S&D Ethics: What is appropriate or inappropriate?

[travis1]

Edmo, I didn't say one cannot use photoshop after a snap. WTF are you being sarcastic for? I use photoshop all the time for post processing. Get a grip on yourself.

[travis1]

what we do: snap and photoshop.

 

how we do: snap and photoshop.

 

let it sink too.

[ericamcdonald]

BTW Jenna, I personally enjoy where you were going with air hockey, dog in cart, snowboard, girl in white dress(my fav), ponder, welcome to hackberry, this way up, b/w #2, and as well like your use of text/signage. I think you'll quickly figure out when you land on a subject/perspective that means a lot to you. You clearly have a good heart and sharp mind and curious eyes.

[jenna_g]

Thanks Erica. I will need to do some serious editing before I do a website. I've only had one show and was pretty clueless about the submission process as it was the first time I ever tried to get into a gallery. It felt pretty good to get a few of my images in. I plan on putting together a portfolio book of about 15-20 images and show about 50-70 on a website. I never worry about what I post here, but I need to be more picky with my own site. Like you I find self-editing to be rather difficult. I wrote down about 150 images I'm considering (a few have never been posted here) and I need to cut that in half. Interesting that most you mentioned did not make my first cut. Ponder and Hackberry (which is oversharpened on this site) are the two that did. I've been torn on style and have taken an almost anything goes approach to shooting, but that may become more defined with time. Like you I do enjoy getting close to my subjects whenever possible. The vast majority are candids, but I am more likely to isolate individuals rather than doing crowd shots. I really like your work with children and can see myself doing more of that.

 

Thanks again for your input.

[________1]

"...yanking my entire portfolio and finding a new playground."

 

 

No, no don't do that, Jenna. I really enjoy your stuff.

[correfoc]

Yanking... finding...

 

Hope ya don't. I'm a better looker than a shooter and I like looking at your work.

[ben conover]

I have done very little photography, and I love it. Having grown up in the city, the street, I love the ambience of people and places.

 

If I ever succeeed at street photography I hope I will at least have the respect of the beginner I still am. I mean that I will repsect others as I do so now. I feel that in photography there is much at stake, it is not always possible to remain in control. I think allowances for that and the recations (unknown) of others is key.

 

I do not want to break the rules (and there are plenty to learn) before I know them. Also, respect for society is important to me.

 

Cheers.

[35mmdelux]

If its respect you want then you're in the wrong place.

 

I attended Tri-Community Photo Center in Covina, CA, and was surprised how helpful other photogs were. I learned alot and made a nice side-income from it. I've never forgotten that assistance.

 

Here I've been caught by complete surprise on the rudeness of some posters. I've been in alot of tough places but some of these people take the cake IMO.

 

Part of it has to do with the digital medium. The other part has to do with a lack, or bankruptcy, of common manners. Many people hide behind the medium, talking to you in a way they never would in person.

 

I'm following Mottershead' directive and hope that by not responding to those attacks the posters will go away.

[ben conover]

Paul, I agree with you about forum manners and the Motershead way.

Actually I didn't ask for respect in the post above, or expect it. I was simply hoping that in years to come I will still hold the respect and admiration I have for others I have now, since that is part of being a beginner. This is linked in my mind to street shooting, since it is respect for our brothers we are so often missing. As said, I am learning the basics of photography, so I plan to keep any street stuff simple and quick.

 

Cheers.

[david_m]

A few street photography rules: never photograph anyone in the comission of a crime, never photograph a very wrinkled old person, people with excessively dishevelled clothing or closeups of people who smell very bad.

[james_perry3]

If I took photos of someone getting married at a public location, then used the photo as part of my wedding website showing

my artistic photography skills, would I be at any high risk of being sued? Did not want to bother the couple and ask for a

signed waiver. Or ask the building owners of the buildings in the background. Just using the photos to promote my services

as a photographer and since the couple was there at a public park, could I have taken the photos?

 

Here is what I heard - Nobody's going to spend tens of thousands of dollars on lawyers to collect a few hundred in

damages. If you use the image and they raise a stink and you don't stop using the image, they will have their lawyer send

you a letter to cease and desist. That's required. If you don't desist, then they can try to sue. I guess if the person ever

noticed themselves, all they could do is ask me to take it off and if I did take if off the website, nothing much more to be

afraid of then, right?

Also, The wedding dresses, tuxedos, rings, chairs, tables, tents... are all someone's intellectual property. Are wedding

dress designers suing photographers who use images of their dresses on their website? How about the chair or table

company? For that matter, architecture is intellectual property. If a photographer takes a photo of a couple and there is a

building in the background, the owner of the building could also sue the photographer then right? The copyright office states

: Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship

immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through

the author can rightfully claim copyright. So therefore "unless there is an agreement to the contrary, every photographer has

copyright and control of the image they take, even if someone already paid them." Right? I heard that in ADVERTISING -

When people are recognizable in public domain photos, the photos cannot

legally be used for commercial purposes. But I also heard that In the U.S., street photographs, taken of people and things

visible on the street, in circumstances where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, can be published, displayed,

and sold as "art" (as distinct from their use for advertising, promotion, or "commerce") without obtaining permission of the

people photographed. In fact, a New York State Supreme Court judge recently made judgement on a case and said that the

photographer's right to artistic expression trumped the subject's privacy rights. New York state right-to-privacy laws prohibit

the unauthorized use of a person's likeness for commercial purposes, that is, for advertising or purposes of trade. But they

do not apply if the likeness is considered art. I would be just using the photos of a bride and groom or people playing

volleyball to show my artistic services as a photographer. What do you think?

"If the law were to forbid artists to exhibit their photographs made in public places without the consent of all who might

appear in those photographs, "then artistic expression in the field of photography would not be protected under the freedom

of speech and freedom to perform art would suffer drastically" right? Most courts have consistently found "art" to be

constitutionally protected free speech. If I show off my artistic ability is it alright? A profit motive in itself does not necessarily

compel a conclusion that art has been used just for trade purposes. Can a photographer therefore be allowed to show one

person's existance to another? It doesn't matter if it's a photo of a war, or whatever......it's a function (and personal freedom)

of photograhers everywhere to show the world, the existance of the rest of the world, even on their website right?.

Can it also be considered news worthy that people get married here at this place for example? I am showing off my art and

telling the news of what is happening at this location (freedom of the press). The public areas of the United

States.....anyhow.....are for everyone's use..........including photographers. Taking a picture of another person in a public

does absolutely nothing to impede that other person of their rights. Stopping the photographer from taking those pictures,

impedes their rights of expression....and again, using those pictures in an artistic pursuit, including selling photographs of art

work from them, and putting them in a book form is an extension of that pursuit of happiness. Once the photographer takes

the picture, it is their picture............not the subjects. People are photographed everyday on buses, at ATM's, at

intersections walking into convenience stores, etc...

In the book: Legal Handbook for Photographers: The Rights and Liabilities of Making Images" by Bert Krages. The short

answer is you can take anyone's photo in a public place where they are also in public view, and you can publish their photo

in a book of street photography without their permission (or post it on your web site). How about all the artistic “street

photographers out there”? I thought that I could take photos and show off my art work on the web. This is called the "pursuit

of happiness"..doing something you enjoy doing, that doesn’t harm anybody else..and there is a rather famous document

that says you have the right to pursue that in the USA. "As soon as the shutter clicks...." copyright belongs to the

photographer. These photos would be exhibited on my website for my photo business as examples of my 'art'. Just think at

any wedding, you would have to get a “model or other release” from the bride and groom, plus each family member or

guardian, table makers, chair makers, flower arrangement company, wedding dress maker, church owner, silverware

company, any owners of buildings in the background, etc... I could argue that a wedding or volleyball game is publishable in

a newspaper as an event that took place. To quote Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would exchange freedom for security

deserve neither'.

So here it is again: If I were to take of photo of people getting married at a public location, then used the photo as part of my

wedding website showing my artistic photography skills, would I be at any high risk?

 

Thanks Jenny email farminsarin8@hotmail.com

[35mmdelux]

" If I were to take of photo of people getting married at a public location, then used the photo as part of my wedding website showing my artistic photography skills, would I be at any high risk?"

 

answer: No

[35mmdelux]

ben conover -- I noticed your account has been deleted. Take care my friend.

 

Paul