[c.r.brown]

Not really, it also involves the perception of the subject. The photographer's intent is unknown and unknowable to the subject; the perception of the person who may be intruded upon and discomfited is at least as important and it central to any discussion of a process that involves two or more people ,
Brian

This is patently rediculous, you may as well say we can't communicate with other people because the other person may be 'discomfited' by the conversation. Walking up to a person is 'intruding' upon them.

I am fat and that may be 'discomfitting' to some do I have to ask if it's ok to be in the same park? If I am on a plane I may 'intrude' on someone else do I need to ask everyone on the plane if it's ok that I fly with them just to make sure someones feelings aren't hurt.

A person does not have a 'right' to not be 'discomfitted' by the so called perceived intentions of a photographer. Where does this line of thinking end, do I need to ask if I can draw a stranger? What about writing about a stranger I saw? How about remembering a stranger in my memories?

In this world we are all here together and where one's mere presence can discomfit and intrude upon another person it is ludicrous to assume that I should have to ask for anyones permission to do something that doesn't involve them directly, physically.

I am capturing history with my camera I am not capturing their soul. I am imprisoning my memory on film I am not imprisoning them.

[philbaum]

Phil B.,
Let's try and keep what I actually said separate from what you think I said, or your interpretations of what I said. I never said my ethics were the "gold standard" or "better." But it is my standard that I believe to be both reasoned and reasonable:

Brian,
I apologize if i've offended you. When i said

"What bothers me is the implied suggestion that there is some gold standard of ethics"

I was thinking more of someone in my life that i have far more contact with than you, who is always putting those sharp comments out about how his beliefs are more valid than mine. And i'll leave it at that, if i may.

I would submit politely, and in quite general terms that are meant to refer to no single person, that almost all humans think that their opinions are based on reasoned and rational logic. We can't all be right, so who gets to decide.

Free speech to me should include free photography, as there have been countless cases in modern times where the existence of photos have swayed national opinion. I would never be for any restriction on public photography that might hurt its value in keeping a nation free.

[FHPhotographer]

Phil,
No harm no foul. I get going and sometimes misdirect my zeal at making/defending my point. We respectfully disagree on this, and we're blessed that we live in a country we can say that and keep talking. Thanks for caring enough about the issue to comment,
Brian

[FHPhotographer]

c.r.,
We're not going to agree on this. I have to keep pointing out that your intentions don't matter, that the perception of the other person is the issue here. I'm not equating the following in either scope or impact, but consider charges of workplace gender / disability / sexual orientation harassment or discrimination etc etc. All those turn on the perception of harm by the receiver not the intent of the sender. They have to be proved, of course, but none the less, that perception figures strongly in the issue. That you didn't intend to harm me, to make me uncomfortable, to intrude on me doesn't change that I perceived those things. And if you can make things easier for another human being by honoring their rights while asserting your own, why not do it?
Brian

[Blue]

Now we are getting somewhere. I didn't realize that I was violating peoples rights and interfering with their life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness via photography. I need to remember that the next time a boom boom car pulls up behind me and blasting obnoxious music discomfiting me.

One man's rights begins where another one's ends. However, why can a t.v. or news paper crew follow some people around discomfiting the hell out of them because they may be the news of the minute yet I can't. I didn't realize that the 1st amendment or the other amendments or the pursuit of life liberty and happiness ended when I picked up a camera.

On a serious note, the police don't arrest people on what crimes they may violate in the future unless they are in Cuba or China. I'm sure photographers there don't have a ccp and 1911A1 with there camera gear either.

[FHPhotographer]

Javier, you're riding a one-trick pony, man. I used those images as an example of the process of asking consent; the images themselves don't matter, and you can criticize them for now until tomorrow and they only represent a thing, they aren't the thing itself. That you don't see those qualities you esteem in them is not at issue -- and that's a subjective set by the way, many of the classic Cartier-Brisson images show the shape and motions of people but not their expressions. I'm not comparing myself to Cartier-Bresson, just pointing out that an assumed need to get close enough to see expression on the subject's face with the implied intrusion is just that, an assumption on your part, that neither validates nor invalidates the worth of an image,
Brian

[Blue]

Javier, you're riding a one-trick pony, man.

Do you have permission from Damn Brit to use that line.

[FHPhotographer]

Blue, you are getting to far afield I don't know how to respond to you. The ethical issue is under discussion, i.e., does your assumed right to take a photograph trump the right of the subject to not have his/her picture taken? What that has to do with the First Amendment, Cuba or China elude me. This is a complex enough issue without giving it a not so subtle nudge into political ideology,
Brian

[FHPhotographer]

Blue,
Why? He didn't coin it,
Brian

[jgredline]

Javier, you're riding a one-trick pony, man. I used those images as an example of the process of asking consent; the images themselves don't matter, and you can criticize them for now until tomorrow and they only represent a thing, they aren't the thing itself. That you don't see those qualities you esteem in them is not at issue -- and that's a subjective set by the way, many of the classic Cartier-Brisson images show the shape and motions of people but not their expressions. I'm not comparing myself to Cartier-Bresson, just pointing out that an assumed need to get close enough to see expression on the subject's face with the implied intrusion is just that, an assumption on your part, that neither validates nor invalidates the worth of an image,
Brian

Well, we will just need to agree to disagree....we will just let the readers decide for themselves what is right or wrong for them....

[Blue]

Blue, you are getting to far afield I don't know how to respond to you. The ethical issue is under discussion, i.e., does your assumed right to take a photograph trump the right of the subject to not have his/her picture taken? What that has to do with the First Amendment, Cuba or China elude me. This is a complex enough issue without giving it a not so subtle nudge into political ideology,
Brian

It do not have anything to do with ideology. You still have danced around the question. WHY CAN A NEWS CREW FOLLOW SOMEONE AROUND WITH A TRUCK AND CAMERAS AND PRIVATE CITIZENS CAN'T?

Furthermore, there are no black & white boundaries in regards to ethics. Its a lot like defining pornography. If a guy is out there taking photos to blackmail someone, it is obviously and ethics violation as well as a legal one. Intent and outcome does matter. However, news crews don't always have a concern for their subjects well being and it is considered o.k. by many but the ethics are still questionable.

[Blue]

Blue,
Why? He didn't coin it,
Brian

No, but he was the only one I know that used it on this forum to try to discredit someone in a debate. BTW, the English language is full of nuance.

Edit: Or to put it more clearly, I consider calling someone names for the purpose of ridiculing or discrediting them to be un-ethical. I bet if someone called you a name, you would be on the report button.

[alohadave]

Blue, you are getting to far afield I don't know how to respond to you. The ethical issue is under discussion, i.e., does your assumed right to take a photograph trump the right of the subject to not have his/her picture taken? What that has to do with the First Amendment, Cuba or China elude me. This is a complex enough issue without giving it a not so subtle nudge into political ideology,
Brian

There is nothing complex about the issue. It's been repeated ad nauseam. When you are in public, anyone can take a picture of you, whether that bothers you or not. It doesn't matter how you feel about having your picture taken, and no permission is required.

You have an ethical objection to that. That is fine. However, when you state that the inverse is true, you are wrong.

[jgredline]

Well, I went out for a walk today with the ole K20D and Sigma 24F/2.8 prime and it seemed that people just kept getting in my way...I mean, I was on a public street, ''my'' public street...Sigh...Oh well....It seemed that I would shoot a wall and someone was there...I would shoot a sidewalk and someone was there...I would shoot the crosswalk and again someone was there...This is my street and yet people every place I look...what to do?...Here is the proof...

[figmental1978]

I hate it when people get in the way of a perfectly boring street photo, how dare they spice it up!