shoots Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 Sorry for highjacking that title but I had a similar question. A while back a friend asked me to take pictures of his new gallery opening for newspapers and brochures. While I was there a staff member asked that I not take any pictures of her. (apparently the subject of a photographer at an important event was not brought up with the staff ahead of time.) The problem was that every time I swung the camera around to get the shot there she was, in the background or talking to the photo-op. Inevitably she ended up in 10% of the "keeper" shots, not fully recognizable sometimes cropped out sometimes with her back to the camera. I guess I should have asked if she wouldn't mind if I taped a black rectangle over her eyes as she walked around to insure anonymity. My question is: Even though I tried not to have her in the shots It was impossible to frame her out or avoid her all together. What kind of trouble does this pose? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthewkane Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Well who is your friend an artist? Another staff member? The owner of the place or...? Did that girl say just no pics of her or the place in general and was she deliberately trying to get in your shots? I guess it depends on what you want to use them for? For minor personal use or whatever or just to give a few to your friend I suppose it's no big deal. As long as she won't see them again right, but I wouldn't parade them around if she specifically asked you not to be involved. Or just take her out in photoshop! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony_p4 Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Troy, Show her the pictures and tell her (in a nice way) she kept getting in the way. As far as I'm concerned a person in the picture is not the same as photographing that person. If she is only furniture as far as the image is concerned I'm sure there will be no problems. Also if I have read this correctly your friend asked you to shoot the pictures who's gallery it is, so technically that friend has the final say on what is published and what isn't. Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_. Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 <<My question is: Even though I tried not to have her in the shots It was impossible to frame her out or avoid her all together.>> Are you tongue-tied? What stopped you from just telling her "Look lady, you asked me not to take your picture and I'm happy to comply with your request but I was hired to do a job here just like you, so I would in return apprectiate your cooperation to let me get the shots I need without you being in them, and the quicker I can do that the quicker I'm outta here" or something like that? If she was really purposely being a b*tch I'd have then discussed the situation with the gallery owner, emphasizing that your photos are free publicity for the gallery and so perhaps the owner would have dealt with the staff worker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthewkane Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Great point Jay. Well put! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briarrose Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 There are many reasons a person may wish their privacy respected--and as a photographer, and a decent human being--I think it's important to allow them their privacy. The fact that we have cameras and want to shoot pictures--doesn't automatically give us the right to take pictures of anyone and everything, IMO. (That's a general statement--not anything directed at you, Troy--since it seems you did what you could to fulfill your assignment, while respecting her privacy! :-)) Since none of us have any idea why she didn't want her picture taken--we don't have any way of knowing if it was shyness, or something more serious--like perhaps not wanting an abusive ex to know where she is working--I think it's extremely important to protect her privacy. While it sounds pretty far-fetched--imagine how you would feel if a shot showing her in the background was published in the local newspaper--and a crazed ex saw it--tracked her down--and beat her, or killed her! In the situation you've described--I would either a) do something to any images with her in them that obscurs who she is (selective darkening, blur, etc) or b)try to contact her--show her the photos, and ask if it's okay to use them. And in future situations, if someone gave you a similar request--you might explain to them what you were planning on doing--and ask them to try to keep an eye you, throughout the evening, and stay out of your way--and you'd do the same. You might also discuss how the photos will be used--and explain that you have a job to do, and that much as you both try--it's possible that he/she might wind up in a few photos--in which case, would it be sufficient to darken or blur the person in question. My guess is that most people would be open to some negotiation here--and if they aren't--it's probably because they have a really good reason for it. Not meaning to step on anyone's toes--it's just that I've had a few female friends who were in hiding from posessive men...including one whose boyfriend tried to strangle her--so I feel pretty strongly that privacy should be respected--it might be a matter of life or death for someone. :-/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 <i>There are many reasons a person may wish their privacy respected--and as a photographer, and a decent human being--I think it's important to allow them their privacy.</i><P> If maintaining privacy is important to ones safety and well-being, why be present at a public event? Why work somewhere that is open to the public? I agree with respecting a person's privacy-- that's why I don't photograph through windows into people's homes or intrude on them if they're staying out of public view. But a lot of people in these threads seem to have trouble with the concept that, when you go out into public, you lose many of your "rights" to privacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony_p4 Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Yep I'm Mike on this one and at the end of the day lets see the main points.<br> <br> 1. Troy was doing a job for the gallery owner.<br> 2. The employee didn't want to be photographed so she should have taken that up with the owner.<br> 3. She kept getting in the way and is in some of the shots.<br> 4. Where's the real problem here? Publish and be dammed your within your rights.<br> 5. Ouch some people are upset by my comments, well any of you going to go up to a TV camera crew and tell them to stop filming cause you don't want to be on the tea-time news?<br> <br> Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briarrose Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 But why, Mike? Why is what *you* (generic *you*--the photographer, not you, personally) want more important than what *I* (generic *I*--the person on the street) want? Isn't it simply that we both have wants? I just think that what someone else wants--is as valid as what I want--and think it's respectful to honor their privacy, if they ask me to--no matter where they are. I might have the "right" to play loud music in public--but if someone asks me to turn it down--it's courteous to do it. :-) As to your rhetorical questions about why be in a public place--or why work in a public gallery if privacy is a concern--well, there are many reasons why people do things they'd rather not do--or don't feel happy about doing...many of them having to do with money...and what one wants to do. I might work in a gallery--but that doesn't mean I expect to have my picture taken! Now--if I was a MODEL, and didn't want my picture taken--that might be a little silly...but how many of us expect to have our photos taken at our place of business? :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
constance_cook Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 I have to get to work. I have to get to the grocery, the doctor, dentist, etc. I don't want to run the gamut of dodging someone who doesn't know me taking my photograph to do God knows what with. There is no reason why the whole rest of the world that doesn't want to be photographed have to become recluses so you ( generic "you") can enjoy your "rights'. Those who become public personalities (j. Lo., John Kerry, Geraldo Rivera do forfeit their rights because they strivee to become recognizable and rely on the public for recognition, fame and fortune. The rest of us choose to not live that way. I have no problem being photographed by friends or sometimes by those I don't know, depending on where I am and if they ask first. Otherwise, leave me alone. Being a photographer does not make anyone more precious than anyone else. Conni Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 When you work at a gallery which is open to the public, and which is having an opening to publicize and promote the works of an artist displayed there, it should not be surprising that photos will be taken at the event as a part of that promotion and publicity. Does the desire (not right) of an employee to not be photographed mean that the gallery owner and artist should sacrifice an important part of the promotion of that work? If the employee faces genuine danger if it's known she was at the opening, wouldn't it be prudent for her to stay out of the camera's way? Is satisfying the whim of anyone who's camera shy more important than Troy meeting his obligations to the artist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
constance_cook Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Why wasn't the problem, since this was on private property, taken up with the gallery owner? That was the person who could have made a binding decision. If he said to shoot away, she could have lumped it or walked off. Being on private property, working for someone involved in the setting, changes the equation. Conni Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Conni, I recommend you take your complaints about being photographed without your permission to all the banks, stores, parking garages, etc. where you are typically photographed dozens or hundreds of times a day, and to newspapers and broadcasters who might include you in their broadcasts. The number of images of you that might be taken by a street or event photographer are a drop in bucket compared to the recording of your image that takes place daily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erin_____grasshopper__rice Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 I think in a case like this the best course of action would be just to clone or blue her out in PS, or if thats not an option... go back to the gallery and talk to her about them, as well as the gallery owner to get his input. Good Luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
constance_cook Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Mike: The surveillance photos don't bother me. It is so unlikely that any one, and I do mean anyone, will ever see them, the point is moot. I don't want someone to have my photo in his/her home to show around or post on the Web. The surveillance photos on the news most often have the faces of those not involved in the crime blocked out. Watch the next time you see a news shot. I also don't walk where I see a tv crew filming. There is plenty of advance warning because of the trucks and the crew. I also don't go when they are filming movies on the street which attracts a lot of people who think they might appear on-screen in a brief peek in. A surveilance tape bears no resemblance in film type, use or abuse that a still photo can and every time this comes up (surveillance photos), I am impressed again that anyone could equate the two. Conni Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony_p4 Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Conni, are you aware that until recently and possibly still today that many companies including police forces have sold surveillance tapes to TV production companies. Some of these clips have appeared as funny or unusual things that people do and others as real footage to programmes. Look closely next time you watch a film and you may see yourself. Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
constance_cook Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Tony: Not likely. I rarely do anything that would be considered "funny" to a tv audience or anyone else. Conni Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony_p4 Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Conni, Shame ;-) lol Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briarrose Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Hmmm...I think we all may have strayed from Troy's original question, which was "what kind of trouble does this pose?" Unfortunately--I don't know--since I've already said that my policy would be to try to avoid the scenario in the first place--but if push came to shove, I would simply obscure the employee in question in Photoshop, if nothing else would do. I would like to point out that the issue of personal privacy in a public place is probably not one that can be resolved--because people seem to be divided into the "you were there--you should've known what you're getting into/rights of the photographer" camp--and the "respect privacy/individual wishes" camp. The fact that I'd rather respect the individual's privacy/whims/wishes--doesn't make me somehow more "right" than anyone else--it simply reflects my own desire to make the world a more peaceful place...and I figure that starts by doing what I can to live harmoniously with others--even if that sometimes means I'm inconvenienced (as I most definitely would be, if I had to Photoshop someone out of 10% of the "keepers" of a shoot! ;-)) I'd also like to say that even though I don't necessarily agree with Mike--I think his photos are lovely! :-) (Yes--even his "street" photos. ;-)) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony_p4 Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 I guess we have all given Troy a little taster of "what kind of trouble does this pose?" lol Interestingly when I get pictures published as news stories, I not only get the fee from the paper but also nearly always royalties from people buying the pictures that have them in them. So although we like our privacy in many cases (but not all) a lot of people like their 15 minutes of fame even if they are only in the background :-) Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
constance_cook Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 BTW, I do a good bit of street photography and enjoy it a lot. But I don't photograph those who don't want to be photographed. I still get nice shots. I've been using a Bessa R2 or a T and it's taking me a while to get them just right while I'm right on with my Nikons all the time but I've had more practice. Nevada Weir said that she just holds her camera in her left hand, looks at the person, raises the camera part of the way up and if the person doesn't object, then she takes the picture. I thought that was pretty good and that's the way I've been working. Conni Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthewkane Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 His question has been answered. And frankly he hasn't been back to give anymore input so this thred should be finished until then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott aitken Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 I think this thread went off on a bit of a tangent. Legally, it depends on what the photos are to be used for. If they are to be used as publicity (ie: "commercial usage"), any photos where she is recognizable cannot be used without a signed model release. If they are to be used journalistically (ie: reporting the event in a newspaper), then no release is needed, and you can use the photos whether she likes it or not. Of course then you have to decide if you want to actively piss her off. I think your question comes too late, to some degree. If I am doing a job like that for the gallery owner, and an employee asks not to be photographed, I would immediately politely take it up with the owner. She still has rights. Just because she works there, doesn't mean she is a slave, and must submit to being photographed against her wishes (unless it states so in an employment contract). If she doesn't want to be photographed, and it will hinder your ability to perform your job, then I think you need to talk about it ahead of time. Ask her to please try to stay out of the way when you are pointing a camera at anyone, especially important guests. If she's willing, ask why she doesn't want to be photographed (then it gets the question of simple shyness vs. avoiding a psycho ex-boyfriend issue out in the open). Perhaps she wouldn't mind being in the background of a few of the photos if it is unavoidable. You have to ask to find out. If you, the gallery owner, and the reluctant employee had talked about this at the start, you would likely have been able to avoid this whole mess from the beginning. Since you are in this mess now, I would simply hand over the photos to the gallery owner. Tell him about the employee who wished not to be photographed. Earmark the photos she is in. State that you have no signed model release from her. Then let him deal with it. After that, it is no longer your problem. In general, I come down on the side of being courteous and polite. I honor a person's wishes not to be photographed, unless there is a very good reason not to. Being courteous and polite does not mean to avoid the subject, however. I think it is perfectly fine to politely delve into what her objection is, in a situation like that, and see if you can resolve the issue up front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoots Posted June 15, 2004 Author Share Posted June 15, 2004 I just cropped her face out of each picture and pasted a big yellow smiley face in its place. And I told the news paper it was a very important performance artist executing "high art", a "statement about society and its willingness to be misled", for promotion of the galleries opening. Everyones happy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now