Mom Beats Up College Student Taking Pix of Her Daughter in Park

Some of the comments on The Stir are unbelievable, especially the woman who called 911 , and then was told by the police to take her child home from the playground FOR THE DAY because a male said hello to her through a chain link fence.

I just can’t with this.

“Did you take the time to think that maybe she is protecting her kids from something else? Like and [sic] abusive ex? You never know”

Somehow I think if she has an ex, he’s the one with the abusive ex.

Just a hunch.

was-wasn’t..I meant wasn’t a man.

Just to clarify….I’m personally not creeped out by people taking photos. I do it myself.

My point is that you can believe that “people taking photos” is harmless at the same time you can believe that common courtesy can exist as well.

E –

You absolutely can take photographs of anyone in public spaces any time. There are, however, limits as to commercial uses of those pictures. That is where model releases come in. The release isn’t to address the taking of the photos, but what can be done with them afterwards. A college class project would not be a commercial use so a release would not be needed.

While it may be nice for someone to delete photographs if requested, there is no legal obligation for them to do so. We create many problems in this world by trying to turn niceness into mandatory action. People are not required to be nice and, even if they were, definitions of nice are going to vary from person to person.

Further, based on the outcome of this story, I highly doubt that the mother asked nicely herself. The photographer was trying to run away when the mother jumped her so I imagined that “asked” is a very loose definition of what occurred to start with. The old adage of “you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar” is 100% true. People are highly unlikely to do nice things for you when you are being an ahole to them.

Courtesy goes both ways. If confronted by someone asking to stop taking pictures of their kids or to delete any photos with their kids in it, the best way to handle it is to explain why you are there taking pictures in a calm way and then tell them you will happily edit their children out or delete any with their children in it, then move elsewhere away from their kids to photograph.

That solves the problem and most sane people would be okay with that.

This woman was obviously not sane since she chased the photographer down. But I also wonder if the photographer might have given her attitude or something. That does not excuse her actions, but it takes two people most of the time for a conflict to happen. Meaning both parties have some responsibility in it. Not always. Sometimes people attack out of nowhere which may be the case here. But often times neither party handled the situation well and then that is where the conflict arises.

“My point is that you can believe that “people taking photos” is harmless at the same time you can believe that common courtesy can exist as well.”

clearly that’s no longer the case as common courtesy would not kick a photographer into hospital for taking pictures.
Only the assumption that the simple fact of pointing a camera is causing harm can do that.

While I don’t totally disagree with the mom (she went way too far but I wouldn’t want a stranger taking pics of my kid either), the student could have first asked for permission and/or had a copy of the class assignment to show. He wasn’t doing anything wrong, but in today’s world you should expect some people to take issue when taking pictures of kids.

@Tim

Common courtesy also dictates that if someone does something slightly rude, but legal, and then stops doing it and starts to walk away when confronted.

You don’t chase them down, sucker punch them to the ground, then kick and stomp on their head.

And I’d say if any common courtesy was not done..it would be the mother who didn’t do it.

Again just to be clear, the woman assaulted the photographer and that is not excusable at all. That’s not the subject I’m talking about.

It’s within people’s rights to call police if they think there is a crime or someone is in danger, it is not a crime to make that call (even if they are mistaken). But people here, over and over, point out the other choices people have…call a parent, talk to a parent, exercise caution, because that is the more reasonable and courteous thing to do.

It would have been the courteous thing to do to respect a parents request.

When I took photos for a newspaper about twenty years ago, I would snap shots of kids at community events and then ask for permission to use them in the newspaper. You can’t get the same kind of candid, interesting shots if you ask for permission first. Even kids stop acting natural when they know the camera is on them, and you miss those perfect moments. I imagine this student photographer was thinking the same thing. Since the photos were not going to be made public or used for profit, it wasn’t crazy to assume that people in a public place would be okay with being photographed. Clearly, if a parent asked politely for photos of her children to be deleted, it would be polite to delete them, but the officer reported that she demanded it in a threatening manner. It is not surprising the photographer tried to walk away, possibly out of fear or at least the desire to avoid a confrontation.

Can someone clarify when a model release is actually required?

A few people have said you need a model release for any photos you use commercially, but that doesn’t make any sense to me when I can think of many commercial photos with no release.

1. Celebrity Photos: Paparazzi constantly take candid photos of celebrities and their kids anytime they step out in public, and then sell those photos to magazines sometimes for hundreds of thousands of dollars, and then the magazines put those photos on the cover for the purpose of selling more magazines. Those celebrities never signed a model release.
2. Perp walks: Anytime anyone notable (CEO, government official, celebrity, etc…) gets arrested and brought to trial, there are always the perp walk photos in the papers where they have their handcuffed hands up in front of their face trying to hide from the camera. Obviously they never signed a model release.
3. B-roll footage & photos for news segments and documentaries: The news often plays clips of people in public doing whatever activity the news topic is about. When they do a segment on the obesity epidemic in this country, they show random people walking down a crowded city street and zoom in on all the overweight people in the crowd. I doubt any photographer walked up to those people and asked, “Could you sign off on us showing a picture of you on tonight’s news segment on obesity. We want to really zoom in on your big butt.”

Personally, I know many people who have had their photos used commercially without a model release. My brother and his kid were at a public park and had their picture accompany an article about the renovations there. They weren’t in the background, either, the two of them were the entire shot. My dad had his picture in the paper napping on a park bench in a public park during his lunch hour. No model releases or even any notice the pictures had been taken nor that they would be published. When I had photos done by a professional photographer for my senior portraits, they used by photos for their advertising the following year.

My understanding of model releases as a layperson (and I could be entirely wrong) is that the model is considered an artist giving a performance for the camera. They are posing and acting as directed by the photographer for the shot. So the copyright for the photos does not entirely belong to the photographer, instead the photo is a collaboration between two artists and the model owns their performance. Thus they need to sign a model release for those photos to be used by the photographer. But that same model on the beach on vacation with their family has no rights to the candid paparazzi photos, because those completely belong to the photographer.

Good grief … let’s say the WORST happened and a pervert did see those shots. The child is long gone from that park.

I’ve never been confronted by a parent, but my reaction would be to refuse to delete shots. If they want to assault me, THEN I get to publish the pictures as news.

=========
To clarify the need for model releases … because I actually sell pictures.

NOT NEEDED FOR:

1 – A celebrity … by definition they are “newsworthy”. (politicians, etc. Anyone who trades on their name and likeness)

2 – No need if it’s real news, whether you sell photos or not. So that child escaping from a burning car … fair game! Perp walks … fair game! But make sure it’s related to the news.

3 – No need if it’s used for “educational” or “editorial purposes. I could take the photos I have of children playing in the park and use them to illustrate an article about the need for parks. Kids playing in the water park for a story about heat waves. Kids sledding for an article about sledding safety.

4 – The usual crowd shots, pedestrians in the background of an event, etc.

5 – “personal use”, such as for a class in photography, a display of photography. Or just a hobby photographer.

DEFINITELY NEEDED FOR:

1 – Any picture that will be used for selling products or services, if recognizable persons are part of the pitch.

I can’t use that pic of Madonna applying lipstick for my cosmetics line, even though I could sell it to TMZ and/or the New York times.

I can’t use the pictures of kids playing in the park in an ad for my playgorund equipment, or the kids at the ski resort in the resort brochure without permission if they are clearly identifiable … you learn to shoot action where the head is turned.

FUZZY AREA:
Educational or editorial BUT sensitive subject matter. A picture of a crying child, for example, could be used with no release for an article on coping with crying … but for an article on abuse it’s better to keep the kid’s face unrecognizable.

Same with shots of medical situations – we have pictures of ski injuries for training purposes, but the patient is not recognizable. However, I’ve been known to take a pic FOR the patient with their camera so they can update their Facebook page and live-tweet the splinting of their ankle.

Seriously? All the people ranting about their rights amaze me. Just because something is legal does not make it appropriate. It’s legal for me to talk to you incessantly at a dinner party about annoying political issues. It’s legal for me to fart in your face. It’s legal for me to pee on the toilet seat and not clean it up. It’s legal for me to be loud in a restaurant and to leave a crappy tip. It’s well within my rights to sing Miley Cyrus songs under my breath for 3 hours straight on an airplane.

But are any of those things appropriate? Nope.

If someone does not want themselves or their children to be photographed, get over it. Take a pic of one of the other people and move on. Just because it’s not illegal does not mean it is in any way appropriate to force the issue.

You want to raise your kids without constant judgement and interference from others? Then respect the will of other parents to do the same and quit harping about your legal right to make others feel like you are in their personal space.

There’s a huge difference between fascism and inconsiderate boorishness.

CF, please explain to me how it’s inconsiderate boorishness to want to take a photo of my child in a school play, at the pool, at a soccer game, or at the playground, despite the apparent horror that another child might be in that photo.

Please.

In the public realm, you have zero rights to the expectation of privacy with respect to photography, especially if they’re not all up in your face following you everywhere or attempting “up-skirts.” That is the law, and it SHOULD be the law.

I do hobbyist photography, and frankly, I’m not deleting any photos unless asked VERY nicely, not just because I’m not legally required to do so, but because getting so upset about something as innocent as a photo is just ridiculous and we risk ruining an entire art genre over people being excessively sensitive. Before you know it societal norms will change, for the worse, and people may think that you are legally required to ask permission.

Best case scenario, I will “fake delete,” it’s easy–you delete, but then you remove the memory card and use another, and with the original card, run it through “image recovery software” on your home PC and you will have no problem recovering the “deleted” image.

As a general rule, yes, show common courtesy, and there are definitely things which are legal but still rude. I can yell out “hey baby” to an attractive woman I see, but she probably won’t appreciate it, for example.

Sometimes, though, to be blunt, people are being oversensitive, and rather than their oversensitive stance being respected, they need to be told “quit being so sensitive,” and I think this is one of those times. People weren’t so sensitive to photography 10 years ago, why start now? Like Lenore said in that one clip about a year ago, it went something like “why people think that an electronic photo being transmitted over these supposedly scary airwaves is dangerous, it’s a new thing, it doesn’t make any sense.” It totally dosen’t.

What is that online photo of your child going to do them? 99.7% of the time, it will do nothing. The entire genre of candid-street photography is supposed to stop over a 0.3% odds? I’m supposed to ask permission to take any photos of anything? You can’t be serious.

It goes without saying, too, that you CANNOT attack someone for taking photos. I’m really surprised, though, to read that a female photographer was attacked. I can tell you that from what I’ve seen people “gender profile” males with a camera, basically making the assumption that any male with a camera is a pervert. It’s ridiculous and it’s nothing less than a form of discrimination and profiling, and there’s no call for it.

Believe me, I’m not obnoxious or pushy with how I take photos, I’m very easy-going for the most pat. However, anymore, I’m getting so tired of the stupidity of all of this, anymore I take photos almost just because I can, when all this time it’s mainly been just about pursuing a beautiful representation of life in photo form. This whole thing is ridiculous, it’s stupid, it’s a bunch of nonsense, and it deserves to be called that which it is, rather than over-sensitivity being pandered to.

My son with autism does not like having his photo taken. He has gotten better about it as the years have passed and will now at least pose and attempt to smile when I ask him to.

Good luck anyone else though. We were at a birthday party recently and there was some lady walking around with a super fancy expensive looking camera taking pictures of everyone. I think it was a friend of the family. She came up and tried to get a pic of my son and she said “Every time I try to get a pic of him he makes that face (that face being his leave me alone mad looking face)”.

I was like “Yeah he does not like having his picture taken.” She left him alone after that. Simple as that. She realized he was not into it after I confirmed it for her and she left him alone. Common courtesy is not that hard.

For me I care less about my kids showing up in a picture so much as I would be more concerned if someone followed them around in their personal space repeatedly photographing them. Especially my camera shy son. I may get mama bear on you at that point and tell you to leave my kids alone. Not because I am so freaked out about their picture ending up somewhere and more because you are bothering them and they have the right to play and be a kid without someone following them around snapping their picture.

But that has never happened and it probably never will. But if it did, I think I have every right to tell them to stop.

I also personally do not get why you would want a pic of some random kid. If a kid ends up in a shot with your kids or you were photographing a tree and a kid ran in front of it, that is one thing and no big deal. But why go around photographing random people or random kids? That is just odd to me.

When film used to be expensive I think there was a lot less of that happening because people were not going to waste expensive film and prints on a picture of some random person. Now with digital stuff I guess its no trouble or cost to snap whatever picture you want so I think people might be doing more of it. And people always have their cameras with them now with camera phones and small digital cameras.

I apologize if I am overposting, but I have an experience or two that I wish to share with respect to this.

Part of why people like me are so intent on exercising this right we have to practice photography is because of how it’s being attacked in such ridiculous ways, and it’s sincerely based mostly on irrational paranoia.

Last year at a lake I was photographing the lake and ONLY the lake, as I do landscape shots a lot, when a group of persons became uncomfortable and I was asked to stop, even AFTER attempting to nicely reassure them by showing them past landscape photos I’d taken and as I said “THAT is what I’m interested in, trust me, I have zero interest in photographing your aunt’s butt.” Even so, I was still asked to stop. Being that it was private property, I had to stop or leave, and so I left, but not without telling them what a bunch of morons they were being, because they were.

I was at a lake some years ago taking photos of the ducks and ONLY the ducks, and wouldn’t you know it some dumb ignoramus starts screaming at me “don’t be taking photos of my kids you pervert,” so I replied “don’t worry, I only take photos of things that LOOK GOOD” (meaning you have one ugly freaking kid lady).

Two years ago my wife & I were visiting a particular Italian restaurant for the 1st time, it was her birthday, and I took some snaps inside to show the scenery. There were no other customers besides us so it was impossible that we were being a nuisance to other customers. Even so, the waitress came out & said that the owner said we couldn’t take photos in there, and even when I NICELY stated “it’s my wife’s birthday, I’m just trying to get some snaps for our memories,” he refused. Fortunately for us we hadn’t ordered anything yet or even received courtesy bread, so we left, and on the way I let him know that was the reason why. Not only that, on social media, I mentioned the name of the place and told people to avoid it.

THAT is why some of us are getting this way, because this whole fear of photographers, and male photographers especially, is becoming irrational. Even when we’re NOT taking photos of anyone’s kids (although I think that is totally harmless if not done in an obnoxious “paparazzi” manner) and are just taking snaps in an Italian eatery on our spouses’ birthday, or taking shots of the lake, and are doing all of this in a very low key manner, people STILL make a big deal out of it. We’re tired of it, it’s stupid and irrational and it’s becoming a mental illness in dire need of a cure at this point. We’re not going to tolerate this ostracizing of a beautiful and innocent activity anymore. I’m not hurting anybody at all (especially since, again, I NEVER engage in such activities in anything remotely “paparazzi” like in terms of being abrasive or harassing) and to fear a photograph in and of itself is just irrational.

It’s foolish, and I just don’t suffer foolishness lightly, I call it the foolishness that it is and carry on. This is especially the case as I got into photography in the 80s as a teen when film constraints made it so hard and tedious to engage in this hobby. Digital has liberated me, I am like a horse let out of the fencing and allowed to gallop, and I’ll be darned if irrational fears based on pure hysteria are going to ruin a beautiful thing for me now that I’ve been liberated after all of these years.

LRH

@CF I would complain about you in all following circumstances:
* If you would physically attack someone for taking incessantly at at dinner party about annoying political issues.
* If you would physically attack someone for farting.
* If you would physically attack someone for not cleaning toilette seat.
* If you would physically attack someone for not leaving tip.
* If you would physically attack someone for singing whatever songs 3 hour straight. (maybe unless the song is racist and calls for blood )

None of your examples makes physical attack ok, not even close. It would be an overreaction in all those cases (and illegal too).

I would try to write more, but CF covered it PERFECTLY. Sure, there aren’t a lot of details on what transpired but NO WHERE does it say the photog said “yes, I’ll remove the images”. Of course we don’t know if they took photos of her children, but we can’t presume she didn’t (and it would be illogical to do so). Perhaps the kid complained to the mom about their photo being taken. We can go on and on.

As far as LRH’s contention that someone is “just being silly” because they don’t want their image on your card? Really? So YOU are the sole arbiter in what works for other people should do and how they should feel about it? You get that the whole FR philosophy is allowing people (adults/parents) decide what is appropriate for their own children and that even if it doesn’t align with how you might behave that you RESPECT that?

I have a sibling that has a real issue about being in photos (that predates digital imaging). I could into the whys and whatever (but it’s her story), but I remember one time giving her some grief at a family reunion about complaining about it and she very firmly and emotionally told me that for her, it’s a “phobia” and compared to something that makes me uncomfortable. I would never, EVER, after that discussion, take the attitude that she’s being silly or tell her “TOUGH”. Because I have compassion and respect for her wishes.

As far as restaurants asking for no photography? You can thank all the people that go in and take photos of their plates to post on twitter/FB/instagram ad nauseam using flashes and such to the disruption of other diners. People stand up, and even stand on their chairs to take those dumb photos. So sure, it stinks that the restaurant asked you to stop, but it’s because of people’s overuse of photography to begin with.

Incidents like this are rarer than car seat deaths. Why should we care? Seriously, the odds of this happening are less than a child getting kidnapped. There is no outraged mom danger. This is the same sort of sensationalism that Lenore is fighting against. Lenore, stop replacing one type of extremism (based on unlikely events) with another type of extremism (based on even less likely events).

@Dirk,

This wasn’t posted because of the photo fearing Mom attack, it was to hold her up as an example of parents fearful of public photography of her kid (because we should all feel the same about it and not care). Of course, no one has been able to ASK the Mom why she was pissed about it, so we’re just presuming she had no real reason.

My point was that it’s none of the photog’s business why she asked, that it’s just being nice to do it upon request. I try to be nice. Yes you don’t have to and you should NOT be attacked if you don’t.

This is who should have her kids taken away, not the woman who let her kid go to the playground. This woman is obviously crazy and dangerous.

Of course it’s necessary to be polite and unobtrusive, but taking pictures of people you don’t know isn’t at all weird, if they provide context to the image you’re trying to create. At the presidential inauguration, I took many portraits of random interesting people. I did ask them first when I wanted a more typical “portrait” but most were candid. Had anyone objected, I would have stopped.

Have you never travelled to another country and taken pictures that included locals? Had I avoided taking pictures of people, all my photo albums would be much less interesting. Most of the local kids loved to be photographed, especially as they expect tourists to compensate them with coins or candy.

Not weird at all.

@Dirk…re-read your article, it only says she came to bail someone out, the aiding was a man with the same last name. It was 12 years ago and she wasn’t charged with anything (according to what you posted).

@Mandy…yep it’s not uncommon or weird. But if you are asked to remove the photos after you’ve take it, it’s just nice to do it. The end.

Here’s a different way to look at this. What if someone was taking photos of that young girl with the Mom that worked at McDs and didn’t have childcare? What if someone took photos of her sitting in a booth at McDs alone? What if that Mom got worried that she’d be reported using the photos? What if that Mom walked up and said “please remove that photo of my child”? Do we all think she’s unjustified in that line of thinking? It doesn’t matter if the photographer was putting together a project called “people in McDs”…the Mom doesn’t know that…she only knows that the kid is sitting in McDs all day and someone is now taking her photo.

@Dirk…MY BAD, I was the one that misread it and the use of the same last name. SORRY!!!!

Crosses comments!

E –

You, CF and Dolly seem to be insisting that only the parent is entitled common courtesy. This was a public park, meaning that the entire public has the ability to use it as they see fit, including photographers. I can see common courtesy demanding that a photographer stop taking pictures focusing on a specific child if asked by the child or the parent. But a child’s use of a public park doesn’t trump the photographers use of the public park. So if the photographer was there taking group shots of kids in the park or pictures of slides or swings or trees, common courtesy doesn’t dictate that she must stop doing what she is doing and the onus is on THE PARENT to remove the children from the area where she is shooting if that is unacceptable.

For example, in my situation with my daughter at the slide. Common courtesy in no way demanded that 7 teenagers stop filming themselves sliding on slides simply because my daughter was also using them at the time. Common courtesy in no way demands that any pictures containing my daughter’s image be erased from their cameras. They had as much right to be there (maybe even more since they were locals and I a visitor) as we did.

Further, there is no way that common courtesy ever dictates that you must follow nasty and threatening requests to do people favors (and that is what this is since there is no legal obligation to stop photographing or to delete the photos). You can’t honestly believe that this mother asked politely. The article specifically states that the mother “demanded,” – not asked, but DEMANDED – that the photographs be deleted and did so in a “threatening way.” Since this description is far more consistent with someone then chasing down the photographer and stomping on her face, I tend to believe it to be much more accurate than the idea that the mother politely asked for the photos to be deleted.

Frankly if you have issues with people taking pictures that could include you or your family when you are out in public………..then you are a world class whackadoodle, with issues you need to address with a therapist.

There is no rational reason to worry about random photos being taken of you or your family.

Sometimes Warren may come on a bit strong, but he’s exactly correct here. If you fear cameras in this way, you do need a therapist. Maybe there’s a nicer way that should be put, but yes, enough already. Maybe “whackadoodle” is a bit strong (although I kind of like it myself), but yes, you’re overreacting.

As Mandy stated, there is nothing weird at all about taking photos of a child you don’t konw, especially as described–e.g., at public gatherings like a presidential inaugiration or on vacation at “interesting” places. I’d say even if it’s not a “vacation” per se but you’re at a new place that is “interesting” and you’re taking photos of what you see to remember the occasion, and that happens to include, say, 2 kids you see that are holding hands or something and it’s adorable & cute and you get a picture very much “in the flow” of life as it were, it’s not the least bit weird and it’s not rude either. I can somewhat respect that if someone is bothered by it and nicely asks you to do it no longer, I suppose you should stop then, you certainly shouldn’t “stalk” your subject, but it’s still an irrational fear in my mind, and always will be.

Also, as someone stated (it may have been Mandy?), if you go around asking permission first, it ruins the pose and the moment due to “artificial/plastic” posing that doesn’t give anywhere near as interesting of a “natural” expression. That’s the whole idea of such photography–to capture NATURAL expressions.

E–“In this case, people are doing the exact opposite…suggesting that your “right” as a photographer trumps common courtesy in the request of a parent.”

The difference is that taking a photo does not interfere with someone’s rights, at all. When people are so adament about “helicopter” parenting that they use social services as a means of reporting someone, they’re basically FORCING someone to actually parent their children differently. I see none of that in that a photo of your child may end up in someone’s shots.

The thing is, free range isn’t just about respect of parental authority, which I am HUGE on by the way, but also realizing that you’re part of a community, understanding that, and even being okay with that, with respect to how, for instance, your child will be playing wiht other children not just children from your “inner circle,” and will be exposed to various people. The idea is that it benefits your children, and the idea also is that it’s a joyful thing when other people enjoy your child and appreciate the joyful qualities they bring to life. You’re not so hard up about how they’re YOUR children to the point of being stubborn about that in a way that makes it less joyful for the community at large, especially when the attitude and/or steps you take really aren’t of any benefit to your children anyway.

Frankly, to me anyway, free range is also about assessing risk and not getting so bent out of shape over things that some thing are spooky, when they really aren’t. Photography is one of those things–again, especially if the photographer isn’t being aggressive all up in your face “paparazzi” style, but is just “blending in” with what they’re doing and just enjoying the beauty of life around them in the form of the cuteness of children and attempting to create a photo that captures that essence.

There is a balance to these things–respecting parent’s wishes vs a parent not getting bent out of shape over nothing. For instance, when I leave our children with relatives, I know they will parent them differently than how I would do it. So long as they’re not exposing our children to weird ideas from a cult or the like, I understand that and accept that, rather than pitching a fit about how they’re exposing my children to things I don’t approve of. They may be MY children, but these people should also have some freedom to interact with them however they feel in non-threatening and abusive ways, especially since I’m asking them to take them on for a period. In like manner, in a public place, your children are in a public place that is not solely your creation and things like photography will happen, and they’re no big deal, so yes–get over it. A nicer way of saying it might be “relax, it’s no big deal,” because it really isn’t.

LRH

And like I said before people definitely have a nostalgic and incorrect view of how things worked in the past.

Jacques Henri-Lartigue was a street photographer. He kept a diary where he outline what happened that day and the pictures he took (without permission). In it he talks about how people would get angry at him for taking their picture.

“Taking pics of people who are not part of the tourist attraction (meaning a guard, someone dressed up in traditional garb, etc) is weird.”

Where exactly do you vacation, Dirk? Antarctica?

I can’t think of a single vacation I’ve taken where it was even possible to take a picture of a major tourist attraction without strangers in the picture. I suppose if I got up at 2am I may be able to take a picture of the Spanish Steps without people sitting on them or Trevi Fountain without other people throwing in coins, but I’m not that dedicated to being unweird by Dirk’s definition.

I actually didn’t think it was weird at all that Korean tourists (they appeared Korean anyway) took pictures of my kid in a banyan tree. The tree was cool, but a cute kid sitting in a cool tree is a much more interesting picture to many than just a tree, even if you don’t know the kid.

CF –

I agree with you about individual photographs. People should be respectful of the wishes of others.

My beef was with the insistence that THIS photographer had some social obligation to remove THESE pictures because the mother requested and the failure to do so was rude. Yet, we have no idea what these pictures even were, so that implies some belief that it is ALWAYS okay to ask people delete any picture in which you appear, despite how incidental to the picture you are. I think that is a very self-absorbed way to look at the world.

Dirk,

How do you capture the culture of a place without photographing the locals doing what they normally do? Me posing as though I am carrying pineapple to market is a stupid picture and a mocking of the culture. A Samoan carrying pineapple to market is a beautiful picture that captures real life in Samoa.

Just to be clear, I’m not advocating “stalking” a kid the way CF describes. That sounds really obnoxious. We all have a responsibility to be civil and respectful of one another; why be a jerk?

Correcting my @LRH response:

including things you & I might NOT be able to relate to

Hi Donna, I think I might have oversold my annoyance at the tourists we encounter in the city. Of course people are going to be in the shot and maybe even part of the shot. But what I am talking about is the equivalent to taking a picture of another tourist at Disneyland on purpose. If I was in line for space mountain and a dude stopped to take my specific picture in line (as opposed to pictures of his own family in line where I just happened to be in the shot or just of space mountain in general) that would be weird. I wouldn’t care that much but it would indeed be weird. I am not part of the local scene. I am not against people taking pictures of things that I am part of. Or tourists taking pictures in general. But there is a disconnect here between taking pictures of an environment and taking pictures of things that aren’t your business. There was never a time when taking pictures that have nothing to do with you was ok. That is false nostalgia. I am ok with people taking a snap shot of a local that includes whoever almost 100% of the time. (But my specific complaint of people taking pictures of my kids through an ice cream shop window is valid, it is none of their damn business.) I am not doing anything exotic or memorable by standing in line at space mountain. No pineapples.

I, and a virtual 100% of the public, have literally no problems with people taking shots of street photography or of where they are. But the nature of how photography has changed and the nature of digital as opposed to film photography has changed the nature of what pictures are and how they are used. In the past every picture mattered. Film stock meant you truly wanted the picture. And pictures where taken with purpose. And now in the digital age that idea is only enhanced by the ease in which these moments are shared. Communication through pictures on facebook, tumblr, instagram, has only enhanced their personal value. How do I say this…the pictures mean more?

Photo bans are stupid and I haven’t encountered them. I have encountered young parents that are protective of pictures of their family (for reasons such this: http://www.blogher.com/i-shouldve-been-food-blogger). Others plaster their facebook pages with pics of everything their kids do.

But I know that even in the past, when strangers where clearly the focal point of a persons photograph it was as much an issue then as it is now. Think of it this way. Circa a hundred years ago a picture was a miracle itself. You had to stand really still to get someone on camera. I know that street photographers would approach people on the street and try and sell them copies of their pictures in the 30s through the 50s. But then as cameras got cheaper and instant film was developed in the 80s the interaction between street photographer decreased. Pocket cameras and phone cameras pretty much killed the novelty of picture taking. It became far less exotic but far more personal.

If you don’t believe this that is fine. But truly think about this part, there is a clear disconnect between generations and different level of tech users on how they view these things coupled with a complete hazy nostalgia view of the past that complicates what EVERYONE expects.

Let be a little shorter and clearer.

I and most people have no problems with people taking shots of things that include people. Buildings, locals, people who expect to have their pictures taken (parades, etc), or of people who are in the shots of photos being taken of other people or of groups (kids soccer games, your kid going down the slide). I and most people I know do think it would be “weird” to take pictures of strangers for no reason other than to have a picture of the stranger (meaning a strangers soccer game, a strangers kid going down the slide, a strangers kid at halloween even. Meaning a dude standing in line at space mountain. Or a random family eating a picnic in the park). While you have no expectation of privacy in public there are clearly things that are meant to be private or limited to a certain group and invading that privacy while not illegal or threatening or scary in anyway, it is off putting…AKA “weird.”

Dang, I wish this area had an edit feature, lol.

I have a very hard view on this issue. I’m inflexible on the topic. I’m tired of people assuming they have an entitlement to both privacy and to control their image (or child’s) while in public.

I have four kids. I have never expected people not to take pictures of them.I have one of those crazy Exs as well. I lived in fear of him finding us for awhile. it meant I declined to sign releases for my child’s picture to be used in advertising and publications. Not once did it occur to me to stop pictures from being taken, by anyone.

I have been in love with photography, since the age of seven when I was given my first camera. I have decades of pictures of people, I haven’t a clue who they are. They made great photos though. As a child I posed for random pictures taken by strangers, neighbors, sort of known people like the lady who always gave out popcorn ball on Halloween two blocks over and friends. Photos tell a story, they are both art and history.

It is not polite to ask a photographer to remove photos. It wasn’t polite prior to digital (when we dealt with film and it was impossible) and it didn’t suddenly become polite just because it became possible with digital. It’s not polite because you don’t own your image or the image of your children. You have no expectation of privacy while in public and to ask for it would be impolite. If a person is going to be impolite and ask someone for the favor of not taking a picture or removing a picture they took, they should be both apologetic and have a very good reason for doing so. A reason such as my child is in foster care an I’m suppose to make sure unauthorized photos aren’t taken of them (a rather impossible goal, which most foster programs don’t have). They should also be willing to accept no as the answer, even if they don’t like the answer.

This fear of photographers is both mind boggling and ludicrous. the concept that anyone is ever justified in telling someone to remove their image and that the photographer is rude to take it or not remove it or should expect people to be upset or angry because they took it…..that’s both wrong and ludicrous. Photographers are not pedophiles. They are simply photo enthusiasts. They are historians. Where would so much of the last 100 years history be without photos, including those with unknown children in them?

Since cameras were invented, people have always taken photos of children (ones they know and don’t know). It isn’t a new thing and it isn’t a bad thing. People’s paranoia over it and actions towards it are both new and bad things.

Again everyone, even most people, with a camera are not perverts seeking out your child.

I’ve seen some interesting comments here, but this takes the cake:

“If it bothers you so much, sorry, but that’s YOUR problem, and it is a PROBLEM. It’s not an “opinion,” some opinions are STUPID and should be said to be STUPID, and that’s one of them. It’s a PROBLEM you need to fix.”

This is so rich I don’t even know where to start. LOLOLOL.

First off, just in case we need it, here is the definition of Opinion: “a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.”

So, we’ve established the fact that an opinion is NOT, in fact…a fact! LOL

And you can’t even decide if it an opinion or not…but I’ll help you out. It IS your opinion and therefore there might be people that hold an alternate viewpoint.

Sometimes I realize that people must lead charmed lives. Where you never have a bad day, you never have an unpleasant life experience, you never have to worry about who is looking over your shoulder, you never just need someone to cut you a break, you never have benefited from someone else’s grace…and therefore don’t need to extend any yourself. In fact (yes fact), some of the people that are featured here that are ALWAYS being extended grace and compassion by the readership.

I just hope the people that have charmed lives realize it as they look down their noses at those that don’t.

Maybe the idea that you do own the image came from the internet. That the pictures are mine because they are on my facebook page. The idea of stolen images would have been very confusing to a person in 1950.

My viewpoint is that I don’t understand why anyone would want a picture of me at all, since I have no connection to you what-so-ever. My viewpoint is that if you have a connection to an event, a graduation, a youth sporting event, etc is that you would want pictures of the people you are sharing that connection with. If you don’t have a person who is graduating and are not part of the graduation why do you need a photo? If you are not somehow connected to the youths playing the sport why do you need a photo? If you are on vacation with your family why do you want a picture me on vacation? Taking a picture of a local character is one thing. I get it. But I don’t agree with the glossy nostalgic memory haze that taking pictures of strangers or their kids was always considered super ok.

But I basically agree with RLH despite thinking all that.

I think was Louie CK or Dennis Leary who had a bit about pedophiles at the beach. His statement as I remember it was something like maybe there is one maybe there isn’t. Nothings going to happen so don’t live in fear about it.

At this stage of the game, this isn’t about “taking photos” anymore. At every turn, our worlds have become emotionally stupid and intellectually dazed. No. Taking photos of children is not the issue. It’s simply one more nail in our democratic coffins.

And as I would rather be accused of being paranoid than ignorant, I’ll say it directly : The masses (of which we are a minuscule part) are much easier to control when made to be anxious and afraid. Even better, when we are, we easily and even eagerly transmit this disease of anxieties and fears to our offspring – making them even more cowering than we are.

Me thinks we’ve all gone beyond our best before date.

@Christina – who here has suggested you should be afraid? It’s not part of the news story (we don’t know WHY they Mom confronted the photog, only that she did).

SOA,
Nobody said you cannot ask them to stop. But since it is within the law to do so, they do not have to stop.

And there is nothing you can do about it.

Just because you do not understand why someone would do it, does not mean you can deny them the right to do it.

Are people that fragile that someone taking their picture is trauma. Suck it up, and get over it. Or stay home.

Hell I want to go buy an expensive camera, travel to all your towns just to screw with your heads. Now that would be real fun.

@Buffy — I don’t think anyone *here* is saying they think it’s terrible or are afraid. But I’m not going to project my viewpoint on someone else’s life experience. I take lots of photos….I take a lot of photos of High School activities. Only once was I asked to remove a photo from the online gallery I posted…and I did it, no questions asked.

I happened to have a sibling who doesn’t even like her own family to take her photo (and we don’t, even at family gatherings). Is it her hang up? Yup. Should she have to go spend 1000s of dollars to resolve it in therapy, or can she just request that people not take her picture? I’d say she’s lived into her 50s managing the latter way just fine. And if someone was going to be a prick and refuse, well it’s pretty crappy.

I already gave an example about the McDs mom and the kid sitting alone all day? Can you understand that she might be afraid of it being submitted to CPS? Perhaps this person was afraid of the same thing or something similar? Would it be understandable that she would wonder why the photo was being taken?

As far as the “general paranoia”. Well those are the same people who worry about everything that’s critiqued here — they have bought into the inundation of news items that portend to “keep us safe”. In all of those cases something that “could” happen (abduction, pedos posting/enjoying photos somewhere) is covered as if it’s likely….even if they aren’t likely. But we all know that already.

Really, “in the hands/control of a stranger”?

Having your pic taken can ruin your moment?

Talk about fragile. Honestly if this is your view, you really need to seek help for your paranoia, control issues and insecurities.

How weak must you be to be that messed up by someone taking your picture?

CFFor some people it’s about not wanting their photo to be in the hands / control of a stranger. This is legit. Their life, their choice. They don’t need your approval.

And they’re being delusional. “Their photo to be in the hands of a stranger”–um, it’s NOT their photo just because they’re in it. It’s a photo OF them. It is not THEM, it is a photo OF them, and it’s not theirs. It’s the property of the one who took it. No one is stealing anything, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a wackadoodle and an idiot, frankly.

And the photographer does not need “approval” to take that photo. As for long lenses, well many will tell you that actually the best results comes from closer-range than what a long lens would give you, and besides that, many people have a more “creepy” response to the sight of a long lens on top of that. So there you have it.

“If they see you and feel awkward, you blew it”–maybe if my job was as a therapist, but it’s not. Some people need no excuse to CHOOSE and DECIDE to be paranoid. That’s their problem.

LRH

Heh – the “best results” for what??? Portraits? Action photos? Capturing a scene without the subjects being influenced by your presence? Don’t you have to know the goal of the photographer before you can say what was the best choice?

She could have been trying to emulate a photojournalist or her assignment could have been back lit portraits or she could have gone to the water play park to capture moving water in different states with different settings. Who the heck knows.

@Warren: quite a few photographers are actually returning to film. My sister and father are both hobbyists, and they’ve both returned to film in the past two years (after investing thousands of dollars in digital technology) as have quite a few of the other hobbyists they hang out with.

Which makes this even more interesting … my sister and dad are both the type of people who always have their cameras on them, and will simply stop, pull out the camera, and take a random photograph. What will all these people demanding photos be deleted do when they realize that the camera is film?

We all have visions of our childhood that’s that we can recall. 50 years from now, that child will remember the day that her mother stomped on a photographers face!

Dirk, Artistic shots of strangers have been around as long as there have been cameras. That SOME people don’t want to be the subject of said photographs has also likely been true since the dawn of cameras. Your insistence that because some people have always complained, it is weird and unacceptable has absolutely no basis in reality.

Further there is a difference between an unusual life happening that I don’t quite understand and disturbing/unacceptable. I would find it odd if some stranger wanted to take a random picture of me, but only because I can accept the reality that I am not stunningly gorgeous or particularly photogenic so I would wonder why someone would choose to take a picture of me out of all the people around. It isn’t disturbing. It isn’t unheard of even in my life; it’s happened a few times. It is simply an unusual occurrence in my life that I don’t quite understand.

Just because it is something that you don’t want to do doesn’t actually make it unacceptable. It just makes it something that you don’t want to do.

Honestly, my paranoia about the world actually increases when I visit this site because it reminds me how self centered and rude people are capable of being.

I’m sure those I’m referring to might make some snarky reply … Have at it if that’s your bag.

But what I’ve observed is that most people in the world are pretty nice, and the few seem to feel the need to flex nuts online. This blog could be an exception, but it just isn’t.

I appreciate those who contribute to a thoughtful conversation. Some great points are made here and people have made me reconsider ideas and stretch my thinking, but the constant bs from Warren, etc. whose only real way of contributing is to insult anyone different from themselves really has nothing to do with free range. (And honestly, neither do stories like this one which highlight a situation that is a sensationalized outlier of an incident.)

Too bad. A legit free range resource / discussion group would have been great.

See ya.

” I can accept the reality that I am not stunningly gorgeous or particularly photogenic so I would wonder why someone would choose to take a picture of me out of all the people around.”

Because you are not stunning gorgeous or particularly photogenic. There are photographers who take those pictures, and there are photographers who prefer reality.

I agree some people tend to think free range equals don’t have to follow etiquette rules and that I cannot get behind.

I want my kids to be able to play freely but not if it infringes on other people’s rights. So they are allowed to play out in my yard all they want unsupervised but that does not mean I am going to think it is okay for them to trample all over my neighbor’s property all the time in their pursuit of free play. No, you still have to follow basic courtesy rules.

Yeah, it’s kind of a strange dynamic at play.

On one hand (as I’ve said) I have no issue with photography like this. At the same time, I have no issue with someone, for reasons I don’t understand or don’t even know, asking me (or anyone) to delete photos of them or their children. They aren’t the govt demanding I do it, they aren’t anything other than another individual asking me to remove the images of them.

There is so much talk about knowing what’s best for our own families, knowing what works and what doesn’t, etc. I’m struggling to understand why a complete stranger (the photographer) would decide the THEY should be decision maker in regard to images of someone’s kids in the event they are asked to remove them. OF COURSE, there is a OVERWHELMINGLY MINUSCULE chance the photos would ever end up used in a fashion that is wrong, hurtful, illegal manner, but you know, it’s just a nice thing to do. End of story.

Anyway – this is getting repetitive.

Let’s just remember, if the standard of behavior is “it’s not illegal” then life could get pretty unpleasant. In fact, it sounds like something a teenager would say and drive parents insane, lol.

And again, when the next story about someone calling 911 or CPS about a situation rather than talking to the parent….it’s not illegal to do so. 🙂

Sometimes this forum seems like a bunch of ‘group think’ which I thought was the anti-FR attitude.

And just to be clear creeps and perverts don’t have to take pics of your kids to do their disgusting stuff. It already exits elsewhere. Proverbially 99.9% of child pornography exists without candid shot taking place out in public. There is no safety issue here.

In fact I don’t think there is really an issue at all. Although yes, parents are crazy paranoid about people taking their kids pics these days. But most just get annoyed by it.

I am not crazy paranoid about people taking my kids pictures. I just have zero interest in pictures of people I don’t know or have any connection to what-so-ever because there is clearly a difference between a picture of the guy who runs the train at disneyworld and a guy who is waiting in line for the train at disneyworld. One is part of something I am experiencing, disneyworld, one is just some random dude who is not actually part of disneyworld.

I find the attitude of “man that kid is really cute, I don’t know him but I want to take a picture so I can remember how cute this kid I don’t know is” to be weird. Believe what you want but most people don’t think that way. Although like I have been saying there is clearly huge generational gaps at play here.

I agree with you anonymous mom (your Tue Jul 29th 2014 at 9:19 am comment). But I do have a caveat. It sounds like the pictures you are saying you enjoyed and saw on FB, people knew that the pictures were being taken and had a tacit/implied ability to say no. Is that right? That sounds like it is part of the (very fluid and convoluted) math that goes on and changes from generation to generation.

Buffy, my “connection” to pictures in books and magazines is the same my connection to baseball players on the field or actors on tv. I am doing something that involves being a spectator or in the case of newspapers and books and magazines I am reading about something. I have a couple of saved newspapers one is from my grandfather that is from when kennedy was killed, and the other is one I saved when the soviet union fell. I also have a rolling stone with framed with pink floyd on the cover. The analogy you are making is bad.

@LRH said:

It’s because, even though in general I agree with the idea of respecting how another feels regardless of what you think of it, there are exceptions, because there are some notions that are so silly and ridiculous that they don’t deserve respecting, and this is one of them.

yeah, except the part about you having no idea or understanding of someone else’s life experience as to why they are asking.

The fact that you, without question or hesitation, thinks that something you don’t agree with classifies someone as an “idiot” says everything that needs to be said.

@Dirk, thanks for the photog’s commentary. I’m not surprised it is proliferation of digital photography and all its delivery methods that makes people just want to avoid it. It might be unrealistic to achieve (like many things in life) but it’s not unreasonable to desire (like many things in life).

Dirk,
That is one photographer, that you know. Not surprising that someone you know has the same opinion as you. Most people associate with like minded.
So he has no interest in people, big deal. A lot of other’s are into just people, and not scenery. I love watching people, especially when in theme parks, parks, malls, airports and such where I find myself waiting for others. I would rather people watch than read a magazine or play on a phone.

I’m not sure why anybody would assume that this mother politely asked the photographer to stop photographing her children first. It doesn’t sound like that happened, at all. Yes, if the photographer was like right up in her kids’ faces, taking pictures of them, and either they or the mom was unhappy with that, the photographer probably should have stopped if politely asked. But it sounds more like the photographer was simply taking pictures in the vicinity of this woman’s children, her children may have been in some of the shots, and she responded aggressively and violently. That is not okay on any level.

@Dirk: “But specifically taking a picture of someone you don’t is indeed weird. I have no interest in pictures of strangers I have no connection with, but also it is uncommon.”

I’m not sure this is true. Most of the most famous portrait photographs we have are of subjects the photographer did not have a connection to.

A few years ago, when my third child was a couple of months old, I went to a neighborhood photography workshop. It was part of a larger community arts program, and this particular project was going to involve taking portraits of people in the neighborhood and then blowing them up and using them to decorate an abandoned home (they had permission to do this, obviously). I got a nice portrait of a neighborhood friend of my oldest, and that ended up on the house. And another participant got a picture of my baby that ended up right on the front of the house, blow up to about 4′ by 6′. One of the women who organized the project would go by the house once a week or so and talk to anybody who was there looking, to see what they thought of it, and she told me there was one woman she met there, who was looking at the picture of my baby. So she asked her what she thought, and the woman said she came by a few times a week, because she had recently lost her teenage son, and seeing my son reminded her of when her own son had been a baby and brought her comfort.

We have no idea what connections people find in art, and photography is one form of art.

ack – massive typos in that last post….way past time for me to stop posting on this thread! 🙂

Just to be absolutely clear I only know the street photographer I contacted by reputation he is not involved with the reddit page I posted later. Also, I have no connection to person or people running that reddit link.

I also think we have to recognize that in most cases, these things DO NOT MATTER. For all I know, there are pictures of me all over the web, in various outfits, with people mocking me. I’ve never seen it, so who cares? If some people on Reddit wanted to comment on my outfit or appearance, why should that bother me? Sure, if I were to become privvy to the conversation I might get my feelings hurt, but my feelings aren’t entitled to legal protection. But the chances of my even knowing if there’s an image of me out there being shared and discussed publicly are very slim. That’s fine. It would be like worrying about what neighbors say about me behind my back. Not my business, and not something I need or want to waste my time worrying about.

@anon mom, I don’t think you clicked on the link because while it did include people with questionable fashion choices (sheer and such), there were plenty including younger women in shorts that you see every day. There was also the woman who was trying to work out at a gym and some creep (yes you are a creep if you take a photo of someone’s ass while they are trying to work out in a gym) decides to take your photos and post it on a site for common caveman type commentary.

but okay, you win.

@E, would it be fun to be on that site? No. But, the world, and the internet, is full of jerks. The reality is, these same people will be ogling you and judging you at the gym, or as you walk down the street, if they aren’t doing it online. Is it really any different? If the idea of it bothers you that much, don’t dress in a way that might cause ogling, because you will never, ever be able to control other people’s eyes or thoughts, and I hope we’d all agree that other people’s eyes and thoughts are not things we should police.

Whether you like it or not, when you step out in public, you have no privacy anymore. You’re not in an invisible bubble in your own little world. You are part of the community of people who are sharing that space. Whether people take pictures or not, total strangers will look at you, may talk about you with others even if they don’t interact with you directly and only observe you from a distance, and will form memories that may also include you. And some of those people may even take a picture of you as a way of preserving THEIR memory. It’s NOT rude for them to take a picture, but it IS rude for you to ask them to stop or delete it.

I can think of many memories that we still talk about with friends and family even years later that featured a stranger we witnessed whom we often never even approached or spoke to. We only witnessed something memorable that the stranger did or said (or yes, sometimes even wore). Some of those moments I wish I had a photo to relive it better.

After my parents got married, they discovered that both their fathers had ended up at the same fishing hole together once and had a single memorable conversation. My mother’s father had died long before she ever met my dad, but wouldn’t it have been amazing if they had taken a “selfie” to commemorate that one conversation? You never know for sure what the significance of a single conversation you have with a stranger will be years later.

I know I feature in some strangers’ photos at least once. One time I was standing in a public park talking to some friends. A squirrel ran up my leg, sat on my hip, opened my purse, and started rooting through my belongings for something to eat. The squirrel was literally upside down and buried in my purse up to its hind legs. I looked around at the other people in the park in shock, sort of thinking, “Is this really happening?” A few pulled out cameras and took pictures. The squirrel took my roll of breath mints and ran off. Should they have gotten my permission to take the photo first? Of course not.

This idea that it’s “common courtesy” to ask for permission to take photos or even submit to someone’s request to delete a photo, stems from a mistaken belief that we travel through shared public space in our own bubble composed exclusively of those we have allowed in: the friends and family in public with us. And therefore any outsiders must ask permission and be granted access to that personal bubble. But if my child and your child are playing together at the park, we all own parts of that experience, no one has an exclusive right to it. Even if it’s just you sitting alone reading at the park, if I notice you, then it’s still a shared experience by virtue of my observing you.

I just think you might be surprised at people responses if you take their pictures outside of the situations I mentioned previously…

Walking past a stranger and taking their picture is unusual and off putting to most people these days. Try it! Go outside today with your phone and take the picture of a 100 individual people without permission. See how many people enjoy it. That will tell you what percent find it weird.

Once or twice I’ve taken photos of strangers because they were the exact doppleganger of a friend or family member, and I just had to show my friend how they had a “twin” running around out there.

You never know why someone might want a photo featuring you, but it might not actually be about you at all.

I’ve never had anyone react angrily or have any issues with me taking photos before. I’m never in anyone’s face “paparazzi” style. But if I take photos while blending in the background, I’ve never had anyone have a problem with it before. Then again, I’m female.

Whether you like it or not, when you step out in public, you have no privacy anymore.

Isn’t this site completely based on the fact that we shouldn’t sit around and accept that certain things are a certain way “whether we like it or not”.

Lenore doesn’t have a following because she took the attitude of “whether we like it or not….my kids can’t walk home from school alone”….”whether we like it or not…I have to justify allowing my kids to walk to the store alone”.

Sorry – I’m not buying it.

If you don’t like the fact that other people can actually see you when you’re in public, and thus can look at you and make memories of you, whether in their heads or on photographic paper, then invent a mobile privacy shed that can shield you from prying eyes wherever you go.

E,
My daughters would be the first to admit that though they don’t like it, they would not be upset about it. Jerks and idiots are all around us, and they agree the best way to deal with it is to dismiss it for what it is.

As for your cover ups at the pool or beach……..well hate to tell you, if you don’t want to be looked at a certain way, don’t dress that way.

If you don’t want to be photographed in a revealing swimsuit, don’t wear one. It is that simple.
And yes this site is about not just accepting things the way they are, but it also about not regulating or limiting everyone because a precious few are over sensitive.

@JKP, it’s not what you are saying at all.

I haven’t been railing on people taking public photography. I’ve been saying that if someone ASKS you to stop or remove the photo, just be nice and do it. That’s it.

Clearly, legally you don’t have to do it. You don’t have to hold a door for someone if they ask, you don’t have to hold a place in line for someone if they have to step out for some reason, you don’t have to do a lot of things that make the world a nicer place.

My point about reddit and all the others, is that the ABUSE of creep photography is one thing (among some others) that may make people uncomfortable with a stranger taking their photo. It’s not unreasonable.

Clearly this is becoming a circular discussion, so I’ll try to bow out once again.

“You are treading very dangerously into “women ask for it” based on your comments. Women don’t deserve to be given less respect because they wear clingy clothes to the gym…are we supposed to wear full body coverage at the pool as well? ”

Nice try, but no. If you want to be looked at respectfully, then dress in a way that will lead to respectful looks. If you think you can walk around in booty shorts and a bikini top and have people look at you respectfully, you are living in a fantasy world. Sorry, if I show up to teach in sweatpants and a stained t-shirt, my students are not going to respect me as much as they would if I showed up dressed in dress pants and a blouse. If I show up wearing a skin-tight shirt and a miniskirt, I can’t start complaining that they were looking at my boobs, not me. That’s just how life works.

I am so freaking sick of white women whining about how oppressed they are because when they go out in shorts that show half their butt and a sports bra, people dare to ogle them or even–gasp–catcall them. I mean, seriously: they knew exactly what was going to happen, and they were dressed that way because they wanted to show off their bodies and get attention. But, when guys they don’t find attractive show them that attention, they freak out. (Nobody claims #yesallwomen after Alexander Skarsgard or Ryan Gosling chats them up, just after some dude they don’t find attractive does.) The problem is that, again, we have no protective bubble in public, making sure that our tight, low-cut shirt only shows when hot guys look at us.

No, of course nobody is asking for a rape if they are wearing a bikini. But, if you are wearing a string bikini, you ARE going to be looked at. And, people might think not-so-pure thoughts about you. If you can’t handle that, don’t dress that way. It’s honestly not that hard.

Do you get the feeling that this is going to continue and carry on well past the point of how crazy and criminal the mother was?

Well, anywway, my turn I suppose.

anonymous mom EXactly, in so many aspects, the “walking private bubble” aspect you mentioned, where we think we have this “invisible bubble” around us. By the way, I surmise the same thing in terms of how some people will become FURIOUS if you do a “drop-in” at their house if you’re “in the neighborhood,” they get all bit about MY house and MY space and “don’t come into MY space barging in without an invitation.” We have a need for control that gets irrational sometimes in that sort of way. (And if you are one that prefers people to call first, that’s fine, I’m just saying that those who get SO UPSET about it, I see a link frankly.)

And yes, I am also sick and tired of certain women walking around in a bikini or a low-cut tank-top and then if you even GLANCE for barely 1-2 seconds with a slight raise of the eyebrow, they act as if they’ve been ogled by a bunch of construction workers. It’s ridiculous. Yes, you have NO RIGHT to complain about a little quick 1-2 second glance when you parade your assets around like that. No one is saying a woman who was raped asked for it, or that they should have to burn up while covered head-to-toe when it’s 95’F, but a lot of what I see goes beyond just dressing for the weather.

E WWih respect to the scenario you mentioned in the gym and the awkward leg squats or whatever–on one hand, I do see your point, however, that is a far different prospect than typical street photography. The street photography work I’ve seen anyway was nothing of that sort.

Even still, though, I do still kind of say “so what?” What are the odds anyone’s going to recognize any of those women? The phrase “what they don’t know won’t hurt them” is sometimes abused or over-used, but I do think it sort of applies there. They’re the proverbial “face in the crowd,” so honestly no harm is being done. I can still agree it’s some crude and sleazy behavior just the same, and I tell you that the occasions I go to the gym, I do nothing of the sort. I can certainly understand someone being bothered by the likes of THAT, and gyms may well be a bit strict about cameras at a fitness place because of that. I have no problem with that, especially since I never see anything photo-worthy or even necessarily snapshort-worthy when I’m there.

I agree with Warren too in that I think this site also at least partially about not regulating or limiting everyone because of a few that are overly sensitive. That certainly applies with respect to this topic, for sure.

LRH

http://www.rolereboot.org/culture-and-politics/details/2014-06-stop-posting-photos-strangers-online/

A few years ago, on the beach path along Lake Michigan, I was waiting for a friend, hopping from foot to foot to avoid the burning sand, when I noticed a random guy taking my picture. “Don’t do that,” I said. “Come on,” he replied, camera still aimed at me, “You’re at the beach!” I told him more forcefully to stop, but he snapped one more photo before walking away.

Who knows what happened to that photo. Maybe he tweeted it, posted it, or shared it on his creepy blog. Maybe it’s part of a Reddit thread making fun of chunky girls in bikinis. Maybe it just sits idly on the dude’s phone, long forgotten. Maybe, just maybe, he felt a twinge of guilt and deleted it.

For a long time, I thought this guy was the problem. But it’s not just him, and it’s not about the bikini. These days, we all feel entitled to take pictures of strangers to post, share, and mock.

Rule #1: Don’t take pictures of strangers without their permission.

Rule #2: Seriously, don’t take pictures of strangers without their permission.

*****

Every day, I see pictures of strangers on Instagram and Twitter. There are pictures of bare legged girls braving Chicago winters, pictures of drunk Baseball fans behaving badly, pictures of women with great asses going through airport security. I am guilty of it too. This week I shared, while laughing, a tumblr that collected pictures of men taking up too much space on the subway. It’s hard to remember that each person whose photo is in the gallery is a real human, one who may feel pretty shitty to look up to see a stranger’s phone in their face.

We have become immunized to what a bizarre, invasive, and often bullying action it is to surreptitiously take a picture of someone you don’t know and share it on the Internet. In the most extreme cases, we are outraged, like when the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that taking upskirt photos on public transportation is not prohibited, or when a photo making fun of a Sikh woman sneakily taken at the airport was posted on Reddit. She wrote back and the Internet rallied around her.

I’m not a lawyer and I’m not interested in the conversation about what’s legally prohibited or allowed, so please don’t post in the comments anything that starts with “But there’s no law against…” We’re all adults here; it’s OK to consider the ethics of a situation without testing the limits of the law.

People should, whenever possible, have the ability to control their own image and how its used. Just this week, an Instagram account was launched called You Did Not Eat That, mocking thin people holding food. These photos are taken from people’s personal accounts and then repurposed to be ridiculed. Yes, they posted them publicly in the first place, but no, it’s not cool to repost a stranger’s photo just to make fun of it. Illegal? No. Asshole move? Yes.

Are there exceptions? Of course. An actress on a red carpet posing for photos has generally signed up for having her picture taken and published. Panelists at an event have typically signed off on photography. Ditto for politicians giving speeches. These are not the same circumstances as someone riding the train to work or sunning themselves at a local beach.

Rule of thumb: If you think what you’re doing is complimentary to the stranger, then you should be able to ask permission. “I’m working on a gallery of photos of street style and I think your look is really cool, do you mind if I take a picture?” If you’re not comfortable explaining why you’re taking the photo, chances are high that your plans fall on the mocking, bullying, slimy side of the spectrum.

*****

We live in a strange time. We see something noteworthy and we can’t help ourselves from claiming it and sharing it and collecting the requisite digital accolades. I saw a minor celebrity at a Nashville restaurant having a casual dinner with his wife and the impulse to discreetly take a photo was intense. Only the intervention of my friend, who reminded me that I normally think that’s shitty behavior, pulled me away from my phone.

I don’t think we’re ever going to break the habit of document-and-share; it’s become too ingrained in our lives. Posting a photo of a beautiful cupcake might be twee and annoying, but it does no harm. But posting a photo of a stranger’s bad fashion choices, hot bod, or annoying public transit behavior? Potentially harmful. How would that person feel to see their photo on your Instagram with your clever, cutting caption? Are the likes really worth it?

Role Reboot regular contributor Emily Heist Moss is a New Englander in love with Chicago, where she works in a tech start-up. She blogs every day about gender, media, politics and sex at Rosie Says, and has written for Jezebel, The Frisky, The Huffington Post and The Good Men Project. Find her on Facebook and Twitter.

http://wp.pistolsandpopcorn.com/?p=3379

Photographing strangers and posting the pictures to a public forum is creepy. Even if the picture is beautifully framed, wonderfully lit, and visually stimulating, unless the person has agreed to be photographed you’re crossing a line. Instagram has made this type of photography wildly popular and more accepted than ever. Many of my closest friends and relatives do this. Subway pictures of strangers, people waiting for a train, people crossing a street, eating food — I get it. The landscape of NYC littered with its citizens makes for compelling photographs. This is the sum + substance of why people watching here is so satisfying. But I don’t agree with the notion that just because it’s possible and popular, it’s ok to voyeuristically post pictures of strangers.

If I caught a stranger taking a picture of me, for whatever noble and artistic reason, it would bug me. Particularly if they were being sneaky about it. More so if they were taking a picture of any of my children. Honestly, that would freak me out. It’s just invasive, and that is the truth.

I think there are some exceptions. Vague pictures, not specifically showing faces but instead more of a landscape. Performers, who presumably are putting themselves out into the world to be watched. Maybe even police officers or other public figures on duty. Anyone who is not having a private moment. But the rest of us are just going from A to B, without trying to be on the stage of social media, maybe not feeling our best or looking our best or maybe we’re going through something or possibly feeling vulnerable or wearing something we thought looked great but actually looks awful.

But we have not agreed to be part of your artistic expression. By being in public, is it just implied that we consent? I don’t think so.

I’m seriously kind of shocked by how many people take and publicly post pictures of others. When did this become ok? How does it seem like a valid form of art? And if they have to do it covertly, doesn’t that just sort of negate any argument that it’s fine? In my experience, anything a person has to hide is usually kind of on dodgy ground.

I’d love to hear how others feel about this — particularly people who do it. Truthfully, I’ve done it before. I’ve seen a funny situation, photographed it, then posted it. But after seeing it done more and more, with people dancing a little too close to the line of invasive disregard, I’ve had to put the kibosh on my own involvement. It could be that I’m being ridiculous, though. What do you think?

http://downandoutinthe21st.com/2014/06/19/the-ethics-of-taking-pictures-of-strangers/

I’m a huge fan of Humans of New York, which I’m positive you’ve at least heard of, as it might be the most trafficked photoblog on the Internet on top of a best-selling book right now. Brandon Stanton started the blog in 2010 and has since published over 6,000 portraits and mini interviews with people who have crossed his path in New York City. You’d think that given the 6,3 million Facebook likes, the place would be cluttered with trolls and assholes, but Brandon managed to achieve the impossible and carve out a safe space for people to come together and talk about life and all its peaks and valleys in a civilised, heartfelt way.

The reason why Humans of New York is so successful and exudes a thoroughly positive energy is that Brandon gives his subjects empathic treatment, respect, and a voice. Brandon’s approach to street photography is forthright, yet supremely gentle and considerate. His subjects are normally posing for the camera, they are fully aware that they are being photographed, and they have been informed about the project that their picture will be a part of. Brandon has made it clear in multiple interviews that he values consent over anything else; if the subject changes their mind at any point and asks him not to publish their portrait or delete it from the website, he will comply without question. This should be deemed basic courtesy and respect, and yet, not every photographer (or person with a camera) abides by these rules.

There are many examples of people who misuse the law that was originally intended to make it possible for us to take photographs in public at all, be they individuals who call themselves professionals, like Mark Cohen, Bruce Gilden and Erik Kim, or average Joes who simply own a mobile phone with a camera. You can find countless online platforms dedicated to photos of unsuspecting strangers that fit a particular niche. Until not too long ago, there was a perfectly legal Subreddit filled with surreptitious upskirt and downblouse shots called CreepShots. It was banned after attracting media coverage and sparking national outrage because a teacher at a high school in Georgia posted a picture of his underage student (I wish I was kidding), but it goes without saying that this brand of photography is still alive and well on other, less mainstream forums.

Even when the intentions of the snappers don’t present themselves as overtly malicious and gross, they leave a bitter taste in my mouth. Scrolling down my Tumblr feed, I’ll often see a photo of a well-dressed, attractive person on the subway or another public place that was very obviously taken without their permission or even knowledge, usually accompanied by humorous comments that express the user’s admiration and lust for the subject. One could argue that no harm is done because the person gets favourable exposure, but it’s still potentially unwanted exposure, and that’s what makes the very act of taking and publishing sneaky pictures of strangers so profoundly morally questionable.

The (now closed) Facebook group Women Who Eat on Tubes serves as a concrete example of unsettling voyeurism of this caliber. In recent months, it’s drawn quite a lot of attention because of an article by a journalist who was targeted by one of the admins, and the opinions on the case seem to fall into two opposite camps: some think that people need to get over it and note that nobody has a reasonable expectation of privacy anywhere in public, others believe that this treatment is nothing short of harassment.

Sadly, we all know how easy it is to dehumanise the nameless fat stranger wearing flashy yoga pants, have a laugh at their expense and justify our behaviour with lame excuses like “Well, they shouldn’t go out wearing flamboyant pants if they don’t want the attention.” And while this certainly happens a lot, most of us know in our heart of hearts that it is wrong and admit that it is shitty to make fun of others because of how they look under any circumstances. The line really isn’t blurred there. But stuff like Women Who Eat on Tubes, which markets itself as “observational not judgemental”, survives on being subtly malevolent — most of us feel uncomfortable about it, we feel instinctively that it’s not okay to put strangers on display like that just for going about their business, but it’s hard to explain in rational terms why this group is revolting. The tagline sounds harmless enough, there are no flagrantly cruel captions or intentional upskirt shots. In cold print, it’s all clean.

And still, it takes only one glance at the first few shots to sense that something seems fishy as hell. The featured women are reduced to exotic curiosities for the viewer to gawk at, there’s a weird wagging finger element going on and the gendered nature of the premise adds another discriminatory layer to the whole charade. It’s a testament to the fact that anything flies under the guise of high art, and the targets’ feelings about being part of this “observational study” are of no concern to a shocking amount of people. Legally, nothing can be done about this (yet) — but how tragic is it to think that women shouldn’t even be able to exercise their right to eat on public transport in peace without having some creep point a camera at them and subsequently have thousands of strangers ogle and mock them online?

Aggressive street photographers are their own problematic can of worms. It is not unusual of them to react defensively and pull the legal rights card when their strategy is called into question, almost as if they’d never heard of the concept of common decency and respect for their fellow humans. As far as I’m concerned, it is noxious, not to mention arrogant, to insist that one’s own artistic vision should be prioritised over the subject’s wishes. People are not exhibits or commodities, they’re people. Abusing an unwilling subject’s photo for entertainment or artistic and even economic gain, while often legal, is bad conduct at best and a violation of human rights at worst.

While I do think it’s marginally better to take on an “in your face” approach to street photography than to take snapshots in an inconspicuous manner, if only for the minimal amount of balls required on the part of the photographer and the possibility for the subject to intervene in the former case, provocative art is not synonymous with harassment, and expressing oneself at the expense of others is far from professional. Brandon Stanton repeatedly proves that good street photography transcends its art form status and turns into something greater, something that unites people from all walks of life — and most importantly, that talented artists with a genuine interest in the human condition have great regard for their subjects.

I fear that inventions like Google Glass will take the disturbing trend of recording the unaware and possibly unwilling to yet another level. This is why discussions centering around ethics and privacy in the age of the Internet and portable recording devices are crucial. At the end of the day, regardless of whether or not laws should be readjusted accordingly, I think respect is the best guide to action in all matters involving another sentient being.

This is the best one I think. It is from National Geographic. Basically it says you need to make a connection and ASK to take a strangers picture. Because, you know, it is weird to take a strangers picture that you have zero connection too. At least if a squirrel crawled in a persons lap it is pretty clear why you are taking a picture…that is the connection. But Nat Geo says to ASK…

http://intelligenttravel.nationalgeographic.com/2013/03/15/how-to-photograph-strangers/

As a photographer and photo editor for National Geographic Traveler, people often ask me how I approach strangers when I want to take their picture — especially when there’s a language barrier. Here are my thoughts:
Taking a photograph of someone you don’t know is one of the most difficult things to do for many beginning photographers. Although many people think of the National Geographic Society as being home to wonderful pictures of wildlife, in truth most of the photos are of what we refer to as pictures of the human condition. Photography is a powerful tool for showing what the world is like on a human level.

So, how do you get comfortable taking pictures of people? The first step is to realize that most people don’t mind being photographed. The simplest thing to do is make up your mind that you are interested in showing people in your photographs and force yourself to go out and meet people with your camera.

Give yourself an assignment — a story that you would like to cover. This story idea will go a long way toward making people feel comfortable with you photographing them, providing an answer to the inevitable question they will ask when you make the request: why?

It’s very important to force yourself to interact with people when you want to take their picture. Some people are naturally friendly and enjoy walking up to strangers and introducing themselves. The camera gives you an excuse to become one of those people.

If you see something interesting happening that might change if you stop to introduce yourself, feel free to snap a few frames. Soon, the subject will figure out what’s going on. At that point you’ll want to tell them who you are, what you’re doing and ask them if it’s okay to hang around a bit.

The hanging around part is important because it can take awhile for the situation to return to normal once you’ve had “the conversation.” In fact, sometimes you’ll need to tell people to try and ignore you. The other reason hanging around is important is because you don’t want to have the attitude of being a “taker.” You have entered into a social contract with your subject and you owe them the courtesy of spending some time with them.

I admit that the language barrier can be a problem in the field, but it always helps to practice in a place where you share a common language, so it at least becomes easier to make acquaintances at the drop of a hat. Sometimes in a foreign country the only friendly interaction needed for a successful photograph is a well-timed smile.

Also don’t forget that since you are getting something from this social contract you should try to give something back. For example, that beautiful girl selling lavender at the seaside in Croatia? Buy some of her lavender then stick around a little and get a great photo. Crazy street musician in Rome? Throw a little something in his hat. Amazing-looking barber in Beijing? Maybe it’s time for you to get a haircut. Might not be the best haircut you’ve ever had, but you will get much better photos — and one really great story to tell.

Dirk,
You really need a hobby.

Other than that, have you learned nothing from this site?
Your links, examples and such just go to prove that it is the minority that feels the way you do. Otherwise they would not have made it into forums from which you can draw.

The exceptions get the attention, not the standard.

Again, if one gets upset, traumatized, or bothered by someone taking their picture, that one has some issues that need to be addressed.

You know, some 40-50 years ago, had you been an African American going into any number of restaurants in the south, people would’ve thought that weird. I think about as much of people who think street photography weird vs having a sense of culture as I do those bigots of 50 odd years ago.

And yes, while on some level a man “cat calling” is being sleazy, yes at the same time when you wear a bikini or a spaghetti tank with no bra, you have no right to complain about a few stares. Get over it or cover up a little already.

LRH

Just to be clear, I don’t think street photography is weird. I just agree with how the National Geographic Magazine photographer says you should go about it! Peace out.

Dirk,
You try you moronic experiment, then come back and lie about your findings. I have better uses for my time than that.

And yes one photographer, for one obsolete magazine is an exception.

Get over yourself, you are an oversensitve jerk that is in the minority. A minority of people with issues that demand therapy. The fact that you are protesting this so much just solidifies how insecure and or paranoid you are.

Ahhhhh wait no I see……you’re Dolly’s husband that alienates neighbors because you refuse to talk about football, aren’t you?

Dirk, I understand that you think people should ask permission first, but that would destroy the natural expressions they are trying to capture on film, not to mention that would prevent them from capturing any spontaneous action.

We have many iconic photos of people in public taken without their consent. The picture of the WWII sailor bending over the nurse and kissing her, many people have postcards of that picture or posters hanging on their wall. It’s a famous image everyone recognizes. But the photographer didn’t ask before snapping the pic. The photographer didn’t get consent, didn’t even get their names. There has been much controversy over the years on who those two figures were, many different men each claiming to be the one in the photo.

Yes, being in public is implied consent to have your photo taken.

Even at private events, if you read the fine print on the back of your entrance ticket, usually it says something to the effect that your attendance is your consent to have your photo taken and used in advertising. So that concert you go to, the ski resort you go to, the sporting event you attend, they can use your photo in their advertising if their ticket warned you in advance.

@Dirk – Actually I don’t have to do that experiment – we’ve done it before while travelling. Possibly it’s because we’ve never been to America, which some days seems the Home of Paranoia, but my Asian husband has taken photos of hundreds of people while at the same time recording us and various monuments. A great many people have stopped and posed for him, which kind-of ruins the thrill in some ways, LOL, but it’s all part of the fun.

So no, having lived in the home of ‘She’ll be right’, and travelled lots, I can safely say you must live in a very odd place, because much of the world does not find it weird to have their photo taken by strangers.

I have had my children twice appear in newspapers.

Once on top of pile of snow that had been plowed on the square (busted by a photographer rofl..) They called and asked if I minded they use the photo AFTER they took it. No faces were shown. You would have had to been able to tell what child wore what coat from a black and white photo. If they had stopped to ask the kids my phone number before taking the photo it wouldn’t have happened! Because they would have ran so not to get busted breaking a rule I had set down!

The second time my littlest was at the park with her older sister. While swinging her photo was taken. Once again, permission was asked AFTER! They asked the oldest daughter. Now way they would have gotten such a cute picture of her swinging with her hands in the air if they stopped for permission.

Both times they could have just printed it. No release legally needed. But I sure appreciated the heads up and opertunity to buy extra papers!

As a hobbyist photographer I know the legal parts. There are cards you can get to hand out if needed. I do that. Oh and inside the restaurant it is up to the management. That is considered private property that has an expectation of privacy.

Also, a photographer CAN take pictures of your child even in your own yard. Even through your window. Or in a public bathroom, doctors office,you got the picture.

HOWEVER, if they use a telephoto lens from public property onto private property, THAT can be an issue. Then general terms, it’s kind of, “if you can see it with naked eye, you can shoot it.”

Dolly, why on earth was it necessary for us to know that your husband visits obscene websites? Back off.

Hi hineata, Travelled? I have. A ton. Bunch of US states, Canada, Mexico, Purto Rico, England, Scotland, Ireland, France, Spain, Germany, Italy…

I am friendly and have met plenty of people. At pubs, festivals, museums, etc. I have a few shots of people and of me and people I have just met. Having met them, and having a few beers, a pic was taken etc.

Walking past a stranger and taking their picture is unusual and off putting to most people these days. Try it! Go outside today with your phone and take the picture of a 100 individual people without permission. See how many people enjoy it. That will tell you what percent find it weird.

Expression Always Has Costs: The Issue of Street Photography and Ethics

April 14, 2013 By Eric Kim 49 Comments

This article is written by Mike Aviña, a street photographer based in the Bay Area. You can see his work featured on the blog here and an article he wrote about shooting street photography with the iPhone 5.

Mike: The street photography blogosphere has been buzzing lately with discussions about ethics. A recent review published by the San Francisco Chronicle started much of the fire. Jorg Colberg posted his own rant. Street photographers responded on their own blogs and online forums. The debate settled into two general camps and shots were fired between the two. Some argued that we should be more sensitive in how we approach people, others ranted that because the law protects us (at least in the United States), we can do as we like. There’s a bit more going on here and at stake. Street photographers, the art world, and the public at large must remember why photography in the public space is protected expression in many countries.

The long line of thinking is this: freedom of expression is both rooted in our individual freedom and that expression provides something good to society: a range of ideas. The wider the range of expression; the wider the continuum of ideas that are available.

This is not news; but I think there is a point that is being missed. Photographs form part of the continuum of ideas; if we as photographers restrict the way we shoot in public, or allow society to restrict our work, we all lose.

Two of the most important functions photographs serve within the realm of ideas are their power to depict political and emotional experience.

For example, Winogrand’s shots are distinctly political: they show the upheaval and tensions in our society at his time. This example from Los Angeles (“Hollywood Boulevard” in the title of this post) provides a stark comparison of the complacent and fortunate members of society and the less fortunate. If Winogrand used a more “respectful” approach; an approach perhaps favored by Millner, he would not have left us this image.

Other shots that may be “intrusive” or “disrespectful” according to Millner and Colberg actually show us how things feel. When I watch Gilden’s “The Rat Story” (video embedded above) I always think “Yes, that’s exactly how it feels…” the glare, content, and angle of his images correspond to the texture of emotional life in big cities: stressful, disjointed, at times harsh. These kinds of expressions would not be possible, would not have as much fidelity to how things actually look and feel, had Winogrand or Gilden used a different approach.

Expression always has costs; for a photograph made in a public space those costs are carried in part by the subject. Other forms of expression have associated costs. Millner clearly takes issue with Winogrand; as the subject of her rant his work bears a certain albeit incalculable cost. In the United States, these costs have been balanced carefully against the value of expression. Courts have decided that expression in the public space outweighs the individual’s interest in privacy because expression is so valuable to society.

While each photographer has to decide how best to work, we would all do well to keep in mind the larger values at stake. I do not want to encourage anyone to use an aggressive approach or antagonize the people in their images. I do want to provide a brief reminder of the function of photography, as a form of protected expression, and how that expression balances against the concerns Millner and Colberg raise.

Read the following scenario and then choose your most likely response from the poll options

You have taken your kids to a public place, such as a park, a beach, a public pool, a festival, etc., to enjoy the weekend. The venue is not densely crowded, and there are a few people, including myself, taking photographs. I am alone and am unobtrusively photographing other people at the venue, as well as some non-human subjects. You then see me turn my mirrorless camera toward you and your kids and take a few photos from 10-15 feet away. As I turn to my next subject, you approach me and ask me politely to please not photograph you or your kids, and I just as politely inform you that this is a public place and I will take pictures at my own discretion. A few minutes later, I take a few more photos of you and your kids. How do you respond?

POLL RESULTS

Call the police and report my actions
27.1% 48 votes

Physically harass me – put your hands on me or my gear, knowing I will probably resist
5.6% 10 votes

Verbally harass me – shout out insults and profanity at me, knowing others, including your kids, will hear you and scrutinize your behavior.
6.2% 11 votes

Take your kids and leave the immediate area where I am taking photographs
29.9% 53 votes

Stay in the area and ignore my unobtrusive photography
18.1% 32 votes

Other (please specify in the thread)
13.0% 23 votes

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3548146

@Dirk Ok, we got it. You are saying that United States of America are becoming increasingly paranoid and suspicions of anything out of ordinary. Especially so when it comes to kids and especially so when it comes to photography. Especially people who vote on babycenter discussion forums (which are quite a lot biased toward helicoptering). Any contact between stranger and kid tend to be treated as an attack in some communities.

What we are saying is that it is recent cultural development that is so far limited to some places in your country. It is part of larger paranoia trend and we would prefer if it stayed contained where it is and did not infected more parts of the world. Especially parts where we are staying in.

Note that people who vote stranger vs baby discussion forums polls are bound to be biased toward paranoia, cause that is the type of person those forums attract. If you would let people vote in here you would get drastically different result.

If you would ask people in Germany or French or Canada or China or Japan, you would get drastically different results too. I bet there are still plenty of people in USA who see no problem, cause I had seen plenty of amateur American street photography.

Andy, the second poll is from a photography website.

It isn’t about paranoia. It is about taking an extreme position that is crazy and not realizing that maybe, just maybe you should say hi to someone or acknowledge that taking a picture of someone who wouldn’t think anyone is watching them and without their knowledge isn’t super cool in most caess. Even in Germany.

Lonely Planet is hardhearted in Australia.

The Independent (a UK newspaper) called taking pictures of strangers bizarre citing a recent study that 1 out of 12 UK adults have done so. Not only is it bizarre then but also very much an in a relative minority think to do in the UK!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/one-in-twelve-uk-adults-admit-they-photograph-attractive-strangers-on-public-transport-in-the-park-or-at-the-doctors-surgery-claims-poll-8742339.html

In Germany most street photography showing identifiable persons is now illegal and can’t be taken or published lawfully.

The reasoning is that the individual holds the right the control their public image. Taking photos containing persons is illegal in Germnay unless the people you are taking pictures of have agreed, the pictures are taken during a public event, or the picture contains 6 or more people.

http://guidedmunich.com/german-privacy-laws/
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Photography_legislation#Germany
http://www.arnowirtz.de/blog/?p=1599

Just complete FYI Andy, of the Germany France Canada China Japan list you made. It is illegal to take a strangers picture without permission in Gernmany, France, and Japan, and Canada requires permission in certain provinces. It is only completely legal in China which is meaningless since China is an oppressive communist totalitarian state. Things aren’t what you think they are on this issue.

Of course this is just the legality of it. Public opinion is probably better represented by the UK newspaper article that called taking pictures of strangers without permission as bizarre.

Here’s my poll.

People who keep pushing their wrong take on things with seemingly slanted evidence and ever-mounting in its nature, done to justify their ignorance by showing that others are equally as ignorant or in the wrong as they are, such persons should:

√ Continue posting ad nauseam
√ Make their point up to a certain degree, and then settle down awhile
√ Go the heck away and shut the eff up already

Feel free to vote.

Hey LRH, http://markmanson.net/internet

‘copied and pasted say’ ……

Wish there was some kind of correct button on this site.

Another way to judge the sentiment of street photography (outside of the actual laws they have against it) is to see anecdotally how the country responded to google street view.

In the case of the Czech Republic they responded very negatively.

“”Street View” provides Internet users with panoramic views and photographs of neighborhoods along many streets across the globe. It is popular but has been controversial in Germany, South Korea and other countries amid fears that people — filmed without their consent — could be seen doing things they want to keep private or being in places where they don’t want to be seen.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/22/googles-street-view-halte_n_734501.html

The things I have linked to aren’t random. They are direct refutation FACTS that contradict the false information in some peoples comments.

People shouldn’t live in fear. But they shouldn’t live in denial either. Don’t take an extremist position against another extremist position. It never works.

I’m just glad I live in the USA, and not Hungary, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, or anywhere Dirk or the like would be the ruler of the law. Give me Andy, Becky or hineata any day. Just because people are losing their minds in those countries doesn’t mean that brains became irrelevant. Thinking never goes out of style, for those who know how to think anyway.

LRH

Sigh. Could we please have a posts-per-day limit?

@Beth – okay, big hugs, going to stop now and get on with doing something more meaningful, like beginning the day :-).

@Dirk – you go and have a good day, and try to stop taking your own opinion, backed up by sites that share your opinion, as fact. I’ll go on encouraging hubby to enjoy his hobby :-). In my opinion, it’s a good hobby.

E – No, I think Dirk has pretty consistently said that taking pictures of strangers is weird and we are wrong to think otherwise. He may not call people who disagree with him stupid, but he definitely think we are wrong.

There seems to be a misunderstanding about what constitutes fact and what constitutes opinion. If someone is 6’4″, then it is a fact that they are 6’4″. If someone is ‘rude’, that is opinion, not fact.

It is fact, Dirk, that you found some opinion pieces and some surveys that show that some people some places find taking photos of strangers rude. The fact that they find it rude does not make taking pictures of strangers factually rude. It means that there are people in the world who share your opinion that taking photos of strangers is rude.

Following me? I will use another example. In parts of Malaysia that I have been, it is not considered rude to stare at people. I personally do not like being stared at, and I haven’t met a white person who enjoys it, in fact who doesn’t hate it. That does not mean that it is a fact that it is rude to stare at people – the ‘fact’ there is that I could do a study and discover that white people (as an example) do not like being stared at.

Do you see the difference between fact and opinion?

Oh Warren, if you’ve read my posts….*I* don’t have a problem with someone taking my photo on the street. I’m a photo hobbyist myself and take photos of all sorts..including those of strangers from time to time.

I don’t think it should be against the law.

None of this means I don’t allow for the fact that other people feel differently (and that I’d respect that if asked). That’s all.

Warren, I was just thinking how funny it would be if someone did walk up to me and snap a picture and walk away after all this talking! LOL for real.

I do think there has been a bit of overkill on all this. Walk up to me and snap a picture and walk away = weird. Walk up to me and say hey you have a great shirt on, I take street photography as a hobby can I take your picture = might be different. Etc. Etc.

I point to the non random articles I cut and pasted and linked from actual street photographers saying to interact with your subjects and not act aggressive or creepy…

@Dirk -‘to the one’ talking about fact and opinion:

I have a name, stated above my post. Now you’re being ‘rude’ and ‘weird’ lol, and I’m sure I could link to surveys that ‘fact’ if I cared at all 🙂 .

Have a great day 🙂

Oh good grief! The point is I don’t need to back up what I am saying, because I am quite clear that what I’m saying is an opinion. You have consistently confused opinion with fact. You have not produced anything factual, because it is impossible to produce facts about something that is opinion – except for what you have produced, which is the fact that some people share your opinion about a particular topic.

Never mind, as all this seems to escape you, I really should find a more constructive use of my time.

The first one is a straight up fact, laws.

The second is indeed opinion, of professional photographers. It is a fact that it seems to be a majority opinion.

The third is not opinion because it deals with a percentage of people who have taken a picture of people without the persons knowledge (and therefore consent). But the article seemed to express that the minority of people who did this were acting bizarre, which I guess us indeed an opinion…about a fact.

You need to do a better job of changing majority opinions then.

This website certainly has all the information I wajted about this subject and
didn’t kjow who to ask.

2

4