:43 AM

just as an example, i've been putting the rokinon 85mm through its paces, thus seeing how it reacts in live situations that are not controlled. just a random pic i took of a random person. nothing too fancy, no story being told, no nothing.

thats the same image some are saying i should have asked for his permission.

same thing applies for going for an event such as a concert or wedding or party. you'll get photographed.

i understand people fearing their pics turning into memes or turned into something marketing (my girlfriend's ex randomly turned into a model without his consent in a different continent.). but i dont get that people saying they all should have their consent to be photographed (unless its a cultural/religious ceremony).

to each their own, i suppose

**sholtzma** · 04-19-2016, 12:12 PM

Children have no special protection in public. And, had the parents asked, I would have described (indeed shown them) the precious expressions that I was trying to capture on film. Their concern was that someone could use the image of their child's face/head on the naked body of another child for purposes of pornography. My response is that anyone can already do that if the child is out in public and someone chooses to take a picture of the child. Stopping one photographer in a sea of people taking pictures was, to put it mildly, silly.

These days, I would have one advantage. Then I was shooting film, but now I could show them the images I was taking, so they could see that I had good intentions. But, in the end, they weren't interested in my intentions. That's my point. Somehow they actually thought they could prevent the porn industry from getting images of their childrens' faces; they couldn't.

bakerking31 · 04-19-2016, 12:37 PM

I never heard of the idea if the porn issues you are speaking of. But when I see a grown person targeting children for pictures I think they are a perv and do not think they have good intentions.

Regardless of children not having special protections and being in public, if a person was taking photos of my kid I would take the memory card if I saw it. There are certain lines you don't cross in normal society and many freedoms which have limits, IMO targeting children is one of those. Your intentions may be pure but not everyone's are. Without knowing the photographer there is no way for me to know their intent.

Btw, normal street photography I have no problem with as long as you respect the customs of others beliefs.

**yucatanPentax** · 04-19-2016, 01:02 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by bakerking31

...when I see a grown person targeting children for pictures I think they are a perv and do not think they have good intentions. ...

That's the most absurd thing I have ever heard. Maybe society has gone a bit overboard with 'public person fear.' Strangers are no more dangerous than family and friends who are, by far, most likely to commit "perv" things. Stranger upon stranger assaults are rare (sure they do happen) and stranger upon stranger kidnappings, etc, are also rare. Nearly all (like in the high 90%s) milkbox appeals and Amber alerts are the result of family disputes and custody cases.

As others have said, if you want your children to remain unphotographed, they can be kept indoors. In public, it is legal to photograph things that are publicly visible. Buildings, trains, planes, people, children. I suppose if a person concentrated only on a couple kids and followed them around over a longer period of time or whatever, it would be weird and stalking-like, but jumping to "perv" is just paranoia run rampant.

By the way, taking another person's property is a crime in and of itself. You've basically said that you intend to violate the law, first by stopping a person from taking photographs in public (not sure how you accomplish that without assault and battery) and secondly by seizing their property (theft).

Which gets to my question, I guess: Why is it that you think a person with a camera means "pervs" the minute children are present?

By the way, I have no photographs of children and don't particularly care to be around the cookie-grabbers. hahaha....

bakerking31 · 04-19-2016, 01:28 PM

Yes, I would deal with the police after I broke the law, I have no problem taking by force and dealing with the consequences after the fact. I would much rather go to court for stealing a $40 memory card than do nothing.

I also would not shelter my kids, they should be free to enjoy the outside without people feeling the need to photograph them for whatever their own personal use is. I don't understand why someone would want to photograph a random persons kid unless it was for some nefarious purpose.

People here mention their freedom to photograph, but what about the kids freedoms? Whose are more important? I don't know the answer to this, but I would not be happy with a random person taking photos of my kid.

This is a thread about ethics ... What is legal isn't always ethical. IMO photographing kids that aren't yours isn't ethical. You also are likely to annoy the parents and depending on who they are .... You may or may not have your gear at the end of the exchange.

Murfy · 04-19-2016, 01:29 PM - **3 Likes**

Originally posted by bakerking31

if a person was taking photos of my kid I would take the memory card if I saw it. .

And I would have you arrested for theft and I would assume assault, among other things. Gosh what if they still refused to turn it over, what would you do then? Kill them? And then what if the memory card had flowers and tree photos and then one of your kid who happened to photo bomb a picture? 20 years ago I took photos of kids in public, no one said a peep. If they did, they would talk to me about what I was doing and I would explain I was a student and was doing it for class work. And we would go on our way.

Now everyone with a big black dslr camera is a pervert..because no one worries about the 1000s of people in public with cell phones (pervs don't use cell phones, I guess) or the hidden cameras you can buy as "nanny cams" and stick in bathrooms or dressing rooms.

If you are truly worried about child pornographers - look up the MO. They just arrested someone in my local area. He did not own a dslr camera, he did not own a point and shoot. He did own various surveillance equipment and hidden cameras and cell phones. Most of pictures were taken in his house. Some were taken out in public, from hidden cameras. If you only knew the issues with the child prostitution and pornography that happen in your area and how prevalent it is, you would realize that those people don't use dslr cameras, and they certainly don't take photos with said cameras in a public place and they would never risk doing something like taking pictures in public with a large camera to draw attention to themselves.

I know it is frustrating knowing you have no control in a situation, but assaulting a person just because they have a camera in public on a false suspicion does not, I repeat, does not, do anything to stop child pornography and child prostitution, child slavery or crimes against children. They have nothing to do with each other.

---------- Post added 04-19-16 at 04:32 PM ----------

Originally posted by bakerking31

Yes, I would deal with the police after I broke the law, I have no problem taking by force and dealing with the consequences after the fact. I would much rather go to court for stealing a $40 memory card than do nothing..

You are mistaken if you think the court would side with you. You will not get off with a slap on the wrist. Plus don't forget, if you cause injury and anyone can prove you made them lose wages, you would get tied up in a civil suit, too. You would not just "go to court" and then go home.

---------- Post added 04-19-16 at 04:36 PM ----------

Originally posted by bakerking31

but what about the kids freedoms? Whose are more important? .

hmm, also bring this up to wal-mart, target, your local grocery store, all the places that have cameras in the parking lot, on the side of buildings, the people who have cameras on their houses, everyone who owns a cell phone and pretended to take a selfie on the phone but actually had the camera facing the wrong way so they could take a picture of children......going after one person with a nicer camera is pointless, you are going after the wrong person and wasting time that could be spent actually getting people who are doing these horrible things you imagine.

bakerking31 · 04-19-2016, 01:36 PM

This thread is about ethics, not law.

What reasonable purpose do you have photographing children that aren't yours?

There are many defences which can be used if one person assaults another that is photographing their child. But this thread is already taking a turn away from the purpose. If you want to discuss the legal implications we can make another thread.

Security camaras are a completely different realm. If you are comparing targeting children with a camera in a park to children on camera walking into a store then we obviously are way too far apart in our understanding of the issue.

**sholtzma** · 04-19-2016, 01:43 PM - **1 Like**

I can't think of anything ethically impermissible about taking photos of children, whether your own or other people's, whether by consent or in public without consent. What is the ethical problem you believe you discern?

Murfy · 04-19-2016, 01:53 PM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by bakerking31

What reasonable purpose do you have photographing children that aren't yours?

Aside from art (and I have art photos I can provide), they are statements about society, and for photojournalism. The people who took photos of children working in factories lead to child labor laws. Without those photos, do you think things would have changed as fast as they did? How about children refuges?

What about DIane Arbus? Mary Ellen Mark? Dorethea Lange? They took photos of people who had no voice. They exposed people to things they would never see otherwise
What about the photographer whose recent photos of the Baltimore Riots were on the cover of time. He took photos of children in the middle of the riots, look at his instagram account (I can't remember his name offhand)

Taking photos of children can cause change...for good. It can expose adults to environments children are in and cause them to do something good to help them.

Ethics? So you think Lewis Hine was saying - no I need permission from the parents, who are using children as slave labor, first.

04-19-2016, 08:03 AM - 1 Like	#1
hadi Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Mississauga, Ontario Posts: 563	street photography ethics what are your thoughts on the street photography ethics? is there such a thing? should there be? i've always been a little uncomfortable with street photography for that very reason. not everyone enjoys getting their pics taken. and thats understandable. but at the same time, a public place is public place. the right of a person to be in public is the same right as a photographer to take their pic. on instagram, i see some people taking some incredible pics of candid shots of strangers. they are generally loved by other people. but then you get a few people hating on them as we didn't get the permission of that individual to take/post their pics. i'm diving more into street photography and i'm getting the same love/hate from people. some people are loving it. others are hating on me for taking strangers pics and posting em up. i get it, an art piece is designed to make people feel something/anything. let them feel love/hate/anger/etc. with social media being in just about everyones pockets these days, people often times tend to overshare everything from the last meal they had, to being cheated or or whatever it is. when out on the streets, they are constantly being videotaped via surveillance without them thinking twice. i get that certain parts of the world react differently to cameras. some welcome it, others are terrified of it. some want to strike a pose, others run away. what are your thoughts? Last edited by hadi; 04-19-2016 at 08:31 AM.

04-19-2016, 01:29 PM - 3 Likes	#12
Murfy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2014 Photos: Gallery Posts: 803	Originally posted by bakerking31 if a person was taking photos of my kid I would take the memory card if I saw it. . And I would have you arrested for theft and I would assume assault, among other things. Gosh what if they still refused to turn it over, what would you do then? Kill them? And then what if the memory card had flowers and tree photos and then one of your kid who happened to photo bomb a picture? 20 years ago I took photos of kids in public, no one said a peep. If they did, they would talk to me about what I was doing and I would explain I was a student and was doing it for class work. And we would go on our way. Now everyone with a big black dslr camera is a pervert..because no one worries about the 1000s of people in public with cell phones (pervs don't use cell phones, I guess) or the hidden cameras you can buy as "nanny cams" and stick in bathrooms or dressing rooms. If you are truly worried about child pornographers - look up the MO. They just arrested someone in my local area. He did not own a dslr camera, he did not own a point and shoot. He did own various surveillance equipment and hidden cameras and cell phones. Most of pictures were taken in his house. Some were taken out in public, from hidden cameras. If you only knew the issues with the child prostitution and pornography that happen in your area and how prevalent it is, you would realize that those people don't use dslr cameras, and they certainly don't take photos with said cameras in a public place and they would never risk doing something like taking pictures in public with a large camera to draw attention to themselves. I know it is frustrating knowing you have no control in a situation, but assaulting a person just because they have a camera in public on a false suspicion does not, I repeat, does not, do anything to stop child pornography and child prostitution, child slavery or crimes against children. They have nothing to do with each other. ---------- Post added 04-19-16 at 04:32 PM ---------- Originally posted by bakerking31 Yes, I would deal with the police after I broke the law, I have no problem taking by force and dealing with the consequences after the fact. I would much rather go to court for stealing a $40 memory card than do nothing.. You are mistaken if you think the court would side with you. You will not get off with a slap on the wrist. Plus don't forget, if you cause injury and anyone can prove you made them lose wages, you would get tied up in a civil suit, too. You would not just "go to court" and then go home. ---------- Post added 04-19-16 at 04:36 PM ---------- Originally posted by bakerking31 but what about the kids freedoms? Whose are more important? . hmm, also bring this up to wal-mart, target, your local grocery store, all the places that have cameras in the parking lot, on the side of buildings, the people who have cameras on their houses, everyone who owns a cell phone and pretended to take a selfie on the phone but actually had the camera facing the wrong way so they could take a picture of children......going after one person with a nicer camera is pointless, you are going after the wrong person and wasting time that could be spent actually getting people who are doing these horrible things you imagine. Last edited by Murfy; 04-19-2016 at 01:38 PM.

04-19-2016, 01:36 PM	#13
bakerking31 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 109	This thread is about ethics, not law. What reasonable purpose do you have photographing children that aren't yours? There are many defences which can be used if one person assaults another that is photographing their child. But this thread is already taking a turn away from the purpose. If you want to discuss the legal implications we can make another thread. Security camaras are a completely different realm. If you are comparing targeting children with a camera in a park to children on camera walking into a store then we obviously are way too far apart in our understanding of the issue. Last edited by bakerking31; 04-19-2016 at 01:49 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Thematic Street Photography (No, Not THAT Street Photography) - Share Your Shots of the Roads	Sagitta	Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories	5372	22 Hours Ago 05:11 AM
Street photography protection	Greenneck	General Photography	62	03-18-2015 08:05 PM
Photography Ethics	alamo5000	Photographic Industry and Professionals	16	03-30-2013 02:25 PM
Street Photography-Photographing the street photographer?	Reportage	Photographic Technique	10	03-23-2009 07:41 AM
street photography ethics	FHPhotographer	General Talk	35	01-24-2009 05:10 PM

04-19-2016, 08:44 AM - 1 Like	#2
sholtzma Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Salisbury, NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,043	Well, it does matter what culture you are shooting in. You'd want to know the customs/expectations of people in that culture regarding photography in general and street photography in particular. That said, increasingly anyone in public is photographed (or subject to photograph) whether they know it or not and whether they like it or not. From CCTV cameras run by security/police, to store cameras, to camera phones that capture people in backgrounds, to people photographing anything and anyone, no one in many countries should expect any privacy on a public street. You should not present photos of people that show them in an embarrassing or defamatory way. Nor may you use anyone's image for commercial purposes without a signed release from the person. But other than that, why wouldn't it be morally permissible to take a photo of someone on a street? I was once in a public park in downtown Atlanta, and a large festival was taking place at the park that day. It was a lovely day, and as you can imagine, many people had cameras of one kind or another and were taking pictures. I started to photograph the faces of some children who were watching someone (a magician?) at a booth. The kid's faces were full of wonder and joy and concentration. When all of a sudden, a married couple stormed over to me to tell me not to take pictures of their kids (who were among the group I was photographing.) They complained about how their kids' images could get used in porn sites. They weren't accusing me of contributing to porn; they were just worried that any image I put out in public could get used by nefarious people creating online porn. I was so taken aback that I yielded to their concern. But, frankly, with all the cameras there, no doubt lots of people probably took photos of their kids that day. I should have told them to relax and leave me alone--and that if they did not want their kids' photos taken by strangers, they could keep their kids inside or disguise their kids if they went out. I don't have patience anymore for people who expect privacy in public. Similarly, if some folks "hate on you", that is their problem. Ignore them. Better yet, remind them that they sacrifice their privacy when they go out in public. Assure them that they may stay in their houses forever if they wish.

04-19-2016, 09:03 AM	#3
todd Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,791	Originally posted by sholtzma They complained about how their kids' images could get used in porn sites. They weren't accusing me of contributing to porn; they were just worried that any image I put out in public could get used by nefarious people creating online porn. I've heard this argument before, and know people who will not post any pictures of their kids online etc. I've never understood this. Their kids were not naked in these photos so how could there be a market for them in porn? Maybe they understand child porn perverts better than I do, but any time I've seen anything about it, in movies, etc, they're into viewing -naked- children. Anyway.... In this day and age, we should never be surprised by any reaction we get out there when we're shooting. I've rarely ever asked for permission. When I can't get away with being stealthy, I make it obvious, and whoever objects is going to have to say something to me, which has been pretty rare too. People who just scowl at me are simply ignored haha... And I reap what I sow out there... I catch people all the time taking pictures of me while I'm shooting. Nothing more interesting than an old fat guy laying on the ground taking a picture with a big camera haha...

04-19-2016, 09:06 AM	#4
Murfy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2014 Photos: Gallery Posts: 803	In the US you have a right to take a photo anywhere in a public place - and that is my thought, there is nothing legally wrong with it (as long as you are not invading someone who has a sense of privacy, like a bathroom, dressing room, long lens into a backyard). I was a witness to a recent local facebook story where this woman posted a story of a "pervert" (her words) who was taking photos at the local grocery store of people. She complained to the grocery store and they did nothing, she called the police who said he didn't do anything illegal. She called her husband down who then scratched up this guys car and broke the windows out (he was later arrested) and she blasted the guy on facebook for being a pervert (it was shared something like 500K times) and looking up dresses (I doubt he did that). And I was the weird one who defended his right to take a photo in public (I was apparently a pervert like him) I thought the story seemed fishy - after all, she took a photo of him taking photos and not of looking up skirts, and that was ok for her to photograph. My guess is she just didn't want her picture taken and he ignored her or whatever and then she threw the big fit after police told her he did nothing illegal. Turns out the guy was a paranoid schizophrenic who took pictures of everyone everywhere he went because he believed the government was watching him and the camera helped him figure out who was "ok" and who wasn't. Otherwise harmless (I worked with someone like this, who also had schizophrenia, and had no plans to harm anyone, instead of a camera, he carried a notebook about every person he met) Everyone then said he needed "help" because he took a photo in a supermarket. Who is to say he didn't have help? he just had one person who may have had a mental issue herself, who went overboard with her reaction to being photographed. FWIW - the guys camera was like a little pocket camera on a cord. She used her cell phone to take a photo of him What is ironic, how do you think they arrested her husband for breaking out the car windows? Because of the camera in the grocery store parking lot! Everyone everywhere is being photographed. My mother is on google maps because she was outside when the camera drove by her house. I don't know why I shared that story and it was probably off topic, but I felt bad for the guy because I think what he did was ok. Now I don't like having my picture taken and my biggest fear is someone will take a photo of me and make a meme of it or make fun of me, but my photo is being taken any time I leave my house anyway. People have no clue at all how often they are photographed or video taped. Iphones and camera phones are stealthier than big old cameras, if someone really wanted to use a photo for a bad purpose - they would use the camera you can't see.

04-19-2016, 10:00 AM	#5
tvdtvdtvd Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 1,665	I enjoy street photography but am certainly not aggressive about it. I try to make it as obvious as possible to appear to be photographing things other than people; buildings, cars, signs, etc. If and when a person does scowl or visibly react in a negative fashion, I usually shift my focus or lower my camera. As such, I've never had anyone confront me to not take their picture. Nonetheless, I'm prepared for that scenario: "Please sir/madam, I'm trying to take a picture of that building/car/sign. Would you kindly mind stepping aside?" Much more snarky responses could be deployed, but that should suffice to diffuse the suspicion of the unwilling subject. And another candid scene will appear shortly thereafter... As an aside, shooting from the hip allows for much stealthier photo opportunities than shooting at eye level. I've made many of my best candid photos with a Yashica-Mat. I've long practiced shooting from the hip with a (D)SLR. The tilt-able screen of the K-1 will bring back the convenience of live view.

04-19-2016, 10:39 AM	#6
bakerking31 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 109	I would draw the line at shooting pictures specifically of children. It's just asking for issues. If someone was specifically taking photos of young children, I would approach them. I don't care about your rights to photograph in a public space, if it comes to you taking photos of kids and I don't know who you are or why you are doing it I will make a point to prevent it.

04-19-2016, 10:43 AM	#7
hadi Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Mississauga, Ontario Posts: 563 Original Poster	just as an example, i've been putting the rokinon 85mm through its paces, thus seeing how it reacts in live situations that are not controlled. just a random pic i took of a random person. nothing too fancy, no story being told, no nothing. thats the same image some are saying i should have asked for his permission. same thing applies for going for an event such as a concert or wedding or party. you'll get photographed. i understand people fearing their pics turning into memes or turned into something marketing (my girlfriend's ex randomly turned into a model without his consent in a different continent.). but i dont get that people saying they all should have their consent to be photographed (unless its a cultural/religious ceremony). to each their own, i suppose

04-19-2016, 12:12 PM	#8
sholtzma Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Salisbury, NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,043	Children have no special protection in public. And, had the parents asked, I would have described (indeed shown them) the precious expressions that I was trying to capture on film. Their concern was that someone could use the image of their child's face/head on the naked body of another child for purposes of pornography. My response is that anyone can already do that if the child is out in public and someone chooses to take a picture of the child. Stopping one photographer in a sea of people taking pictures was, to put it mildly, silly. These days, I would have one advantage. Then I was shooting film, but now I could show them the images I was taking, so they could see that I had good intentions. But, in the end, they weren't interested in my intentions. That's my point. Somehow they actually thought they could prevent the porn industry from getting images of their childrens' faces; they couldn't.

04-19-2016, 12:37 PM	#9
bakerking31 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 109	I never heard of the idea if the porn issues you are speaking of. But when I see a grown person targeting children for pictures I think they are a perv and do not think they have good intentions. Regardless of children not having special protections and being in public, if a person was taking photos of my kid I would take the memory card if I saw it. There are certain lines you don't cross in normal society and many freedoms which have limits, IMO targeting children is one of those. Your intentions may be pure but not everyone's are. Without knowing the photographer there is no way for me to know their intent. Btw, normal street photography I have no problem with as long as you respect the customs of others beliefs.

04-19-2016, 01:02 PM - 1 Like	#10
yucatanPentax Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Dallas / Yucatan Posts: 1,840	Originally posted by bakerking31 ...when I see a grown person targeting children for pictures I think they are a perv and do not think they have good intentions. ... That's the most absurd thing I have ever heard. Maybe society has gone a bit overboard with 'public person fear.' Strangers are no more dangerous than family and friends who are, by far, most likely to commit "perv" things. Stranger upon stranger assaults are rare (sure they do happen) and stranger upon stranger kidnappings, etc, are also rare. Nearly all (like in the high 90%s) milkbox appeals and Amber alerts are the result of family disputes and custody cases. As others have said, if you want your children to remain unphotographed, they can be kept indoors. In public, it is legal to photograph things that are publicly visible. Buildings, trains, planes, people, children. I suppose if a person concentrated only on a couple kids and followed them around over a longer period of time or whatever, it would be weird and stalking-like, but jumping to "perv" is just paranoia run rampant. By the way, taking another person's property is a crime in and of itself. You've basically said that you intend to violate the law, first by stopping a person from taking photographs in public (not sure how you accomplish that without assault and battery) and secondly by seizing their property (theft). Which gets to my question, I guess: Why is it that you think a person with a camera means "pervs" the minute children are present? By the way, I have no photographs of children and don't particularly care to be around the cookie-grabbers. hahaha....

04-19-2016, 01:28 PM	#11
bakerking31 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 109	Yes, I would deal with the police after I broke the law, I have no problem taking by force and dealing with the consequences after the fact. I would much rather go to court for stealing a $40 memory card than do nothing. I also would not shelter my kids, they should be free to enjoy the outside without people feeling the need to photograph them for whatever their own personal use is. I don't understand why someone would want to photograph a random persons kid unless it was for some nefarious purpose. People here mention their freedom to photograph, but what about the kids freedoms? Whose are more important? I don't know the answer to this, but I would not be happy with a random person taking photos of my kid. This is a thread about ethics ... What is legal isn't always ethical. IMO photographing kids that aren't yours isn't ethical. You also are likely to annoy the parents and depending on who they are .... You may or may not have your gear at the end of the exchange.

04-19-2016, 01:43 PM - 1 Like	#14
sholtzma Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Salisbury, NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,043	I can't think of anything ethically impermissible about taking photos of children, whether your own or other people's, whether by consent or in public without consent. What is the ethical problem you believe you discern?

04-19-2016, 01:53 PM - 2 Likes	#15
Murfy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2014 Photos: Gallery Posts: 803	Originally posted by bakerking31 What reasonable purpose do you have photographing children that aren't yours? Aside from art (and I have art photos I can provide), they are statements about society, and for photojournalism. The people who took photos of children working in factories lead to child labor laws. Without those photos, do you think things would have changed as fast as they did? How about children refuges? What about DIane Arbus? Mary Ellen Mark? Dorethea Lange? They took photos of people who had no voice. They exposed people to things they would never see otherwise What about the photographer whose recent photos of the Baltimore Riots were on the cover of time. He took photos of children in the middle of the riots, look at his instagram account (I can't remember his name offhand) Taking photos of children can cause change...for good. It can expose adults to environments children are in and cause them to do something good to help them. Ethics? So you think Lewis Hine was saying - no I need permission from the parents, who are using children as slave labor, first.