Victory - Street Photography for Art is LEGAL !

[Asher_Kelman]

[ QUOTE ]
"... if you photograph a man lying in the gutter or walking quietly along the banks of the Seine, you are using that person for your own purpose, no different from any other hunter, just the kind of prey you seek."

However, most any other kind of hunter changes the prey in some way, usually by digestion. I've done the photographic kind and the kind involving high-velocity projectiles, and IMX there's a considerable difference even if some of the stalking and shooting techniques are much the same.

We can get into the definition of "exploitation" but I wonder about that one too when the supposedly exploited isn't affected in any way.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you, the presence or absence of a destructive componant must be present to bring pause to out picture making. So I too take advantage of my fast reflexes and even faster camera to record mostly without permission.

Then, however, with children, I ask the parents, whenever possible, (if the child is recognizable), or if they have seen me photographing, and the same with as many other recognizable subjects as possible.

Others, like a couple kissing in the middle of the Champs Elysse, I didn't disturb! I also don't run accross a bridge and down steps to get consent.

Still, if there is any suggestion of fear, anger or other indication of violation, I will erase all pictures with a the persons face, except if it was an investigative report, documentation of an accident or crime or other issue or a news story or of some exceptional circumstance.

The deer, BTW, is ONLY exploited if it is eaten or its land ruined.

By contrast, a human can be exploited and demeaned by a single word.

Modern hunters don't need to actually kill and digest to exploit. There are so many other easy ways.

Photography, is, I must admit, one of the least obnoxious!

I like the power to make pictures and the accept responsibility to use judgement too. We need both, that's all I'm saying.

Asher [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Peter_Yardley]

[ QUOTE ]

I for one am certain this religious man felt humiliated and objectified and abused by become a captured "head" in an exhibiton.


[/ QUOTE ]

oh please! people can use "religious beliefs" in many manipulative, spurious and deceitful ways to further their own furtive ends. Yes they can of course be profoundly held and genuine, but they can at times be highly suspect - irrational, bigoted, archaic, or simply a cloak to get your own selfish way, financial or material, and a technique to exploit and trample over others.

Even if they are genuine, would you agree with religious beliefs involving female circumcision, for example, or refusing to acknowledge the female human as a being with inalienable rights, not a piece of property?

A "religious belief" might tell me that your land belongs to me and my co-believers, not you, but would you respect that? If my religion tells me its mine, what would you do if I was stronger than you and just took it and pointed to my religious book as proof that it were mine while I colonised it ?

it us up to a court in a modern secular society to enforce the agreed upon code of legal rules by which we have decided, collectively, to weave our society. That is what happened here, and the claim was (rightly in my opinion) rejected.

[SteveWynn]

Part of the plaintiff's case was based upon religous grounds. He has appealed, and we'll have to wait and see what comes of it.

Steve

[Asher_Kelman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I for one am certain this religious man felt humiliated and objectified and abused by become a captured "head" in an exhibiton.


[/ QUOTE ]

oh please! people can use "religious beliefs" in many manipulative, spurious and deceitful ways to further their own furtive ends. Yes they can of course be profoundly held and genuine, but they can at times be highly suspect - irrational, bigoted, archaic, or simply a cloak to get your own selfish way, financial or material, and a technique to exploit and trample over others.

Even if they are genuine, would you agree with religious beliefs involving female circumcision, for example, or refusing to acknowledge the female human as a being with inalienable rights, not a piece of property?

A "religious belief" might tell me that your land belongs to me and my co-believers, not you, but would you respect that? If my religion tells me its mine, what would you do if I was stronger than you and just took it and pointed to my religious book as proof that it were mine while I colonised it ?

it us up to a court in a modern secular society to enforce the agreed upon code of legal rules by which we have decided, collectively, to weave our society. That is what happened here, and the claim was (rightly in my opinion) rejected.

[/ QUOTE ]

Peter,

Forum members here work amiably with members of all nationalities creeds and persuasions. We try to focus on photography. People photography does involve rights and also requires our respect. If we took only advantage of OUR power with no thought for the subjects feeling, the status of photographers earned to date would be squandered.

I'd really like to give you the benefit of doubt since you merely joined the forum march 3rd! However, your association of this bearded Jewish orthodox man as " manipulative, spurious and deceitful ways to further their own furtive ends" and " irrational, bigoted, archaic, or simply a cloak to get your own selfish way, financial or material, and a technique to exploit and trample over others" is damning to your motives and predispositon towards such a man.

From where did you find alll this venom?

Surely not from anywhere in this forum. Here, we show respect for people. There is no place for such regurgitations of caricatures of Jews found in "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" or was it "Merchant of Venice" that inspired you.

Further, your hardly veiled references to people with biblical claim to land becoming "Colonizers", is common in the Pro-Palestinian British newspaper "The Guardian" and the news casts of the BBC. We are apolitical here and we will not engage you on this except to inform you that we just don't do it.

Just to let you know, here, we value all photographers, are not insulting and don't use jingoistic race-bating phrases for our arguments.

As I said previously, I welcome the legal victory affirming a broad right in the USA to take photographs of people without consent. Still, I contend, that photographers, having the power can also use discretion and humanity.

I cannot see why a single picture of an orthodox bearded jew's head is so essential to a collection that one would not cease and desist and send a letter of regret and do what one can to show some recogniton of the subjects discomfort.

It is a pity that the gentleman sought to express his indignation and shame by asking for a monetry settlement, because that in particular caused an eruption and exposure of your distasteful way of thinking.

I once photographed an Ibo boy taking a thorn from his foot. The villagers were angry that I had captured his spirit. Of course, I could have driven off, but I went to the Chief's compound and apologized, paid a small symbolic fine, destroyed the negative and left with everyone happy.

To this man, the photo in an exhibiton matched veneration of an image, idol worship. Further, some hold that taking such a picture can remove some of the persons soul.

I could care less about the truth of any such assertation, just the pain that our disregard causes.

Asher [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[DavidHarpe]

Any form of art, expression, editorial or comment has the potential to impact others. Photography is no different. I think the "hunting" analogy is a pointless overdramatization of the issue - similar to the "if it saves one child it is worth it" arguments.

Individuals are photographed in public every single day, some in realtime. We now have webcams in storefronts that people all over the world can remotely connect to and view people passing by. Should those be disconnected as well? Of course not - people are in public, they will be seen. If a person has an oversensitivity to being seen in public - with the potential of being photographed - they should take appropriate precautions.

I think society has a decent set of rules on the books to prevent this sort of thing from becoming a problem. It is not legal to "stalk" people - with or without a camera. There are laws governing misrepresentation, slander, libel, and copyright infringement. Any number of laws can be enforced to prevent individuals from becoming "victims".

In this case the situation did not rise to the level of victimization - and the courts agreed. It was a good call in my opinion.

[Chuck_Kimmerle]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd really like to give you the benefit of doubt since you merely joined the forum march 3rd! However, your association of this bearded Jewish orthodox man as " manipulative, spurious and deceitful ways to further their own furtive ends" and " irrational, bigoted, archaic, or simply a cloak to get your own selfish way, financial or material, and a technique to exploit and trample over others" is damning to your motives and predispositon towards such a man.

From where did you find alll this venom?



[/ QUOTE ]

I might have come from the fact that, rather than try to solve this rationally, this man went to his attorney and sued for seven figures. He truly seems more interested in a monetary reward than religious freedom.

Chuck

[Asher_Kelman]

David,

I agree with all you have said. It is concise and entirely appropriate, (except perhaps some cultural nuances).

I would add that traffic, store and police security cameras are not searching for that particular interesting face to photograph. They don't do that, I do.

All I'm saying is when we do this for our own artistic purposes we can consider people's feelings.

"The soul", "my reputation", "graven images", "my little girl" or what ever is sufficient for many of us to have pause.

My best work is not dependant on one picture. If someone objects, for my art, there's a zillion other faces out there!

When one continues, regardless, then, perhaps, "hunter" might be appropriate.

"In this case the situation did not rise to the level of victimization" was not the conclusion of the court, I believe. Rather that in the balance, the public's rights weighed more. One can't argue about the man's pain. I know the culture, I have seen it in other religious people I have photographed.

In any case, it is not about our rights, I too don't want to lose them, it is doing what's right: giving a person the benefit of doubt.

Asher [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]