[PDL]

Question for Wheatfield:

Your are a Canadian, the First Amendment of the US Constitution does not apply to you or your country. So why the obsession?

Photography on private property does not fall under the "expectation of privacy" as applied to photography from public property. Please watch the video attached in my previous post and read the PDF file on Photographers rights. And please note: those videos and documents apply to people in the US not in Canada, you guys have a totally different can of worms to wade through.

Why the obsession with the Bill of rights? Where in this thread did anyone other than you suggest that Street Photography was a First Amendment issue, because it really isn't.

If you want to talk about in general about being a jerk, watch this:

You Tube

You Tube

He is a well known New York City street photographer. I do not suggest that he is the rule, but he does push the boundary.

[BigMackCam]

WNYC Street Shots: Bruce Gilden - He is a well known New York City street photographer. I do not suggest that he is the rule, but he does push the boundary.

Discussion aside, what a dreadful attitude and complete lack of consideration and respect he demonstrates

[PDL]

All forms of photography are a spectrum of behaviors. Bruce Gilden is at one, or nearly, end of the genera. There are plenty of Street Photographers from NYC who are famous and historic characters in Photography. You might be surprised at the names:
10 Notable Photographers Associated With New York City
Most of them are not confrontational at all in the Bruce Gilden sense but they do reflect the overall thread tendencies. Not all Street Photographers "stick lenses into someone's face" some are sneaky and use telephotos as if getting close up images from a distance is really not "sticking the lens in the face". I personally think that the Street Snipers are the worst form of the genera.

As a side note: I took a workshop through National Geographic back in 2005 and our first assignment was to go out into the Central Plaza in Santa Fe NM and shoot three people who we did not know. Other students did were not considered to be subjects. This was an issue with me since I really don't care to be confrontational. So I just walked up to some people explained what I was doing and got the shots. I could have shot a lot more, but I did get one shot of a person and I sent a copy of the image to her employer who gave presented it to her at a group meeting. We had a nice conversation and her boss really liked the photo.

I also go down to the Pike Place Market in Seattle every few months. I take pictures - and low and behold - there are people in them. I have never been "confronted" and I never "stick my camera in their faces". Last year I spent two months in Europe (people, places, subways) and this summer two weeks in England (places, the tube, trains) and I was not "confronted" at all. The fear of confrontation is over stated. (No I am not going to go over all the different cites, states and countries where I have taken photographs)

[amstel78]

Apologies for not having come back to this thread in a few days as I've been slammed with work the past week. I did want to clarify one thing however - specifically my thread's title. The phrase "sticking your lens in someone's face" was meant to be taken figuratively rather than literally. I myself am not one to "literally" jab the end of my lens into someone's face in order to get the shot. To me, that's just plain rude. I like to live by the old adage of "treat others as you would like to be treated" and I certainly woudn't appreciate a stranger with a camera up in my business. There are others however like Bruce Gilden who will push the envelope of what's legally protected under our constitution versus what's morally or ethically acceptable.


The purpose of my question however was to simply gauge how others dealt with uncomfortable situations when taking photos on the street and how he or she overcame or dealt with them. The notion of one's right to photograph anyone and anything while on public property really only applies to those who live within the United States, hence my disclaimer in the first post. I've personally encountered situations where the US Secret Service has asked me to refrain from photography or delete photos already taken "due to national security interests" even while said images where taken on public property. This of course is an exemption to the rules on the books and I do abide with those requests. However, I've also come across irate individuals stemming from shop owners to drug-dealing gang members who've attempted to stop me from photographing them or their surroundings. In those instances, I usually carry a copy of the following: http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf and politely decline deleting already taken images unless I'm physically threatened.

---

Last edited by amstel78; 10-02-2018 at 05:44 PM.

[Wheatfield]

Question for Wheatfield:

Your are a Canadian, the First Amendment of the US Constitution does not apply to you or your country. So why the obsession?

Why are you uncomfortable?

Photography on private property does not fall under the "expectation of privacy" as applied to photography from public property. Please watch the video attached in my previous post and read the PDF file on Photographers rights. And please note: those videos and documents apply to people in the US not in Canada, you guys have a totally different can of worms to wade through.

Why the obsession with the Bill of rights? Where in this thread did anyone other than you suggest that Street Photography was a First Amendment issue, because it really isn't.

You might want to go back and read the OP for clarification.

If you want to talk about in general about being a jerk, watch this: WNYC Street Shots: Bruce Gilden - YouTube He is a well known New York City street photographer. I do not suggest that he is the rule, but he does push the boundary.

I wouldn't want to add to your obvious discomfort.

---------- Post added 10-03-18 at 10:35 AM ----------

....and politely decline deleting already taken images unless I'm physically threatened.

Why does it take the threat of physical violence to coerce you into being polite?

[amstel78]

Why does it take the threat of physical violence to coerce you into being polite?

Because I don't feel like getting shot for a photo.

[Wheatfield]

Because I don't feel like getting shot for a photo.

I guess the real question is why would you turn down a polite request? It seems to me that to do otherwise just invites an escalating situation.

[amstel78]

I guess the real question is why would you turn down a polite request? It seems to me that to do otherwise just invites an escalating situation.

If the request was a polite one with a valid reason, then I would certainly consider it. On the other hand, if I'm on public property and the subject is also on public property and approaches me in aggressive or belligerent manner, then I'm less inclined to comply. If the subject starts to get physical, that's a different story.

[PDL]

Why are you uncomfortable?


You might want to go back and read the OP for clarification.

I wouldn't want to add to your obvious discomfort.

---------- Post added 10-03-18 at 10:35 AM ----------



Why does it take the threat of physical violence to coerce you into being polite?

Wheatfield;
I asked a question because I am curious as to why a Canadian is so concerned about the First Amendment of The US Constitution. I am not "bothered" or "uncomfortable" just curious. Lighten up man.

I find it interesting that you introduce the 1st Amendment into the discussion when no one else has mentioned it. And the 1st Amendment is not a claim in either the OP's statement nor anyone else's.

[BigMackCam]

I guess the real question is why would you turn down a polite request? It seems to me that to do otherwise just invites an escalating situation.

If the request was a polite one with a valid reason, then I would certainly consider it. On the other hand, if I'm on public property and the subject is also on public property and approaches me in aggressive or belligerent manner, then I'm less inclined to comply. If the subject starts to get physical, that's a different story.

Interesting...

I'm rarely in such situations, although on a couple of occasions I've been approached and received stern comments from folks who thought they were in my shots (actually, they weren't - or they weren't in focus). They didn't get physical, but I guess you could say they were a little aggressive... certainly, they were objecting. I apologised, stopped shooting and moved away from that location.

For me, it doesn't come down to who's right or wrong. I just don't want to cause a ruckus, and I don't want friction for myself and / or others in anything I do - including photography - if I can help it. This is only a hobby for me. If I lose a shot or three, it really doesn't matter - especially if the alternative is a verbal or potentially physical altercation. I like to get along nicely with folks, even if that means a little sacrifice on my part. I won't be pushed around, but if I'm going to get into it with someone, it has to be for a very good reason.

I'm sure I'd feel differently if I was a press photographer or war journalist... But I'm not, so I don't

[PDL]

Because I don't feel like getting shot for a photo.

You must live in a very hostile environment if you think that you will get shot for taking a photo. Please supply a link to a legitimate article where some one was shot after taking a photo other than a conflict photojournalist. I think you are over reacting. If as a photographer you feel physically threatened then you are most likely in a hostile environment that should be avoided in almost any situation.

[rogerstg]

I find it interesting that you introduce the 1st Amendment into the discussion when no one else has mentioned it. And the 1st Amendment is not a claim in either the OP's statement nor anyone else's.

Actually, it was in the OP:

...Photographing subjects on public property such as sidewalks is completely legal in the eyes of the law. US law differs from many countries such as France, Austria, or Switzerland where the right to take someone's photo in a public venue is protected by the Constitution under the First Amendment.

FWIW, it appears that the OP conflated right to privacy issues with first amendment issues. Otherwise it's an interesting and useful conversation, IMO.

[amstel78]

You must live in a very hostile environment if you think that you will get shot for taking a photo. Please supply a link to a legitimate article where some one was shot after taking a photo other than a conflict photojournalist. I think you are over reacting. If as a photographer you feel physically threatened then you are most likely in a hostile environment that should be avoided in almost any situation.

I live in New York. However my job requires me to travel to some very nasty parts of the world where even taking a cell phone photo could get you shot at. In those cases, I'm not actually out taking pictures but working to complete whatever tasks I've been assigned.

There have been some instances in Africa where I've tried to take pictures just to be chased away by men with automatic weapons.

Closest I've been to an altercation here at home was probably about 10 years ago in Harlem. I was in the sidewalk around 125th and Lexington when I was surrounded by a group of guys who first asked me if I was a cop. I said no, they then told me to delete whatever pictures I'd taken, then leave immediately "or else."

I can hold my own against 2, but not 6 or 7. So I did the only thing I could which was to comply.

[PDL]

Actually, it was in the OP:



FWIW, it appears that the OP conflated right to privacy issues with first amendment issues. Otherwise it's an interesting and useful conversation, IMO.

After reading this I went back and realized I missed the reference. Conflating the First Amendment and privacy is pretty common actually. Mia Culpa for not reading "better".

[PDL]

I live in New York. However my job requires me to travel to some very nasty parts of the world where even taking a cell phone photo could get you shot at. In those cases, I'm not actually out taking pictures but working to complete whatever tasks I've been assigned.

There have been some instances in Africa where I've tried to take pictures just to be chased away by men with automatic weapons.

Closest I've been to an altercation here at home was probably about 10 years ago in Harlem. I was in the sidewalk around 125th and Lexington when I was surrounded by a group of guys who first asked me if I was a cop. I said no, they then told me to delete whatever pictures I'd taken, then leave immediately "or else."

I can hold my own against 2, but not 6 or 7. So I did the only thing I could which was to comply.

US protections do not cover you outside the US so your issue is mute in those cases.

In Harlem, you really walked into Harlem alone and expected to just start taking pictures? Your sense of appropriateness is really lacking, common sense should rule your day unless you were there as a journalist. While you do have a right to photograph nearly anything if your are on public property, there are places that require a little thought.

For the privacy dudes out there: The US Constitution does not explicitly provide for a right of privacy. Hint Read the first line:The Right of Privacy: Is it Protected by the Constitution?
Summary:
1st - Privacy of belief.
3rd - Provision to no be forced to house solders.
4th - Privacy of person, papers and home.
5th - Right to not self incriminate.
9th - General coverage of "stuff" not covered in the first 8.
14th - Vague coverage of liberty as right to privacy for procreation, child rearing, termination of medication etc.

The basic photography rights of street photography, or any photography, in the US - big caveat - are summarized as:
Know Your Constitutional Rights as a Photographer - The Phoblographer

• When in public spaces where you are lawfully present you have the right to photograph anything that is in plain view.
• When you are on private property, the property owner may set rules about the taking of photographs.
• Police officers may not confiscate or demand to view your digital photographs or video without a warrant.
• Police may not delete your photographs or video under any circumstances.
• Police officers may legitimately order citizens to cease activities that are truly interfering with legitimate law enforcement operations.

Expectation of Privacy?
What Is the "Reasonable Expectation of Privacy"?

Nice Video on Street Photography - in the UK - but please pay attention to the last few minutes. And remember, don't be a jerk.

You Tube

You Tube