[Mistlefoot]

It's pretty obvious that you feel when you have a camera in your hand you hold the moral high ground. I won't bother to respond to your other silliness. you know what I have been saying to is that there are times to do "the right thing" not what you can get away with legally. But hey from what you've been posting you don't share that philosophy, that's ok it's your legal right.

Maybe Adam should close this thread as it is obvious that some of us feel that getting the shot is the only thing that matters, and others feel maybe sometimes getting the shot is not the most important thing.

You are obviously confusing me with someone else.

My 1st post in this thread asked "who decides" what's a proper photo and what isn't, since the poster stated what was legal wasn't moral. Bikini's aren't moral for some people.
My 2nd post stated that the person paying the photographer's wages owned the photos, not the photographer, and as such got to decide what was deleted.

The net result of those was a personal attack from you. And you apparently know what my philosophy is and what kind of photo's I take. You are the one equating a photo on a beach to photos of puppies getting run over.

[bxf]

it is obvious that some of us feel that getting the shot is the only thing that matters

This is stretching things somewhat. You are extrapolating invalid absolutes from a philosophical argument

[MikeD]

You are obviously confusing me with someone else.

My 1st post in this thread asked "who decides" what's a proper photo and what isn't, since the poster stated what was legal wasn't moral. Bikini's aren't moral for some people.
My 2nd post stated that the person paying the photographer's wages owned the photos, not the photographer, and as such got to decide what was deleted.

The net result of those was a personal attack from you. And you apparently know what my philosophy is and what kind of photo's I take. You are the one equating a photo on a beach to photos of puppies getting run over.

I am not personally attacking you. I don't know you. I am simply calling those out who think just because it is legal to take, then publish a photo of anyone or anything as long as it is in public, no matter the circumstances or how the subject feels about it or what it does to them, that it is ok, because the only thing that matters is the story.
A far as beaches vs puppies goes there really is not much difference (even though you think so) because I was referring to a subject not being considered from a "do the right thing' standpoint. The person with her child on the beach may have just lost a loved one or as I said before may have a safety need not to have a picture published and from a moral standpoint she shouldn't have to beg someone not to publish, and to have to put in a request which may or may not be denied by someone like yourself, assuming you really are a news person as you seem to be saying in your posts. Anyway I get the feeling that the sting of being called out is your real problem.

---------- Post added 05-20-2016 at 02:56 PM ----------

This is stretching things somewhat. You are extrapolating invalid absolutes from a philosophical argument

And this is semantic gibberish.

[Mistlefoot]

I am not personally attacking you. I don't know you. I am simply calling those out who think just because it is legal to take, then publish a photo of anyone or anything as long as it is in public, no matter the circumstances or how the subject feels about it or what it does to them, that it is ok, because the only thing that matters is the story.
A far as beaches vs puppies goes there really is not much difference (even though you think so) because I was referring to a subject not being considered from a "do the right thing' standpoint. The person with her child on the beach may have just lost a loved one or as I said before may have a safety need not to have a picture published and from a moral standpoint she shouldn't have to beg someone not to publish, and to have to put in a request which may or may not be denied by someone like yourself, assuming you really are a news person as you seem to be saying in your posts. Anyway I get the feeling that the sting of being called out is your real problem.

---------- Post added 05-20-2016 at 02:56 PM ----------



And this is semantic gibberish.

I've never said I was a news person in my posts. That is your imagination.
There was no child involved. That is your imagination.
She did not have to beg anyone not to publish the picture. She was clearly told the picture would not be published AND the photographer was waiting for the police she called to arrive. That she had to beg is your imagination.
You have not called me out. That is your imagination.

I do not take unsolicited pictures of people. That you imagine I do is like someone imaging a person who would defend a gay person must be gay. It's your imagination, but it's not reality.

You are defending someone who did something indefensible. And you say it was deserved. People like you are scary.

[Kevwaly]

Your post has offended me. Please delete it.

Who decides?

What if YOUR post offends me? Who decides? Does that mean I should decide you must delete it?
Opinions should not require deleting just because they are different. Toughen up.

[MikeD]

You are defending someone who did something indefensible. And you say it was deserved. People like you are scary.

I think you should take the time to re-read what has been posted and you will find I never defended the guys who hit the photographer in fact I said they were wrong, I never said it was deserved, I said they should not have struck him. And yes you did say that you would not let a photographer delete photos since they were yours (or something very close to that). All I have ever really said is that if you shoot a photograph where the a person IS the subject and not just incidental to the photograph and if they object the photographer should respect their wishes on moral grounds even if they are within the law of that country. And if you have read the various posts you will see that one poster from Germany said in his country you must have permission from the subject or it must be deleted
I have also said that some photographers don't care about the subject or what happens to them, they only care about the photo and what it can do for them, think Princess Diana.
Also if you bother to read the actual news reports, just follow the links left by other posters, you will find there was a child with the woman in question.

You know what is really scary, people who twist things like you do.

[Kevwaly]

My nephew is a photographer for a news outfit in the high desert here in So California and he was attacked this week by some folks who didn't want their picture taken.
He has was kicked and beaten and he is pretty bruised up but it looks like there are no broken bones so we are hopeful for a speedy recovery.
Here is the story Daily Press photographer attacked at Hesperia Lake on Tuesday - News - VVdailypress.com - Victorville, CA

Awful they did this to him. He did nothing wrong whatsoever. He behaved honorably. I hope justice is served and his equipment is replaced quickly.

[Mistlefoot]

What if YOUR post offends me? Who decides? Does that mean I should decide you must delete it?
Opinions should not require deleting just because they are different. Toughen up.

Thank you for understanding my point and saying it again.

[Kevwaly]

Thank you for understanding my point and saying it again.

No problem! After reading the whole thread, (which I had not when I questioned Mistlefoot), I could see where all sides were coming from. I just don't care for political correctness in that it kills critical thinking. So often if someone sees something through a different lens, it is easier to shut it down instead of seeking to understand the lens through which a person is viewing something. Figuratively speaking, one person might be focused through a telephoto lens at a situation. (I must protect free speech.) Another person might have an entirely different lens attached. Say, a macro for example: (Why didn't he just delete her photos when she asked?) The point is, both are valid and in focus. However, for a 300mm lens clubber to ever get thin skinned about a macro in the bag is not healthy for a portfolio. Words like "offend", "racist", "sexist",(is "lensist" a word?), are thrown around way too easily in our world. It's really become a toxic thing. Instead of people just keeping our mouths quiet and studying the photographs that others are taking through their "lenses", too often we miss the beauty of their art because we fail to see things through their lens. Honest debate is good. Bottom line. All sides should be heard.

[bxf]

And this is semantic gibberish.

Yeah, sort of. But the point is valid nevertheless

[MikeD]

Yeah, sort of. But the point is valid nevertheless

What point, it's gibberish, so " but the point is valid nevertheless" is still gibberish.

[DAZ]

Definition of public
1 a : exposed to general view : open b : well-known, prominent c : perceptible, material
2 a : of, relating to, or affecting all the people or the whole area of a nation or state <public law> b : of or relating to a government c : of, relating to, or being in the service of the community or nation
3 a : of or relating to people in general : universal b : general, popular
4 : of or relating to business or community interests as opposed to private affairs : social
5 : devoted to the general or national welfare : humanitarian
6 a : accessible to or shared by all members of the community b : capitalized in shares that can be freely traded on the open market —often used with go
7 : supported by public funds and private contributions rather than by income from commercials <public radio> <public television>

Definition of privacy
1 a : the quality or state of being apart from company or observation : seclusion b : freedom from unauthorized intrusion <one's right to privacy>

2 archaic : a place of seclusion

3 a : secrecy b : a private matter : secret

There is no privacy in public. Interjecting it as a possible defense for the actions being discussed is a red herring as it does not exist. If one was to pass a law stating that there is privacy in public it would be a useless and unenforceable law. It is not practical, nor possibly even possible, to say that one has privacy in a public space. The 2 concepts are mutually exclusive.

Those that state that they are trying to exercise privacy in a public space are trying to exercise control, over others, as privacy does not exist in this space. Telling someone to not take a photo is trying to control them. Telling someone to not use the photo is trying to control them. Telling someone to delete the photo is trying to control them. When society wants to control an individual’s actions they will write a law. This is why we have police and courts and judges and lawyers etc. etc. etc. Using force and violence outside of that specifically prescribed by law is against the law. Using privacy as a justification for breaking the law when it is not prescribed as such in the law is just a thinly veiled attempt for you legally trying to control others against their will.

Trying to invent some other imagined damage is essentially the same thing. If there really is such damage then again that’s why we have courts and judges and lawyers etc. etc. etc.

Nothing about what happened in the stated article is particularly new or unique as these kind of things have been happening for decades if not centuries. This is why there are laws stating that you can’t use force against others. Cameras have been around for more than a century which is more than enough time to write any unique laws regarding the use of cameras. These laws have been written and are quite specific but don’t apply in this case.

Is a little side note of irritation for myself. When one is pointing out that something is a protected constitutional right what they are really saying is that the government cannot directly and unjustifiably impose a legal consequence on those rights. This does not apply to the interactions between individuals. If you do not like a person taking a picture of you in a public space you do have the right to take a picture of them and try to shame them publicly for their actions. As long as you are doing this as prescribed by law the government will not stop you just as they will not stop the other person. The short of it is just because you are exercising a constitutional protected right does not mean there are no consequences possible for your actions.

As an example if some public figures who perform music for a living were to make some statement that many in their audience may disagree with that does not mean that that statement could have no cost or consequences. The government may take no action in regards to this but that does not mean those that took offense to those statements will continue to buy their records. How often have we heard someone say or do something than wine about the fact that others are holding them responsible for those statements or actions? In this particular case the woman could’ve sued the newspaper if they had published the photo (which incidentally is probably why they have a policy to not publish such photos upon request) if she could show even the slightest damage as a result of publishing the photo. She would not be able to legally sue for just taking the photo as it would be virtually impossible to show any possible damage that can result from just taking the photo and not publishing the photo. This is primarily the reason why you may need permission (a release) for publishing but not for taking a photo.

[Kevwaly]

True! Music consequence example: Dixie Chicks. Protected constitutionally doesn't always mean wise in a given situation. (Although the photographer had a policy from above in place.)

[DeadJohn]

[Lots of snipping for brevity] ... There is no privacy in public ... Those that state that they are trying to exercise privacy in a public space are trying to exercise control, over others, as privacy does not exist in this space ...

DAZ, this isn't directed at you, but your post made me realize that an important word hasn't been mentioned in this thread: anonymity. Many people confuse the terms privacy with anonymity.

[DAZ]

DAZ, this isn't directed at you, but your post made me realize that an important word hasn't been mentioned in this thread: anonymity. Many people confuse the terms privacy with anonymity.

I Agreed but I do not think that this is entirely by accident. While the United States Constitution does address privacy as a right to a limited extent as it pertains to government actions in doing so it does lend credence to the justification that privacy be recognized as a general right for all. As you have pointed out anonymity is not the same thing as privacy. Although anonymity may be a generally desired goal it is not usually recognized as a right in and of itself. Anonymity can sometimes be a requirement for privacy but most often is not a requirement. Quite often I believe that the accidental confusion of anonymity with privacy as an attempt to bootstrap the nonexistent right of anonymity onto privacy.


DAZ