Interesting chat on Newstalk about Public Photography.

Covey

Just to broaden this a bit, considering the original post was general and not child related.

I took a really "good" shot, as in perfectly framed, sharp, well composed etc of a man being knocked over by a bus. It may have been of value to newspapers etc, I don't know. He was killed.

I would never consider posting that, or having it published, as I know the pain it would cause his family.

Conversely, I have a pretty disparaging photo of a Lady in the Guinness Storehouse. It's far from complimentary, but very funny, at least I think so. I would hope she would see it in the same light, but if not I would of course remove it.

Although I take street photographs, I don't (unless there is something else involved) take photos of beggers. I know some people who think that IS street photography :eek:

To take, to keep, to publish, it's all a matter of individual judgement at the end of the day, a process to which the subject(s) more often than not have no active particpation in.

smash

KarmaGarda wrote: »

Ok, I'll stop arguing about it now! It's just I've got the impression that your argument changed to "looking for permission/respect" as opposed to arguing about the peoples rights vs the photographers rights since I started stating my points.

Anyway, it's all fun and games.

no, it's just down to common sense of knowing when you should take a photo. If you're on a beach and there's a half dressed 2 year old doing something that looks like it could be a good shot, you know that you have the right to take the photo but you also know if the parents or others see you they're going to ask wtf you're doing so in a situation like that I would think that you'd ask permission either before or after the shot is taken and if they object I think the photographers rights argument could get you landed in a world of trouble.

DaireQuinlan

steve06 wrote: »

Why discuss it when you're going to say no? a lot of people don't like being photographed and to say "no I wont delete it" is disrespectful!

I should have clarified. I shoot film, so deleting a shot would be a laborious process involving a dark bag, a scalpel, some sellotape, and a big barrel of luck. I was discussing in terms of before I took a picture If I was wandering around with the camera at the ready or if I was lining up a shot if someone came up and asked me not to take a picture I'd consider it depending on what their reasons were.

kumate_champ07

every phone has a camera.
i always make sure not to point it at anyone, i keep it flat when im typing on it

Fajitas!

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

I should have clarified. I shoot film, so deleting a shot would be a laborious process involving a dark bag, a scalpel, some sellotape, and a big barrel of luck. I was discussing in terms of before I took a picture If I was wandering around with the camera at the ready or if I was lining up a shot if someone came up and asked me not to take a picture I'd consider it depending on what their reasons were.

^ This is reminding me of Blow Up

KarmaGarda

steve06 wrote: »

no, it's just down to common sense of knowing when you should take a photo. If you're on a beach and there's a half dressed 2 year old doing something that looks like it could be a good shot, you know that you have the right to take the photo but you also know if the parents or others see you they're going to ask wtf you're doing so in a situation like that I would think that you'd ask permission either before or after the shot is taken and if they object I think the photographers rights argument could get you landed in a world of trouble.

I was saying that I felt your argument changed since I started stating my points and this is your reply? Where did this come out of! You said earlier you weren't looking for a fight, but I'm gettin a whole different picture from this computer monitor!

kumate_champ07

Covey wrote: »

Although I take street photographs, I don't (unless there is something else involved) take photos of beggers. I know some people who think that IS street photography :eek:

"I will walk many times with friends down the street and they'll say 'Hey, Weegee. Here's a drunk or two drunks laying on the gutter' I take one quick look at that and say 'They lack character.' So, even a drunk must be a masterpiece!"

Weegee

smash

KarmaGarda wrote: »

I was saying that I felt your argument changed since I started stating my points and this is your reply? Where did this come out of! You said earlier you weren't looking for a fight, but I'm gettin a whole different picture from this computer monitor!

I'm not looking for a fight, I was just giving an example of a when it probably wouldn't be a good time to exercise photographers rights.

KarmaGarda

Let me answer your question so. I obviously look on this with a much different viewpoint than you. If a guy with a pretty good camera was taking pictures of my kids in their swimwear my first thoughts would not be to question the "purpose" of the pictures. My first reaction wouldn't be "why on earth is that guy photographing my kids while they are half dressed". Some of the most beautiful, and emotion packed pictures I've ever seen are of kids playing on beaches and in the water.

It honestly worries me that you have the viewpoint that there's a good chance that I'm a pervert because I've just taken those pictures (excuse me, but I can't think of any other reason you would be using this as an example otherwise). Let's remember that most of us do appreciate the innocence of childhood and the amount of natural emotion and pose that they offer us which we seem to lose as adults.

To answer someone elses question, if a girl was lying topless on a beach sunbathing would I photograph her? Probably not, because I think it's the most unbeautiful photo you could take. The only reason I would take this photo is if there was a particular "caption" or "theme" that required this particular subject matter. Would I have a problem taking the photo? Absolutely not. If she has the right to take her breasts out in public, don't try quench my rights to take photos of what I like. But as I said previously, I'm the type of person that would ask for permission before a photo like that. Not all photographers would ask for permission. And mind you, I'm not going to fight for a law that demands that they should.

Here's my viewpoint. 99% of people taking photos with a pretty expensive camera are looking for that perfect photo. 1% are the freaks, be it perverts looking for photos of topless girls, or looking for photos of kids for the wrong reasons. Don't quote me on those stats, I honestly took them straight from my head. But I'd be willing to wager a bet that I'm not far off. Our problem is that 99% of us are now sufferening because of what the other 1% were doing.

Fajitas!

KarmaGarda wrote: »

Here's my viewpoint. 99% of people taking photos with a pretty expensive camera are looking for that perfect photo. 1% are the freaks, be it perverts looking for photos of topless girls, or looking for photos of kids for the wrong reasons. Don't quote me on those stats, I honestly took them straight from my head. But I'd be willing to wager a bet that I'm not far off. Our problem is that 99% of us are now sufferening because of what the other 1% were doing.

Tbh, I'd be more wary of people with smaller discrete cameras than someone willing to invest in quite a large kit.

KarmaGarda

Fajitas! wrote: »

Tbh, I'd be more wary of people with smaller discrete cameras than someone willing to invest in quite a large kit.

I couldn't agree more!

smash

KarmaGarda wrote: »

It honestly worries me that you have the viewpoint that there's a good chance that I'm a pervert because I've just taken those pictures (excuse me, but I can't think of any other reason you would be using this as an example otherwise). Let's remember that most of us do appreciate the innocence of childhood and the amount of natural emotion and pose that they offer us which we seem to lose as adults.

OK, I do have an expensive camera, I bring it with me most places, with my lens bag! I take photos of my son all the time, at a pool, on a beach, in a playground etc.

I don't think every person with a camera is a pervert but others might so a fear in me means that I don't take photos of other peoples children unless I know them, because if it's a great photo op or not, I'm not willing to take the chance of running into that 1 out of 100 people that will take offence, or think I'm something that I'm not and end up either breaking my nose or smashing a few grand worth of equipment.

That's why I think permission is a good idea, before you run into that 1 person!

KarmaGarda

steve06 wrote: »

OK, I do have an expensive camera, I bring it with me most places, with my lens bag! I take photos of my son all the time, at a pool, on a beach, in a playground etc.

I don't think every person with a camera is a pervert but others might so a fear in me means that I don't take photos of other peoples children unless I know them, because if it's a great photo op or not, I'm not willing to take the chance of running into that 1 out of 100 people that will take offence, or think I'm something that I'm not and end up either breaking my nose or smashing a few grand worth of equipment.

That's why I think permission is a good idea, before you run into that 1 person!

Ok that's fair enough. I can agree with that viewpoint!

smelltheglove

Fajitas! wrote: »

Tbh, I'd be more wary of people with smaller discrete cameras than someone willing to invest in quite a large kit.

Thta's true Al! I think the swimsuit issue or in my front garden or outside my house would be the only time I'd have problems with not being asked, however I dont think it is necessarily the photographer I would be worrying about more so th epeople who may see it online.

Also did anyone read recently about a photographer who took a self portrait and her image was used as a cover for a porno dvd, turned ut she was only 14 at the time I think, this is the sort of situation I would fear. I'd be happy to let you or most people here photograph my kids, I just wouldnt be happy for images of my kids in swimsuits to be seen by anyone who wants on the net.

Going away from this, respect is a big thing however as said it is not always possible to ask and that is understandable but in certain situations we should pull back and realise we may be crossing someone's boundaries without having being granted permission.

trishw78

this may be of interest to anyone who has concerns about material they come across on the web. www.hotline.ie I just heard about it on 2fm.

So back on topic which I think went off topic a while ago or did it I'm confused...

Covey

Doesn't apply to this thread Trish, as it's for illegal content.

trooney

Perahps some fears can be alleviated with the release of the annual Hotline.ie report -

http://www.hotline.ie/annualreport/2008-analysis/trends.html

"in 2008, Hotline.ie did not receive a single report about illegal child pornography that was found to be hosted or distributed in the Republic of Ireland"

Covey

Trooney, thats hardly relevant to this thread either

trooney

Covey wrote: »

Doesn't apply to this thread Trish, as it's for illegal content.

It kind of is somewhat relevant, as the whole issue seems to stem from the widely accepted belief that images taken of children will be then disseminated
to the wider world. The report shows that this is not as widespread (or certainly, not in Ireland) at all as some of the more reactive members of society may believe.

Covey

Not at all.

I posted three images on this thread thus dissemating them to the wider world. They're not illegal, so no concern of hotline.ie, end of.

It's rather disturbing to see a debate on taking photos in public, whether you like it or not, turn into child pornography tbh.

People should really consider as to why they are making a connection thats not there in the first place.

Covey

In fact It's quite disturbing to see a Mod post a link to reporting illegal content on the internet in this type of thread. Very disturbing.

trooney

Covey wrote: »

Not at all.

I posted three images on this thread thus dissemating them to the wider world. They're not illegal, so no concern of hotline.ie, end of.

It's rather disturbing to see a debate on taking photos in public, whether you like it or not, turn into child pornography tbh.

People should consider as to why they are making a connection thats not there in the first place.

That’s point I'm making. That these photos are not used for the surreptitious use which some people claim. The proof being partly in this report that says there were no instances reported of this nature. This would indicate that the occasions where a photo has been taken and then used in a morally corrupt or illegal manner are negligible. Re-enforcing the belief that the 99% (arbitrarily mentioned previously) is more probably, in Ireland, 100%.

trishw78

The reason I posted the link is because some people seemed to have a problem with photographers taking shots of kids, and were suggesting that somehow taking shots of kids without getting permission equated to perverts. It doesn't of course...

so to my point the link is useful (albiet off topic) if you should happen across something that you deem inappropriate. It just so happened that they called it out on the radio when I was reading this thread.

I'm not saying that anything posted here was inappropriate (infact it's not) or perverse (It most definately is not) I have alot of respect for some of the work people produce, and I enjoy looking at street photography kids an' all. It's a part of our society, which should be embraced.

AnCatDubh

Covey wrote: »

It's rather disturbing to see a debate on taking photos in public, whether you like it or not, turn into child pornography tbh.

Agreed but invariably it happens. We have had 4 maybe 5 threads of recent times and they all headed that way - i guess people fear the worst. I've described it a number of times as irrational fear. I don't think anyone thus far has referenced any posters work as child pornography.

Covey wrote: »

In fact It's quite disturbing to see a Mod post a link to reporting illegal content on the internet in this type of thread. Very disturbing.

In fairness, Trish's post resulted from something that she had heard on 2fm literally this afternoon such that if anyone had concerns about anything they came across to be aware of the correct route to go. This thread has references to concerns over links between photographers and paedophilia and child pornography so its obviously consciously or subconciously in posters minds - obviously such points vehemently defended by photographers. I think in her post she also intimated that she appreciated that this wasn't exactly the point of the thread however i'm sure she'll be more than capable of expanding on the context if necessary.

EDIT: Cross-posted with Trish. I think similar points anyway.

Covey

The merits of street photography, whatever side of the spectrum your on was the focus of this thread. I think some people may be uncomfortable with it, but it's not illegal.

Posting a link to reporting illegal postings on the internet, I find to be totally perverse and really think it should be deleted in the context of this thread.

KarmaGarda

mrmac wrote: »

Good discussion on Newstalk, George Hook, about the problem of taking pictures in public, especially kids.

Just in case you've slightly gone off topic the original discussion is problems with public photography in general (especially kids) as quoted above.

Calina

There are a couple of points to note;

1) 10 years ago if you took a picture of a kid, it wound up in a packet of photographs somewhere for the most part. No one really cared because the spread of photographs was fairly limited. It didn't matter that people did not have control over their iconography

2) Now we have internet. Photographs spread literally in an instant and you have no idea where they might end up. Because images can travel so much further now than then did 10 years ago, people resent not being able to have control. This is going to be an issue in times to come over party pictures on Bebo and FaceBook, for example.

What are the risks involved here? I have failed to understand them. All I am getting is "I wouldn't like it if someone else took photographs of your children."

About 15 years ago my brother died. The whole community of friends around my family went through their cupboards to give us what photos they had. We were very, very grateful. They could do that because when I and my brother were young, no one was all that precious about this.

Fionn

lots of good points and lots of further questions posed! the landscape is changing theres nothing much we can do about it
for instance see Google Earth for some privacy invasions!
I hate being photographed, thats why i tend to be on the other side of the camera, but if i'm out and about i have to put up with it - apparently even if i was getting with nature in the back garden too at least with Google!!!
and remember

Photography is not a crime!!

yet

Rb

Fionn wrote: »

for instance see Google Earth for some privacy invasions!

They're all in public and nothing a CCTV camera wouldn't catch?

Calina

Not if you've got a garden, technically speaking now. But you can take pictures of private places from outside the private places as far as I know.

TJM gave a great talk on this once. It was interesting.

Anouilh

Fajitas! wrote: »

Tbh, I'd be more wary of people with smaller discrete cameras than someone willing to invest in quite a large kit.

That has certainly made me laugh.

And I'm now wondering if buying a short prime lens may make me look suspicious.

Just found this:

http://photocritic.org/photography-rights-vs-respect/

Really, most people have a reasonable attitude to street photography, but it helps to read up about the subject before sallying forth in all innocence to shoot everything that moves.

kumate_champ07

Calina wrote: »

Not if you've got a garden, technically speaking now. But you can take pictures of private places from outside the private places as far as I know.

TJM gave a great talk on this once. It was interesting.

as long as you are in a public place you can* legally take photos of ANYTHING.
tho in the UK and USA authorities are extremely paranoid of photographers around government buildings. theres no law that they cant take photos of those buildings or the area as far as i know, they just get harassed.
and in the UK the authorities wont give out a new list of 'unknown' areas you are not allowed photograph.

anyone of any status in public can be photographed.

Calina

Uhem, I think you're wrong there. I think in a public place you can do pretty much what you like in terms of taking photographs. Unless you meant "can" instead of "cant" in your post.

kumate_champ07

Calina wrote: »

Uhem, I think you're wrong there. I think in a public place you can do pretty much what you like in terms of taking photographs. Unless you meant "can" instead of "cant" in your post.

yep, typo

AnCatDubh

Covey wrote: »

Posting a link to reporting illegal postings on the internet, I find to be totally perverse and really think it should be deleted in the context of this thread.

With respect to the difficulty that you have with the link and your interpretation of the context in which it was posted, I think no body has suggested or inferred at any point that it is to be used on or about this thread.

Having said that, I wholeheartedly absolutely agree with you where you have already accurately pointed out that there has been nothing wrong with your posts including images. I would expand that and suggest that the other poster who has included sample images, PaulW, has also done nothing wrong by posting his samples.

I think we're all agreed on this. Thus the difficulty I'm having is understanding the rational argument as to why the link posted on the thread is perverse - unless there was going to be some adverse impact by having the link posted here. I don't believe there could be given the nature of what has been posted or the discussion that is ensuing.

dakar

I liked when we were arguing about wedding photography prices.

Oh how I yearn for simpler, more innocent times!

Covey

AnCatDubh wrote: »

With respect to the difficulty that you have with the link and your interpretation of the context in which it was posted, I think no body has suggested or inferred at any point that it is to be used on or about this thread.

Having said that, I wholeheartedly absolutely agree with you where you have already accurately pointed out that there has been nothing wrong with your posts including images. I would expand that and suggest that the other poster who has included sample images, PaulW, has also done nothing wrong by posting his samples.

I think we're all agreed on this. Thus the difficulty I'm having is understanding the rational argument as to why the link posted on the thread is perverse - unless there was going to be some adverse impact by having the link posted here. I don't believe there could be given the nature of what has been posted or the discussion that is ensuing.

Leaving it there implies, suggests or whatever that it has some relevance to the thread, a relevance that most including yourself have denied. Thats all. It should be removed imo as it's about as off topic as it can possibly get. If it's not to be used on or about this thread, as you state above, then why not post it as a separate unrelated thread.

smash

Can I bring that back on topic for a minute?

The above article says:
"The conclusion drawn from the 1st amendment and Section 10 is that you can always take pictures. Even on private property, you have the right to photograph anything you can see."

How does this work in venues where they state "no photography allowed"? It's not a state law, but is it like "management have the right to refuse admission"?... house rules so to speak!

Fajitas!

How does this work in venues where they state "no photography allowed"? It's not a state law, but is it like "management have the right to refuse admission"?... house rules so to speak!

Taking photographs is treated as trespassing afaik

ThOnda

Fajitas! wrote: »

Taking photographs is treated as trespassing afaik

:eek: I have never trespassed, ever! There cannot be any evidence of such activity even it that happened. But id didn't.

Fajitas!

steve06 wrote: »

Can I bring that back on topic for a minute?

The above article says:
"The conclusion drawn from the 1st amendment and Section 10 is that you can always take pictures. Even on private property, you have the right to photograph anything you can see."

How does this work in venues where they state "no photography allowed"? It's not a state law, but is it like "management have the right to refuse admission"?... house rules so to speak!

Fajitas! wrote: »

Taking photographs is treated as trespassing afaik

I meant in relation to venues stating "No Photography"

Morrisseeee

I have never trespassed, ever!

You're SO guilty.........:pac::p

I trespassed recently !!:eek:, and then the person who owned the land came down to me and his initial reaction was: "WTF, what are you doing, ya can't be doin that !" etc. but then when he found out I was local (and he knows my Father in law very well) the whole conversation & mood turned and we ended up chatting for half an hour, where I ended up giving him advice (he used to be into photography) but also getting advice (on other locations) from him.
But......whats the story with regards to taking photographs of peoples houses from a public place, street or road etc, I read somewhere recently that you can do this without restriction ! but I'm thinking there must be some restriction as you can't have someone (I'm thinking pervert :eek: or media photographers chasing a story:eek:) with a zoom lens hiding in the bushes (in a public place) and taking photos of your private property.

ThOnda

Taking pictures of kids in swimsuits splashing in the water being hidden behind a concrete wall... - sounds really like my yesterday photography activity

Fajitas!

Shhhhh!! You don't want it to turn into a witchhunt, V!

Trojan911

Well, all was going very well yesterday up at the local swimming pool until the lifeguard approached me and asked me to leave. I didn't know why at the time..... but...

it was only when I was getting changed I noticed the "S" had fallen off my Speedo trunks.......... :pac: :pac:

Paulw

Just to throw fuel on the fire -

Quebec law on street photography - http://www.montrealmirror.com/2005/080405/news1.html

An old article, but very interesting. I guess I'll never take people photos in Quebec (if I ever visit there). So far, thankfully, that law hasn't spread anywhere else (that I could find).

French law can certainly be different and interesting.

padocon

I'm a little confused and unclear. I have read the posts. What is the actual law?

1. Are you aloud take pictures of minors in public?
2. Are they aloud to be put on display, sold?
3. Does it matter if they are in swimsuits or not?

Thanks in advance!

Paulw

padocon wrote: »

I'm a little confused and unclear. I have read the posts. What is the actual law?

1. Are you aloud take pictures of minors in public?
2. Are they aloud to be put on display, sold?
3. Does it matter if they are in swimsuits or not?

Thanks in advance!

In Ireland, according to the law -

1) Yes, you certainly are allowed. There is no differentiation between child and adult.
2) Yes, you are, certain restrictions may apply, but it will depend on the usage of the image.
3) No, it doesn't matter.

soccerc

padocon wrote: »

Thanks in advance!

1. Are you aloud take pictures of minors in public? Yes
2. Are they aloud to be put on display, sold? Yes, as fine art prints
3. Does it matter if they are in swimsuits or not? No

Let your morals and ethics decide but there is nothing unlawful

padocon

Paulw wrote: »

In Ireland, according to the law -
2) Yes, you are, certain restrictions may apply, but it will depend on the usage of the image.

Thanks!
Restrictions? Are you aloud to do everything but use them commercially?