How long before Leica M type photography banned?

With modern political correctness rife everywhere, and personal

privacy along with human rights the current 'flavour of the month',

how long do you think it will be before walking about on your own

,grabbing( surrepticious etc) photographs will be seen as anti-social

and somewhat suspect behaviour?

 

Of course there is a very serious and dark side to this question, and

that has to

acknowledged and dealt with, to be able to come to any meaningful

answer.

 

I think Lutz's posting 'The kiss' is a great photograph, but could not

the subjects of the photograph cause a lot of trouble by complaining

to the authorities?

 

If any of us were going around taking photographs of others children (

on holiday ,or where-ever) it would put us on very shaky

ground,legally(in UK - don't know about elsewhere) yet, in deprived

areas or third world countries IT SEEMS accepted that photographing

just about anything is ok, especially if you work for the media!

 

50 years ago photography was seen as an artistic and 'healthy'

pursuit, but now because of a minority of perverted and deranged

individuals, perfectly normal and innocent people taking photographs

of

any kind of intimate moment, could be subject to the (growing) moral

police of

this world.

Is there a danger that photography in public places could be banned

for normal people, and only allowed by the press and media?

 

Regards

 

Bruno

Well, according to informal reports, a Japanese couple was killed in a Guatemalan village a few years ago for taking photographs of very young children. This was in the middle of rumors and a scare of foreigners kidnapping babies to take abroad to sell to women in developing countries who were infertile. Not such a far fetched rumor. When I was in Guatemala myself this year I met 3 couples with young Guatemalan babies who were in the process of legal adoption. Meanwhile, global trafficing in children of all ages is increasing dramatically and has become a major political issue.

 

I certainly didn't take any photos of young children when I was there, though you always can if you ask. Back to your point: that experience has made me reluctant to photograph children anywhere, especially in the US where parents are also paranoid about kidnapping. Couples kissing may have other issues. . . such as the response of the partner they're supposed to be kissing!

the thought of banning has always been there since th eday one, but it is up to the photographers who are willing to take the chance for an image. So my answer is "never" or "as long as your leica still works.

Lol,

 

I thought this was going to be another thread complaining about Tony's use of the phrase "rangefinder photography" in the forum guidelines.

 

Technically, legally I think you are fine in the US if you are taking photos in a public place and not selling the photos for commercial use. But remember that in the US, you can be sued for almost anything. So just because something is legal, doesn't mean that you won't have to show up in court to defend yourself (paying for your own court/lawyer fees of course).

 

And that doesn't even touch on the "Patriot Act" aspect of shooting photos in public.

.....50 years ago photography was seen as an artistic and 'healthy' pursuit....

 

Yes, and high schools had rifle teams because marksmanship was considered a good thing too. Times have changed, to wit

 

I'LL GIVE UP MY CAMERAS ONLY WHEN THEY PRY THEM FROM MY COLD DEAD FINGERS!

You can bet your sweet biffy. Perhaps it can be argued that anything taking place in public or on pubic property is fair game but there are those, particularly the ACLU and certain trial lawyers who might argue from a different viewpoint. Hopeably somewhere there is a middle ground but it is also possible that the shrillest voices will prevail. When a perfectly innocent snapshot of kids playing in a park is viewed as incipient pedophilia depending upon the credentials of the photographer we certainly have cause for concern. I frankly don't like "in your face" and the paparazzi deserve to be curtailed, but the farther along political correctness is deemed the priority, I am afraid the next twenty five to fifty years are going to see some significant changes in public attitude. And then when it gets too oppressive . . . Well, I can take a certain amount of comfort in that I won't be around to see it, and I have seen too much already.

"how long do you think it will be before walking about on your own ,grabbing( surrepticious etc) photographs will be seen as anti-social and somewhat suspect behaviour?"

 

Now?

Photographing kids might have its downside, but if you really want the ire, just start photographing police officers, firefighters, government workers (like road crews and such), and letter carriers.

 

Come to think of it, the police did photograph a lot of people in Ybor City. Seems only fair to start photographing them back.

 

I'll keep y'all posted.

Harry: Isn't the right to make photos in public related to free press/free speech? What in the world would the ACLU find objectionable about that?

LOL! I have to admit, I thought the same thing as Josh did when I saw the title of this thread. Maybe Josh and I should need to relax a bit, huh?? :-)

<p>

Harry, I just saw that you're contributing the forum (and since November 3 !!) What a cool surprise. I'm tickled to the moon and back. For everyone, Harry has been one of the closest friends of my family, and was one of the first people to know about my birth in Fairbanks, Alaska! Harry, now if we can get my dad to participate, huh??

I read in the paper a couple of years ago that the French were putting out a law forbidding people running around photographing the citizens. Imagine being a Parisian and having hordes of "Paris is a great place for photography" nuts running around (like me).

 

Any French members who know the story?

BTW, the rumor I heard circulating about photographing Guatemalan kids was

that people thought that the children were being stolen and sold for their

organs.

Fortunately, I live in the backward Southern USA and it is easy to become

'recogonized' as an aritisan, photographer etc. with a minimal amount of self

promotion. Get yourself in the Sunday Arts section, have a few shows, and you're a

celebrity, if someone doesn't know you they think they should. There are still the

parnoid, I sometimes get the looks and the questions, no I'm not from the building

inspection, but I'm really enjoying rangefinder photography. It's a challange that is

not quite as easy as it looks and will be my entire focus for 2004, PAW and all.

 

My concern, is there will be little record of this era unless the talented, and there is

talent right here on this forum, publish their work in book form. I encourage and

challenge them. 50 years from now I doubt if digital archives and tv news clips will be

retrievable. Forget the technolgy issue, they will simply be out of business and their

archives in the dumpster.

 

I'm pissed enough to do something about this. The more lenses that are out there the

more common they become. and I'm adding mine. It's cliche and probably not pc, but

to illustrate the point, does anyone pay attention to a group of Japanesse tourist

snapping away? Let's hit the streets folks...jf

My own impression (formed through at least a thousand hours

of photographing people in public) is that the "paranoia"

mentioned in this thread is about a hundred times stronger on

internet photography boards than it is in the real world (the parts

of it in which I've worked, anyway). Just about everyone I've

heard on the net who complains vigorously about the violation of

people's "right to privacy while in public" has little or nothing in

the way of law or philosophy to support their positions. I doubt

that people who want to have public photography banned have

the juice to completely overhaul the legal system just to indulge

their cause. Despite claims earlier in this thread, the ACLU is

likely to be a big obstacle to such an effort.

>>>>does anyone pay attention to a group of Japanesse tourist snapping away?

 

Jerry: there are japanese who walk around snapping everything, like our american counterpart everywhere in the world. there are also japanese who walk around without a camera. what make us to have more right to use a camera than anyone in the world?

 

no offense but racial profile is still rotten. I am a chinese by race and have to deal with "good mind for math" kind of bull everyday and am just really sick of it.

All I know is that the French can be VERY hostile to having their photos taken. Its a cultural thing. The only way I get good candid street pictures in Paris is to use my G2 w/ remote shutter release, and leave it hanging from my neck without bringing it to my eye. If it's good enough for Robert Frank, its good enough for me.

>>I am a chinese by race and have to deal with "good mind for math" kind of bull everyday and am just really sick of it<<

 

Then try to chill out a bit.

Jerry

 

I agree that no-one takes much notice of a group of (any race) people,but the point I was making was regard to the Leica M style of candid photography by a lone photographer.

 

Regards

 

Bruno

wentong,

 

don't get your knickers in a knot. how do you know jerry (if that's his real name) isn't japanese himself? i know i've been recently told not to take pictures on a piece of govt' property while a small group of tourists snapped happily away. (race??? doesn't matter, though in toronto, we do see a large chinese culture) so what? i can't shoot there because i'm a white male, and am not yapping away with a group of people?

 

relax, put up with the "math mind" and i'll put up with the "you white boy's all look like nixon" from ma brutha's :-) and have a nice day.

wentong lin

 

Your response points specifically to what is wrong in this world. Everyone thinks they

are entitled some special treatment. I qualified my statement "to illustrate a point"

and it is true a group of people are unnoticed. I will not let you take language away

from me, and as a Southerner I have long endured profiles and choose not to be

sensitive about it, it's a choice you know. Did you know that pictures of owls are

offensive to the Native American? Oh jez. I prefer that overly sensitive people just piss

off...jf

I'm glad that Leicas have other uses than street photography. Perhaps it's just that I'm older & don't look impressive &/or coudn't run as fast, but I've stopped taking pictures of people I don't know. Photographing strangers is much more often regarded as a hostile act than it used to be. We no longer live in the era of "The Family of Man," when photographers were more commonly thought of as having good intentions.

 

I find that people also object more often to having their property photographed - I see an urban landscape, they think I'm collecting evidence for a lawsuit.

 

A seeming paradox: While more people are suspicious of photographers, more also wander the streets loudly discussing their private lives on cell phones. The same people, or different ones?

>>While more people are suspicious of photographers, more also wander the streets loudly discussing their private lives on cell phones<<

 

Amen.

I wish they would ban the photographing of other peoples children. It would force their parents to get the little bastards out of the ****ing way.

*BING*

 

A "Leica point" for Steve! (no there is no such thing)

 

I totally agree with him though.

>>Then try to chill out a bit.

 

Every time someone kills a dog, they ask people to look at the bright side and be cheerful...

 

>>how do you know jerry (if that's his real name) isn't japanese himself?

 

Doesn't seem to be relavant at all. So what he is a japaness? racial profile is a racial profile. It concerns more to the receivers, not the offenders...

 

>>put up with the "math mind" and i'll put up with the "you white boy's all look like nixon" from ma brutha's :-)

 

If you don't like stereotype, then don't do the same to others, pal. :-)

 

>>Everyone thinks they are entitled some special treatment.

 

Some people really do know that and use it whenever they can. You are talking about yourself, brother.

 

>>I will not let you take language away from me, and as a Southerner I have long endured profiles and choose not to be sensitive about it, it's a choice you know.

 

I know...yes, I do!

 

>>Oh jez. I prefer that overly sensitive people just piss off...

 

Amen...