Ethics of sticking your face in someone's camera...

It's just a thought, but I've noticed often on live broadcasts (mainly news)

that passers by will often play up to the camera. Are they within their rights

to do so, seeing as the filming is in a public place, or should they respect

the wishes of the cameraman and just pass by?

It's only OK if they yell "Baba Booey! Baba Booey!"

Yes and yes. It is kinda like the idiot that always yell "Freebird" at a concert...

There are two issues here. The happy persistence of the First Amendment, and the accelerating erosion of both dignity and any sense of shame about anything. Oh well. The worst part is that those same people are or will be raising children who will be even worse.

<br><br>

Wow, I'm cranky this evening. Now, get off my lawn, you punks!

If seems that if photographers/videographers have the right to take images of the public, sometimes without the respect from the photographers/videographers, then said public has the right to act as they want. No where is it written that the public must "behave" for the camera. <P> Just because you have the right to, does not mean you should, and this goes for both sides of the equation.

Philosophical manners.

 

True wisdom comes to each of us when we realize how little we understand about life, ourselves, and the world around us. Socrates.

Anthony, I have been inspired by the words of Socrates ever since I watched "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure"!

Matt: Your response reminds me that the Rolling Stones, at their age, should change the lyrics of "Get Off My Cloud" to, "Hey, you, get off of my lawn".

The thing that gets me is going right up to the camera lens, opening your mouth, and

sticking your tongue out as far as possible. Maybe making a "AAARRGGHHLLLL" sound while

you're at it. There are some people whose knee-jerk reaction to any camera-lens is always

this. I think it's a sign of intelligence.

Much concern over what others should do with a camera or as the object of a photograph.

<p><p>

Occasionally, the concern is justified.

<p><p>

Most often it's none of our business.

<p><p>

Interesting that the question is so often what we <i>should</i> do instead of what we

<i>would</i> do.

...article in today's NYT about a highly-trained Cambodian killing-fields photographer whose job was to photograph everybody just before they were tortured and killed. His attitude seems "I just did my job." Doesn't seem to have any remorse. He's busy testifying against others for THEIR war crimes. His portraits of people about to be murdered by his Khymer Rouge are selling well.

 

He "spoke with pride" about his work." The boss "liked me because I'm clean and I'm organized. He gave me a Rolex watch." He'd be alone with the victims, who would ask him "Why was I brought here." "Look straight ahead. Don't lean to the left or right! That's all I said."

 

His name, fwiw, is Nhem En. Film shooter. We're not all saints.

 

Article and narration:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/26/world/asia/27cambo.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin

The audio interviwer is Seth Mydans, son of the famous WWIII photographer Carl Mydans, passed at 97 in 2004

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/obituaries/story/0,3604,1286983,00.html

Carl Mydans images http://www.gallerym.com/works.cfm?ID_artist=30&Page=2

 

That was WWII, not III. III is next month.

Well, John, thanks.

 

Just when I was trying to be nonjudgmental you come up with a great example of a case

where a "should" or, really, a "should not" is quite in order!

Fred, the easy answers are "should" or "should not."

 

Truth embraces doubt, and only does it reluctantly.

 

The main clues to untruth have to do with screams, self righteousness, and advocacy of "to each his own."

 

If one is sure, as I am frequently, one is...

A always, we agree on some, disagree on others.

"If one is sure, as I am frequently, one is . . ."

 

Do tell. One is what?

here's a delightful example..

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QE9Iz-6zys

"It's just a thought, but I've noticed often on live broadcasts (mainly news) that passers by will often play up to the camera. Are they within their rights to do so, seeing as the filming is in a public place, or should they respect the wishes of the cameraman and just pass by?"

 

Who knows "the wishes of the cameraman"?

 

"Playing up to the camera" is now a time-honored and expected behavior and therefore 'ok'. Back in the days of live television (beginning, probably with the Today morning news show, which had a window out on the street and a camera) I do not recollect such behavior. I think it began with sports celebrations where it was encouraged by "cameramen" (anchors, producers) and has now become embedded in our cultural expectations.

Isn't this just a reflection of humanity, and that

some people just like to act a little goofy, to

stir up a little fun & excitement, by imposing them

selves into the viewfield? Don't take offence, but

a more serious question is the "Ethics" of people

who habitually stick their cameras (unwanted) into

other people's faces, even after being nicely asked

no to. (e.g. - the late Princess Diana story).

I don't think Diana's case can be compared with just regular photographers taking pics of people on the street. Diana was constantly chased by photographers trying to make scandalous images and sell them to tabloids for large amounts of money. Really that's quite different from having your picture taken by a stranger for his/her personal artistic purposes once in 5 years.

If a photographer/videographer wants predictable subjects to film then get some trained

monkeys. Who are they to tell the general public how to behave while they're filming them.

The way I look at it is simple. We are just products of our family tree. Go watch some monkeys in the zoo, and it will explain everything...

 

Just be impressed that we build the cameras, AND manage to not get poo on them most of the time.

Who cares? There have always been and always will be hams.

 

Keith