When your told not to take photos

<p>This thread has opened up many cans avenues of thought. I never really gave it any thought when taking pictures. I not gonna change anything that I do but there's a lot more to think about, <br>

SWomebody yell that photographers taking pictures indiscrimanately will lead to a loss of rights is nonsense. But threre are real concerns by some that want to limit when photos can be taken. <br>

Heres a few that bother me. <br>

When one of my daughters graduated recently, the school changed its rules this year and asked no one to take photos during the ceremony except for the pro photographer that they hired. and you could then buy all the photos that you wanted. Except that the pro was lousy and didn't take any of the photos that I would. I should have the right to respectfully take pictures aat the ceremony. Since when did it become a exclusive where some can make a buck.<br>

Or how about taking your kids to see a store Santa. No photos allowed. Have to buy one from them. I thought the idea of a store Santa was to get people into the store. Not don't take a pictuire of your own kid so we can sell you a crappy photo with our logo on it. <br>

An the list goes on. No cameras allowed in a certain ballpark. Why?<br>

I can almost understand no cameras at oncerts, no flashes disturbing other and protecting the artist from bootleg photo sales. But non flash photos for personal use after paying a lot for the tickets?<br>

But all these are different from what happens in public places and at public events. Just look at the many different photos on photo net. was someone wrong to take these photos? There seems to be people who will make an argument about almost any photo taken.<br>

I like like tnings the way that they are - use common sense, courtersy and respect.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Joseph:<br>

Joseph:<br>

On the one about not taking photos during graduation, I can tell you why and the reason is very valid. I've been involved in these for years.</p>

<p>While you're jumping up, moving around to take your photo, you're blocking the participant ahead and behind your child. It also interferes with the flow on stage to have people jumping up and down or rushing into the aisles when other families are just as eager as you to see the student they came to witness. It can also lead to accidents - some serious, some not. You are pushing past others and stepping on toes in your hurry or accidentally knock someone's glasses off. It is also noisy, especially to those around you. You also have to raise your arms and someone next to you has to lean out of your way.</p>

<p>These problems occur over and over where family and/or friends complain to the administrator that the ceremony was ruined for them because "some inconsiderate person blocked their view or prevented them from hearing what was being said because that person was intent on getting photographs."</p>

<p>It's unfortunate that the hired photographer was not good. Most of the time, we arrange for photos with the presenter after the affair is over. The event is equally important to each and every person in the crowd, and prohibiting photos is just the only way to be sure that all get to see their star have their moment.</p>

<p>This is the reason for almost universally prohibiting applause until the ceremony is over. A large group of family and friends whooping it up and applauding prevents the next participant's family and friends from hearing the name called and noting any honors.</p>

<p>Prohibiting photography under these circumstances is respectful of all because it is an important occasion or they would not hold the event or if they did, no one would come.</p>

<p>Conni</p>

<p>Joseph; Of course the police didn’t try to prevent you from taking pictures; they were kind of busy with other, more immediate concerns. The volunteers, well it’s hard to say what they were thinking. Maybe they thought they were doing the right thing. Maybe they were instructed to do exactly that in the event of an emergency situation. Maybe they hate photographers Maybe they don’t understand the importance of photos of that nature Maybe, maybe, maybe… If you really feel that your right was violated you can always file a lawsuit against the church and its volunteers, and good luck with that if you decide to pursue it. And just another thought or two; How do you know that your photo would have been picked up? How do you know that the photographer whose picture was used in the article was paid? As for the dilemma over whether or not to put down the camera to offer help. Help with what? The professionals were there, crowd control was obviously there. What was Joseph supposed to help with? And let me ask this; Have you ever looked at any photos from The World Trade Center Towers during those horrible days and weeks that followed the attack? Or ANY other event in the world that was unpleasant to think about? War, crime, accidents, results of nature… Someone took those pictures, and guess what? You looked at them. The line between looking and taking is pretty thin.</p>

<p>It's worth noting that two significant 1996 Pulitzer Prize winning photographs were taken by free-lancers:</p>

<ul>

<li>Charles Porter IV (spot news photography) - for his photo of a fireman carrying a baby from the wreckage of the Alfred P. Murrah federal building after the Oklahoma City bombing.</li>

<li>Stephanie Welsh (feature photography) - for her series about the female genital "circumcision" ritual in Kenya.</li>

</ul>

<p>Those are just a two of many important photographs taken by people who were not "official" news media (an essentially meaningless term that has no Constitutional validity in the U.S.) or staff photographers of any publication.</p>

<p>Again, as fewer and fewer staff photographers are employed by newspapers, magazines or any publications, including online outlets, we will continue to see more news photography done by free-lancers, independents and bystanders with cameras. Without them, these photographs of significant events will not be taken at all.</p>

<p>Lex, so what can be learned from what you just referenced (which makes your point even more clear) is that politics of the situation being photographed controls people's decision on whether to let a person take pictures of an event over basing the decision on whether someone's rights are being violated.</p>

<p>In Joseph's case were the people who were stopping him from taking pictures doing so with the intent of preserving the victim's right to privacy or were they preventing evidence from being collected for possible future litigation against the church? What other reason would anyone have in these types of events? Impeding or getting in the way of rescue efforts? This is similar to police claims of impeding the process of an investigation to back up why they decide to get rough on uncooperative suspects or person's of interest?</p>

<p>Why didn't someone stop people from taking pictures of the rescue efforts after the Murrah building bombing? It had to be politics because clearly those victim's right to privacy were being violated by the photographer and no one stopped them.</p>

<p>Maybe a photographer can use the Murrah building event to back up their right to take pictures in similar situations as Joseph's.</p>