w/nw - forbidden photos

[Sanford]

The mechanic closed the hood two seconds after I took the shot and

told me "no photos of the engine!", but too late. So, here is the

engine Audi doesn't want you (or BMW?) to know about. This happens

sometimes in the paddock area of a race track. At the Michelin tent I

was once told I could photograph the outside of a tire but not the

inside - all I was looking at were circular compositions of stacked

tires!<div></div>

[ronald_moravec1]

I got the word from an adult yesterday I could not take pics of some children coming off a rope bridge at the Morton Arboretum Childrens Garden near Chicago. She called them her children and there was a million of them!

 

My wife explained it was a school field trip and pics can`t be made without the parents permission. Too bad, they were really cute kids.

 

What next?

[belledeux diana]

Hhmmm....I was photographing a street performer the other day...the only one in town, and he's often not there......mainly on high tourist days.

Him: "You can't take a picture of me. I charge for that."

I kept clicking.

Me: I'll leave prints for you at the gallery two doors down.

Him: "I don't need the photos, I need the money."

Me: "So do I."

I continue shooting.

Him: He starts counting (dollars, I guess.) Okay, that's 1. That's 2. That's 3. I am shooting away, telling him he's going to love the shots at the same time and that having the photos are going to be better than the money.

He strumbed a few notes and then rode away on his bike to get some coffee or something he came back with a minute or two later.

 

I was telling Al Kaplan about this scene,and he (who's knows my model budget!) suggested that I make him some magnets out of the photos that he could sell. (I made Al some business card magnets once with his photos on them to hand out at an art walk once.) I like the idea and probably will do it.

 

I am going to make a big print....16 x 20 at least of this guy for the gallery. I have no problems giving him 1/3 of the sale if it is sold. (The gallery 1/3, me 1/3, him 1/3.) Nor will I have any reservations about suggesting that I become his representative/manager and suggest that he sing Christmas songs at Christmas time!

 

I think my deal with him sounds fair enough...if he agrees...right?<div></div>

[danny_liao]

you guys sound like paparazzis. no respect.

[elijah_free]

Personally, I feel that if someone asks you not to take their picture, that should be respected. Not everyone wants what it is you want to offer. the other day I saw a great pic. But it was a very important moment between a mom and her young daughter. I felt that it was their moment and I had no right to take it, just because I own a camera. That never gives anyone the right to barge into someone's life, especially if they ask you not to. But that is only my two cents for what its worth.

[EricM]

there's certain things you're allowed to do in public and there's certain things you forfeit when step into the public domain. our morals and respect will always collide here.

[Sanford]

I photographed a street performing singer & guiter player in San Luis Obispo, CA some time back. Without missing a beat he worked "dollar please" and "thank you" into the tune. For a buck I got unlimited photos.

[subhash_tiwari]

Interesting ! The very issue I have been wondering about some time. Why is it that there is no objection to SEEING something, but there is to RECORDING the same information. What, exactly, is the rationale for that ? I do not believe this has to do with the possible misuses/abuses of pictures by modifying them, or posting them in inappropriate places, etc. - but rather to some other concern about privacy blah blah blah... Maybe someone else understands this better.

[wgpinc]

I'm with Eric on this.

[wgpinc]

Late and tired!<div></div>

[al_kaplan1]

I've had several conversations with Belle about this, as she mentioned. I've pretty much solved the problem for myself around town here. I'm the main subject and I've gotten enough publicity from the project that people seem to want to be in the photos! I was talking with Belle the other night and she was saying that I should take more photos without other people, feature the background, the scenery, the environment rather than other people. In the meantime I carry around a few small prints from the project in my pocket so I can show people what I'm doing, and I try to give the people in the photos a small print the next time I see them. Lately I've been shooting photos with the ducks at the park a couple blocks away. I hope that they don't all expect prints. There must be 50 ducks there.

[pmac]

"Why is it that there is no objection to SEEING something, but there is to RECORDING the same information. "

 

Go to a Symphony show. Ask them "Why is it that there is no objection to SEEING and HEARING something, but there is to RECORDING the same information."

[subhash_tiwari]

Paul, the symphony is a commercial enterprise. The better comparison might be a free concert in the park, where they likely would not object to people recording it on their small recorders.

[pmac]

And of course the guy with his guitar is not a commecial enterprise?

[subhash_tiwari]

But its his music thats the commercial enterprise. Thats not what was being recorded.

[huw_finney]

Here in the UK if you are in a public place you can photograph anything visible from there. There have been cases of people taking photos of children and being arrested under suspicion of peadiophila, but not for taking photos per se.

[pmac]

So it would be permissible to photograph a street performer playing music, but not make an audio recording. Conversely, would it be OK to audio record, but not photograph, say a juggler or a stilt walker, because their commercial enterprise is visual, not musical?

[subhash_tiwari]

I think so, Paul. However, the original question that I had raised had to do with whether being photographed represents a greater invasion of one's privacy than merely being looked at.

[StuartMoxham]

Sometimes photographers need to remember that there may well genuine reasons as to why a person does not want to be photographed. It is easy to say that this is a public place and I can photograph who I want but is is also easy to respect other peoples wishes. Remember that you may well be in a situation one day where you do not want to be photographed even if you are in a public place. I like to photograph as much as the next photographer and I don't want to ask permission for every shot I take. I like street photography, at the moment it is very new thing for me but so I have enjoyed what I have been doing. What ever we do in life we pave the way for the people who come after us. People form opinions very easily when you continue to photograph someone after they have said NO! you can be sure that they will discuss this with their friends and their friends will quickly add their negative experiences to the discussion next they begin to discuss about photographers being perverts and so the discussion goes on. A few days later the group of friends are in the park watching their kids play when along comes an old man with a camera (he is the grandfather of some of the other kids that are playing) the old man sees his grandchildren and decides to grab a few candids of his grandchildren before they see him. Well you know what happens next the grandfather is being attacked and verbally abused by this group of people because he has a camera and is photographing his grandchildren. In the end a byestander calls the police and the whole mess gets sorted out. The angry mob could have just ask the old guy what he was doing and he would have replied photographing my grandchildren I'm meeting them here for a picnic. But because the angry mobs experience of photographers was that they will carry on shooting anyway they did not bother to ask they just decided to take action.

 

Hope you can make some sense of what I have written.

[john_h.1]

"My wife explained it was a school field trip and pics can`t be made without the parents permission."

 

WIth all due respect Ronald, you wife has no idea what she is talking about. Unless you are in Texas, you can take pictures of anybody you want in a open public place.

[peter_svensson]

Huw said:

 

"Here in the UK if you are in a public place you can photograph anything visible from there."

 

It's the same in the U.S. The woman with the kids didn't know what she was talking about. But what's legal and what's considerate can differ, of course.

[michael s.]

For those unfamiliar with it, the <a href=http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DqC4>Texas reference is explained and discussed here</a>.

[jim_simmons]

Thank goodness Gary Winogrand didn't get all mushy about whether or not his subjects wanted to be photographed or not. Or we'd be without some of the best streets shots ever taken.

[gabrielma]

People in self-conscious places should wear a sign on their shirt that says "No pictures please!!" (don't they make "I'm with stupid" already?) so that way they could no longer fear having their picture taken "unknowingly" without their permission. That should put their mind at ease when going out in public. I wonder if the same applies for surveillance...why do they get upset at one photographer but not a collective of snoopers that really want to know who <i>you</i> are?

[david_doyle]

If a Winogrand, Frank, Arbus or Lange were to come alive today they'd 5h!t a brick and become investment bankers... What a phobic world we live in these days.