Why is Ireland living in the Dark Ages ?

kensutz

Never heard of one yet, Paul get over to Croker

Paulw

kensutz wrote: »

Never heard of one yet, Paul get over to Croker

LOL. I'll be over to Croker for 1pm.

On the above topic, I just contacted the Data Protection Commissioner to clarify the article/postings. I look forward to their response.

kensutz

You're on the Hill end :pac:

Paulw

Ok folks, here's one that should cause a big stir.

I emailed the Data Protection Commission and asked about posting photos (street photos) on sites such as FlickR. Here's the response I got -

---

The position of this Office is that the posting of pictures of individuals on websites such as that which you cite should take place in conformity with the requirements of the Data Protection Acts. The Acts do as you indicate allow for the use of personal data for a purely domestic purpose (which would not extend to their posting on a public access portion of a
website) and also where the publication of that data takes place for a literary, artistic or journalistic purpose in the public interest.

It would not be entirely clear that the posting of pictures as you outline would fall into either of these categories. Accordingly, it would seem likely that the publication of the pictures would be required to meet the requirements of the Data Protection Acts in relation to the capturing of the consent of those persons who are identifiable in the pictures. We are obviously not aware as to whether consent was or would be captured in the scenario you outline.

---

So, it seems that if you take a photo of anyone, and they are identifiable, then you must conform to the Data Protection Act, and so posting such a photo on FlickR (or similar sites) is a breach of that act.

But, then again, are photos not considered artistic????

WOW.

City-Exile

Paul, it's clear that if you take pictures of someone, say at a football game, where they are part of the support, thus a part of the occasion, then their publication could easily have a journalistic purpose, in the public interest.

Stalking people in the park, however, may not be seen in the same way.

DaireQuinlan

Paulw wrote: »

Ok folks, here's one that should cause a big stir.

I emailed the Data Protection Commission and asked about posting photos (street photos) on sites such as FlickR. Here's the response I got -

---

The position of this Office is that the posting of pictures of individuals on websites such as that which you cite should take place in conformity with the requirements of the Data Protection Acts. The Acts do as you indicate allow for the use of personal data for a purely domestic purpose (which would not extend to their posting on a public access portion of a
website) and also where the publication of that data takes place for a literary, artistic or journalistic purpose in the public interest.

It would not be entirely clear that the posting of pictures as you outline would fall into either of these categories. Accordingly, it would seem likely that the publication of the pictures would be required to meet the requirements of the Data Protection Acts in relation to the capturing of the consent of those persons who are identifiable in the pictures. We are obviously not aware as to whether consent was or would be captured in the scenario you outline.

---

So, it seems that if you take a photo of anyone, and they are identifiable, then you must conform to the Data Protection Act, and so posting such a photo on FlickR (or similar sites) is a breach of that act.

But, then again, are photos not considered artistic????

WOW.

Yeah, I'd imagine that they'd just come under the 'artistic' clause ? I also don't understand here in what way we're engaged in the 'use of personal data', excepting the case that the people in the photographs might be 'identifiable' and that constitutes 'personal data' in some way ?

Its a moot point anyway, seeing as the Flickr servers aren't even in the same jurisdiction :cool:

Anouilh

This topic is going to be discussed for years to come. British posters to Flickr are particularly vocal on the Public/Private aspects of photographers' rights. Throughout the World, private institutions are gradually making spaces that may seem to be public, but are not. It's worth studying in some detail, particularly when travelling abroad.

http://www-srv-4.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=56225042

Fajitas!

I didn't spend 4 years in art college for nothing then?

:pac:

Anouilh

I think that common sense wins out in the end. While standing on public ground one may take photos quite freely... though it may be worth reading this

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/07/29/1153816426869.html

if you are thinking of visiting Australia.

How can anybody know whether one's work is artistic or commercial, BTW. Nowadays the two are so linked.

(I tried, and failed to make a neat <a href link, but it did not work. Apologies for the untidyness.)

Paulw

Oh you're permitted to take photos in public, that's not being disputed. But, how you use the images then falls under the Data Protection Act, and you seemingly can't use an image where someone is identifiable, without their expressed consent.

I'd love to have a legal (solicitor's) view on this issue. Usage as opposed to the right to take the photo.

AnCatDubh

Anouilh wrote: »

I tried, and failed to make a neat <a href link, but it did not work. Apologies for the untidyness.

If you go into the advanced mode of the editor highlight the text and click the button. Paste in your link and hey presto! Tis done.

AnCatDubh

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Its a moot point anyway, seeing as the Flickr servers aren't even in the same jurisdiction :cool:

Tis a good point, mind you does that mean that every photographer should be registered as data controllers with the data protection commissioner.

Then if uploading to flickr, picassa web albums, etc.. take a read of this;

From the Data Protection Commissioners Website

Transferring Personal data Abroad

An area of concern for many data controllers are the requirements necessary for the transfer of data abroad. There are special conditions that have to be met before transferring personal data outside the European Economic Area (all EU countries plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein), where the importing country does not have an EU approved level of data protection law. This is termed a finding of adequacy. In such a case, one of the following conditions must be met if a transfer is to take place. Either the transfer must be:

• consented to by the data subject; or
• required or authorised under an enactment, convention or other instrument imposing an international obligation on this State; or
• necessary for the performance of a contract between the data controller and the data subject; or
• necessary for the taking of steps at the request of the data subject with a view to his or her entering into a contract with the data controller; or
• necessary for the conclusion of a contract between the data controller and a third party, that is entered into at the request of the data subject and is in the interests of the data subject, or for the performance of such a contract; or
• necessary for the purpose of obtaining legal advice; or
• necessary to urgently prevent injury or damage to the health of a data subject; or
• part of the personal data held on a public register; or
• authorised by the Data Protection Commissioner, which is normally the approval of a contract which is based on EU model contracts or the transfer is by a US company which is certified as what is known as Safe Harbor compliant.1

As the legislation on the transfer of data abroad is complex, where doubt arises it is advisable for persons to contact this Office in order to seek guidance on specific cases.

1. This is a certification programme overseen by the US Department of Commerce which allows certain US based companies to self certify as having an adequate level of data protection that meets US standards and consequently personal data can be transferred without the need for recourse to the EU Model contracts

Are flickr a 'safe harbour'??????

I think there are practical limitations here but does it mean that subjects in what the law (copyright) considers your photographs now has some power that they may exercise should they come across their image on your page?

All very complicated methinks.

democrates

AnCatDubh wrote: »

Tis a good point, mind you does that mean that every photographer should be registered as data controllers with the data protection commissioner.
...
Are flickr a 'safe harbour'??????

I think there are practical limitations here but does it mean that subjects in what the law (copyright) considers your photographs now has some power that they may exercise should they come across their image on your page?

All very complicated methinks.

Tricky ok. Ianal but let's say it's only a matter of time before the face of a non-consenting subject is taken from say a flickr photo and misused. If the injured party seeks redress, who is to blame?

The party who misused the photo may or may not be traceable, but regardless or what happens there, the prosecution may also seek to establish who has been negligent in exercising a duty of care.

The photo hosting company may be covered by t&c's even though they don't exercise as much care as stock photo hosters who demand model release forms.

Again regardless of that the prosecution may also go after the photographer who let's say is also the person who posted the image online. The defence I'd imagine (concocted based on points made here more precisely) would be that the chances of misuse are miniscule, no harm was intended, and the alternative of never doing this was not considered to be a reasonable restriction of liberty. A landmark ruling may be followed by legislation that changes the situation.

As for safe harbour, rate my teacher seems to be surviving ok, but while that may protect the content has it protected the posters against any libel cases does anyone know?

Anouilh

I have started thinking about the gender issues involved in this subject.

Women are usually not seen as threatening, even with a zoom lens, whereas I read that many news photo-journalists, male, get into scrapes on the street.

I walk around quite happily with my camera, snapping scenes that seem to express the moment or capturing a nice outfit on the street. Some men have explained that they tend to carry their cameras low down, often hidden by a coat, to avoid public scrutiny.

I have to admit I find much of this very entertaining.

asdasd

I dont want to throw a spanner in the works guys, but as a non-photographer I welcome the data protection act. otherwise CC footage could be posted on the internet for snoopers to watch what people are doing around the city. We could snoop on each other. And cc footage is mostly privately owned as far as I can see.

That cant be allowed.

Paulw

asdasd wrote: »

I dont want to throw a spanner in the works guys, but as a non-photographer I welcome the data protection act.

CCTV is very different from photography.

I'd say that the majority of photography is either artistic or it's editorial, and hence it's outside the Data Protection Act. Also, since there is no case law on this issue, it's still open to interpretation.

John

This isn't CCTV footage though, that's a different kettle of fish entirely. This is about being able to take photos (i.e. an artform) and possible problems with shooting in certain places (even if you're not taking a picture of someone but a building they are walking by for example).

asdasd

This is about being able to take photos (i.e. an artform) and possible problems with shooting in certain places (even if you're not taking a picture of someone but a building they are walking by for example).

sure i understand. just pointing out that in general the Data protection act has some merit.

Cabaal

Anouilh wrote: »

I have started thinking about the gender issues involved in this subject.

Women are usually not seen as threatening, even with a zoom lens, whereas I read that many news photo-journalists, male, get into scrapes on the street.

I walk around quite happily with my camera, snapping scenes that seem to express the moment or capturing a nice outfit on the street. Some men have explained that they tend to carry their cameras low down, often hidden by a coat, to avoid public scrutiny.

I have to admit I find much of this very entertaining.

Have to agree with aspects of this, men are certainly more likely to be question when taking photos out in public, streets etc

democrates

Anouilh wrote: »

I have started thinking about the gender issues involved in this subject.

Women are usually not seen as threatening, even with a zoom lens, whereas I read that many news photo-journalists, male, get into scrapes on the street.

I walk around quite happily with my camera, snapping scenes that seem to express the moment or capturing a nice outfit on the street. Some men have explained that they tend to carry their cameras low down, often hidden by a coat, to avoid public scrutiny.

I have to admit I find much of this very entertaining.

Anouilh, long may you have an easy time of it, I'm sure you wish the same for all.

Fajitas!

asdasd wrote: »

I dont want to throw a spanner in the works guys, but as a non-photographer I welcome the data protection act. otherwise CC footage could be posted on the internet for snoopers to watch what people are doing around the city. We could snoop on each other. And cc footage is mostly privately owned as far as I can see.

That cant be allowed.

Apart from the fact you can see a lot of CCTV cameras online... I've seen myself go home on traffic cameras before (They refresh every ten minutes)...

Anouilh wrote: »

I have started thinking about the gender issues involved in this subject.

Women are usually not seen as threatening, even with a zoom lens, whereas I read that many news photo-journalists, male, get into scrapes on the street.

I walk around quite happily with my camera, snapping scenes that seem to express the moment or capturing a nice outfit on the street. Some men have explained that they tend to carry their cameras low down, often hidden by a coat, to avoid public scrutiny.

I have to admit I find much of this very entertaining.

Might try heading out and shooting in drag...

Anouilh

Of course I do, democrates.

I think that life is difficult enough without splitting hairs on this subject.

Many of the best photographers of the 20th Century would not be able to do the work that brought them fame if they were trying to manage in today's society I think.

My amusement (BTW) is not at the expense of people who are seriously trying to document social issues. It is a very demanding job.

Dragan

Paulw wrote: »

Oh you're permitted to take photos in public, that's not being disputed. But, how you use the images then falls under the Data Protection Act, and you seemingly can't use an image where someone is identifiable, without their expressed consent.

I'd love to have a legal (solicitor's) view on this issue. Usage as opposed to the right to take the photo.

But this makes no sense when you have crowd reaction shots in newspapers and news items on tv from the street with people walking along in the background. It all seems a bit grey area to me.

I have had one or two bad reactions when i was out with my camera.

One day on O Connell Street i was happily taking some shots and a guy walks up to me and tells me i can't take his picture. I told him i wasn't taking his picture, there is no problem.

He then told me he wanted my camera, i told him know. He told me to prove i had not taking his picture and i told him he was out and about, if he ended up in one of my shots simply by being out and about it was not my problem.

He then became quite aggressive and reached for my camera. At his point i just slung it back under my arm out of his reach. He then grabbed my shoulder which was my breaking point so a quick arm lock later he was desperate for me to let go. I told him i felt under threat and that he was trying to take my camera i would need to perform a citizens arrest.

He wanted none of it and apologise, i let go of his arm and off he went. He obviously had his reasons for reacting in such a manner but **** him.

If anyone asks me politely to delete something they are in I will happily do it. The above is the wrong tactic to take, especially with me.

I tend to push back.

Anouilh

Might try heading out and shooting in drag... [/QUOTE]

I wear jeans most of the time. There's more to the feminine
mystique than meets the eye, y'know.

Fajitas!

Brave man to be taking you on Dragan, I wouldn't be so quick to step up to you

Anouilh

Dragan wrote: »

I told him i felt under threat and that he was trying to take my camera i would need to perform a citizens arrest.

That is a truly frightening story.

O'Connell Street seems safer these days than it used be, but I tend to move quickly there.

Paulw

Dragan wrote: »

But this makes no sense when you have crowd reaction shots in newspapers and news items on tv from the street with people walking along in the background. It all seems a bit grey area to me.

TV, newspapers, etc are exempt, due to editorial clauses.

It's a very interesting situation indeed.

Anouilh

Paulw wrote: »

TV, newspapers, etc are exempt, due to editorial clauses.

It's a very interesting situation indeed.

One good reason to join the Freelance Branch of the NUJ, perhaps?

Dragan

Fajitas! wrote: »

Brave man to be taking you on Dragan, I wouldn't be so quick to step up to you

Well the average person will tend to falter in the face of agression, and i can only assume he had his reasons to not be seen anywhere, even accidentally in a photograph?

Besides, you can safely bet on very few people being willing to come to your aid in a situation like that on the street so the advantage is normally with the agressive party.

He just picked the wrong photographer!

Calina

I'd value TJM's input to this to be honest.

As it happens, while Flickr's servers are outside the jurisdiction, it is my understanding that pix.ie's are not so Marcus might have a view on the subject

There have been a couple of high profile cases involving the misuse of Flickr photographs, a) in Australia on a mobile phone ad and b) in America on a DVD cover (at work so details on that one I can't go into).

There are issues relating to the posting of party photographs - for example - on services like FaceBook that would have an impact also.

Anouilh

Calina wrote: »

Flickr's servers are outside the jurisdiction

There have been a couple of high profile cases involving the misuse of Flickr photographs, a) in Australia on a mobile phone ad and b) in America on a DVD cover (at work so details on that one I can't go into).

There are issues relating to the posting of party photographs - for example - on services like FaceBook that would have an impact also.

In fact, Flickr is very strict.

Anybody who breaks the law in their own jurisdiction is liable to have their Flickr account terminated.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/flick_off/discuss/72157594460647749/

Phototoxin

Well the average person will tend to falter in the face of agression, and i can only assume he had his reasons to not be seen anywhere, even accidentally in a photograph?

Besides, you can safely bet on very few people being willing to come to your aid in a situation like that on the street so the advantage is normally with the agressive party.

He just picked the wrong photographer!

Fair play, GO FOR THE EYES !!

The only photo I ever had to delete was one of a security station in the EU HQ. I've happily snapped pictures of the BNP though with much glee.

Latchy

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

They're (perhaps deliberately) confusing the terms here. There's a lot of private property thats currently being sort of re-branded as 'public space' by gentle and caring developers and corporations. The 'Square' in the new 'Dundrum town centre' for example is a case in point. Its been given all the trappings of a 'town centre', and some effort has been made to appropriate the terminology (I actually cringe when I hear it refered to as 'dundrum town centre' on the Luas) in order to try and grab all those warm homely associations that we all have. Most decidedly a private space though, try demonstrating there, or taking pictures after someone in authority tells you to stop.

I actually on a vist last year to the Dundrum shopping centre took some digi pics of the place and was informed by security i had to ask for permission to do so ( which i was unaware of ) .I had taken my quota by then anyway so left alone ( I did post a couple in the bar on here a while back ) .

mehfesto2

latchyco wrote: »

I actually on a vist last year to the Dundrum shopping centre took some digi pics of the place and was informed by security i had to ask for permission to do so ( which i was unaware of ) .I had taken my quota by then anyway so left alone ( I did post a couple in the bar on here a while back ) .

I had the same problem in Stephens Green Park before.

But the worst was on Grafton Street when that RTE programme Annonymous, where they dress people up as 'auld wans' etc. It was being filmed outside Bewleys and I saw this orange bloke who was quite obviously that camp Irish lad from Big Brother years back and I lifted my camera only to be shouted at by a woman with a headset on the otherside of the street. I got a bit embarrassed and walked off. I was so pissed off when I copped they'd no right to do so.

Thoie

Dragan wrote: »

I tend to push back.

I'm such a girl - I don't push back - I just scream incredibly loudly instead. Whoever said that people don't pay any attention to screaming just isn't doing it right. Of course, sometimes when you're screaming you can accidentally break someone's nose. But that's a whole other story. The last three people who tried to mug me (separately) were ultimately unhappy with their choice of victim. I can't imagine I'd be any happier if they were "just" trying to take my camera.

democrates

Thoie wrote: »

I'm such a girl - I don't push back - I just scream incredibly loudly instead. Whoever said that people don't pay any attention to screaming just isn't doing it right. Of course, sometimes when you're screaming you can accidentally break someone's nose. But that's a whole other story. The last three people who tried to mug me (separately) were ultimately unhappy with their choice of victim. I can't imagine I'd be any happier if they were "just" trying to take my camera.

I could could scream like Ned Flanders before I smoked, could probably still stave off attackers with my rendition of Delilah though.

You bring a good dose of perspective, the solo female photographer likely feels a lot more vulnerable than solo guys. I tend to be conscious of potential danger on night shoots, the back path up killiney hill when I forget the torch and could see bog all being the most recent. You don't know who's lurking around the shadows at that hour.

Phototoxin

But the worst was on Grafton Street when that RTE programme Annonymous, where they dress people up as 'auld wans' etc. It was being filmed outside Bewleys and I saw this orange bloke who was quite obviously that camp Irish lad from Big Brother years back and I lifted my camera only to be shouted at by a woman with a headset on the otherside of the street. I got a bit embarrassed and walked off. I was so pissed off when I copped they'd no right to do so.

yeah they think that they are the only ones able to point a camera in my limited experience.

Anouilh

People are generally very pleasant in public places and, judging from this thread, not shy about having their photos taken.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/streetphotography/interesting/

There is one nice aspect to Dublin life.
We must have the most good humoured street performers in the World:

http://moderntwist2.blogspot.com/2008/12/sunday-afternoon-in-town.html#links

RCNPhotos

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

??!? This is, afaik, completely untrue. Not only can I upload them to flickr, I can do off a bunch of prints, hold an exhibition, and even SELL the things without once even INFORMING the people involved that they're involved, let alone granting them rights with regard to the work. Or is my understanding completely skewed in this regard ????!?

Actually it's fairly true. There was a big discussion on the radio about this recently. Without their permission you can't upload them to say flickr etc. You can however sell em to a newspaper to be splashed everywhere. It's mad but it's the law.

Anouilh

There are plenty of links to discussions that clarify the situation:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/candidphotos/discuss/72157604615431667/

http://www.flickr.com/groups/yorkuk/discuss/72157604140527333/#comment72157605428252922

It's not worth getting too neurotic.

Paulw

RCNPhotos wrote: »

Actually it's fairly true. There was a big discussion on the radio about this recently. Without their permission you can't upload them to say flickr etc. You can however sell em to a newspaper to be splashed everywhere. It's mad but it's the law.

Actually, if they are artistic, then you can upload them to FlickR. It's another exemption clause.

Anouilh

"Artistic" does not, for documentary purposes, allow for much post-processing.

The ethics are very important, as many newspaper photos now look eerily like works of art and have a lot of photoshopping.

http://www.digitalcustom.com/howto/mediaguidelines.asp

I went to a class years ago where the question of how to get people on camera without their knowledge was much discussed. Somehow the glassy stare of recognition when a person knows they are being scrutinized by a stranger in a public place can be humourous, but not particularly aesthetic.

One thing I have noticed is the number of people who instantly cover their face with their hand when they see a camera on the street. It is such a quick reflex that it is faster than the photographer's ability to capture an image.

I like photographing buildings and it's worth noting that some are protected:

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Street-photography

This might be a good thread for discussing the genre of street photography?

Is the style of using black and white still the norm?

Fajitas!

Anouilh wrote: »

"Artistic" does not, for documentary purposes, allow for much post-processing.

As someone who would occasionally refer to themselves as an "Artist" I'd disagree - Art is up to the artist - If the artist is recording a documentary, and feels it needs a certain level of post processing, whether that be extremely high or basic touch ups, that's up to the artist to decide - I guess that's one of the beauties of being an artist

Anouilh

Fajitas! wrote: »

As someone who would occasionally refer to themselves as an "Artist" I'd disagree - Art is up to the artist - If the artist is recording a documentary, and feels it needs a certain level of post processing, whether that be extremely high or basic touch ups, that's up to the artist to decide - I guess that's one of the beauties of being an artist

Your post is really interesting.

I was thinking more about newspaper photos, where artistry can be used to mislead the viewer, as is increasingly the case.

The joy of true art is that it is imaginative and much freer.

Documentary can be artistic. This is not in doubt.
The ethics of cropping and post-processing an image to give a false impression is another matter.

Some of the photos of politicians, designed to sway the viewers opinion at a subconcious level, are probably the most obvious examples of this.

democrates

Anouilh wrote: »

I was thinking more about newspaper photos, where artistry can be used to mislead the viewer, as is increasingly the case.

The joy of true art is that it is imaginative and much freer.

Documentary can be artistic. This is not in doubt.
The ethics of cropping and post-processing an image to give a false impression is another matter.

Some of the photos of politicians, designed to sway the viewers opinion at a subconcious level, are probably the most obvious examples of this.

Exactly, using a file photo of a politician laughing at some quip rather than one taken when discussing a serious current issue for example. Pp artifice is not even necessary to represent them as uncaring.

Be it partisan propaganda, sensationalism for profit, or simply shoddy journalism, when the free press take leave of accuracy and objectivity society risks paying the price of making mis-informed decisions.

Fajitas!

Anouilh wrote: »

Your post is really interesting.

I was thinking more about newspaper photos, where artistry can be used to mislead the viewer, as is increasingly the case.

The joy of true art is that it is imaginative and much freer.

Documentary can be artistic. This is not in doubt.
The ethics of cropping and post-processing an image to give a false impression is another matter.

Some of the photos of politicians, designed to sway the viewers opinion at a subconcious level, are probably the most obvious examples of this.

I think post processing and cropping are no more giving a false impression than taking the photograph in the first place - It's all selectively taken - Moreso with a goal/bias in mind. Taking and displaying the image in the first place is no less sending out propaganda than cropping or post processing the same image, imo.

I guess it can depend on what stable one is coming from - Whether it be someone coming from a background like me, ie, fine art degree, writing essay's and thesis' and other conceptual bullsh*t, or a photojournalist working for the Star (And even so, a
pho-jo working for the Indo would work completely different, as would a Magnum 'tog.)

Anouilh

Fajitas! wrote: »

I think post processing and cropping are no more giving a false impression than taking the photograph in the first place - It's all selectively taken - Moreso with a goal/bias in mind. Taking and displaying the image in the first place is no less sending out propaganda than cropping or post processing the same image, imo.

I guess it can depend on what stable one is coming from - Whether it be someone coming from a background like me, ie, fine art degree, writing essay's and thesis' and other conceptual bullsh*t, or a photojournalist working for the Star (And even so, a
pho-jo working for the Indo would work completely different, as would a Magnum 'tog.)

Somehow I think all the types you mention have quite a lot in common. Everybody wants their work to be validated, especially now that society is so under surveillance by amateurs as well as by professional photo journalists and academics.

I met a photographer years ago who was displeased by the pecking order in Irish journalistic circles. He felt he was not taken seriously because he worked for a tabloid.

In fact, I was not thinking of the tabloids in particular when I wrote my thoughts down this morning.
When it comes to objectivity, any publication, as you point out, can make propaganda.

The most interesting thing, I find, is how to be able to tell the difference.

I'm intrigued that you think that photos are propagandist by nature.

It is not a view I share, but I'll certainly think about it.

Are you a Platonist?

Phototoxin

Exactly, using a file photo of a politician laughing at some quip rather than one taken when discussing a serious current issue for example. Pp artifice is not even necessary to represent them as uncaring.

Be it partisan propaganda, sensationalism for profit, or simply shoddy journalism, when the free press take leave of accuracy and objectivity society risks paying the price of making mis-informed decisions.

Well the context in which the photo is displayed can be just as misleading. For example Private Eye often satirically uses this parodying tabloids by inappropriate photos of politicians. Eg; Along the lines of a picture of Gordon Brown laughing and then beside it 'Gordon Brown has heard about the crisis in Zimbabwe' Separately they are perfectly fine but together they imply something. [of course PI & its readers would know that he's not laughing at it but are taking the urine out of those less-ethical papers that do!]

However in 'normal' papers I think its bad form to use misleading photos. Papers should inform not have a slant which is something I hate about most mass media.

I think post processing and cropping are no more giving a false impression than taking the photograph in the first place - It's all selectively taken - Moreso with a goal/bias in mind. Taking and displaying the image in the first place is no less sending out propaganda than cropping or post processing the same image, imo.

What about crime scene photography? Would that be selective too? Its supposed to be as impartial as humanly possible. Their goal would be to show knife covered in blood. No 'this expresses human desire to hurt ach other and the triangular shape of the blade represents pain' type stuff is entered into. ITs a knife, with a rule and a label saying 'item 3/a - knife'

[warning - gets a bit ranty at end]

"That this House is concerned to encourage the spread and enjoyment of photography as the most genuine and accessible people's art; deplores the apparent increase in the number of reported incidents in which the police, police community support officers (PCSOs) or wardens attempt to stop street photography and order the deletion of photographs or the confiscation of cards, cameras or film on various specious ground such as claims that some public buildings are strategic or sensitive, that children and adults can only be photographed with their written permission, that photographs of police and PCSOs are illegal, or that photographs may be used by terrorists; points out that photography in public places and streets is not only enjoyable but perfectly legal; regrets all such efforts to stop, discourage or inhibit amateur photographers taking pictures in public places, many of which are in any case festooned with closed circuit television cameras; and urges the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers to agree on a photography code for the information of officers on the ground, setting out the public's right to photograph public places thus allowing photographers to enjoy their hobby without officious interference or unjustified suspicion."

If I get this job I'm going for in the UK I would possibly print it out and keep it in my bag.. the 2nd link had a poster with the cameras and 'terrorism'. A total fear mongering exercise IMHO. I was reading an article yesterday in the paper about how everyone is afraid. It was mostly to do with why there are few male teachers/teaching assistants in primary schools - basically fear of being called a pœdo if they show care for a child. Its slightly tangential (sp?) but can be mapped to photography. Remember the topic before about photographing kids? And how the dad taking the picture of his own 2 year old in a pram was deemed 'pœdophilic' by some woman reporting it to the rozzers? Eventually the UK will ban photography, and RFID people out of some pseudo-threat of terrorism. Reality is you're going to die in a road accident rather than some suicide bomber or a plane crash but fear is profitable I guess :mad: [/rant]

Fajitas!

Anouilh wrote: »

In fact, I was not thinking of the tabloids in particular when I wrote my thoughts down this morning.
When it comes to objectivity, any publication, as you point out, can make propaganda.

The most interesting thing, I find, is how to be able to tell the difference.

I'm intrigued that you think that photos are propagandist by nature.

It is not a view I share, but I'll certainly think about it.

Are you a Platonist?

Well, I think for a photograph to be successful, there has to be something in it - I quite enjoy studying an image, and I probably do think too much about imagery, but then again it's something I'm interested in. Reading through Roland Barthes' "Camera Lucia", he goes into the studium and punctum - before I go any further, I'll have to state I'm not a fan of Barthes whatsoever, but I do understand and quite like some of his theories - but yes, I think the studium and punctum are very important and an imposing theory on photography (Even if you haven't studied it, I think a lot of people - especially those not interested in photography aim along those lines).


Anyways, propaganda, yes, I think any photograph taken with the intent to be shown in public has some form of agenda - The word propaganda is a dirty word though, it's not always a bad thing. It could be as simple as "buy this photo" or "look at all the poor people in Ireland" to the "vote for me" photos and "here's this filthy criminal" photos.

Phototoxin wrote: »

However in 'normal' papers I think its bad form to use misleading photos. Papers should inform not have a slant which is something I hate about most mass media.

They all do though. And each step of the slant is money money money, sell sell sell... They know the photos that sell - You're aware of what the photographs are trying to do, so you can make an informed decision about them.

What about crime scene photography? Would that be selective too? Its supposed to be as impartial as humanly possible. Their goal would be to show knife covered in blood. No 'this expresses human desire to hurt ach other and the triangular shape of the blade represents pain' type stuff is entered into. ITs a knife, with a rule and a label saying 'item 3/a - knife'

Until they start using a robot to take the photograph, yes, it will be selective - Human's are selective - They'll take more interest in one thing, try to show off more of something.

Anouilh

Fajitas! wrote: »

Well, I think for a photograph to be successful, there has to be something in it - I quite enjoy studying an image, and I probably do think too much about imagery, but then again it's something I'm interested in. ...

...The word propaganda is a dirty word though, it's not always a bad thing. It could be as simple as "buy this photo" or "look at all the poor people in Ireland" to the "vote for me" photos and "here's this filthy criminal" photos.



They all do though. And each step of the slant is money money money, sell sell sell... They know the photos that sell - You're aware of what the photographs are trying to do, so you can make an informed decision about them.

While thinking about this I found a useful paper on naturalism and photojournalism:

sjmc.cla.umn.edu/faculty/schwartz/contents/to tell the truth/to tell the truth.html

(the direct link was becoming complicated. Just add http:// before the link here).