Shooting Strangers

[fotografz]

Henk, the issue wasn't the reuse of an image previously used. It

was one of using a Stock Image with attendant standard

releases which are not a guarantee of absolute legal rights. Mis-

use the picture and you could be libel.

[henk]

Marc,

 

About this dreadfull ordeal, we can all make mistakes....

 

Would it have made any difference if you did a reshoot, got a signed releaseform(before taking pictures) explicitly stating the photographs would be used for this specific ad, and compensated the model for his/her time.

Or before using the photograph would have set up a 'new' contract with the model in which permission was granted for this ad, compensating the model for public exposure(or whatever you call it)?

 

Or should you have done something else?

 

Greetings,

[douglas k.]

Karel wrote: "My point is that in my opinion you are invading someone's privacy way before "the person raises a stink" (and probably have invaded lots of others people's privacy who did not "raise a stink" wether or not "YOU are in the right" and can find a cop to "set the bozo straight".<p>

We can define "privacy" objectively in a legal sense, and in that sense, in public places, there is a right to photograph strangers in many nations, including my home. That's all that was being suggested. Subjective definitions of privacy, such as yours, will differ among different individuals and hence are only useful for judging your own behavior -- e.g., if something is legally permissible but you feel it is wrong, then you may choose to not behave in that fashion. But what right do you have to impose your values on others' behavior, when that behavior is legal? (You can tell that I am an American, as we get very preachy about our "rights"!)<p>

 

Karel wrote: "Some people don't mind being photographed: go ahead and have fun. But some people do mind: please respect their feelings and leave them alone. This is not a matter of being in your (legal) right but just being a considerate human being."<p>

And how do we separate out those people? Are we to simply know, by looking at a person, whether or not she would mind being photographed?<p>

I think one thing that has been overlooked, but that Glenn touched on, is that street photography is often fun, that subjects often enjoy and are engaged by the experience. Those negative reactions are few and far between. But thank God that, at least in many places, there is a legal right to photograph these strangers. Hey Karel -- do you remember Rodney King? He was a black guy in Los Angeles who was beaten senseless by a bunch of racist white cops. The whole thing was captured on tape by some guy with a new video camera. Should that guy have NOT taped this atrocity, under the presumption that the cops wouldn't want to be depicted as brutal thugs? Yes, the connection between that incident and street photography is tenuous, but hopefully it illuminates why these "rights" -- rights which you belittle -- are important to a free society.

[mike_scott2]

Getting back toward the original topic... I liked Jeff's three categories of people and I'm pretty sure I can spot the 1's and 3's without too much trouble. How do you spot the 2's - those who won't object or might even be willing to be photographed by a stranger on the street?

 

I'm assuming being more comfortable may come to me with time. I've got to work on my approach I guess. For the experienced street shooters - did it come to you easily from the start or did you have to work at it to get where you are now?

[jennifer_kwasniewski]

I have a television news background and while it's been awhile. I do remember that in most situations where the image is being used for editorial purposes and not advertising and if the photo was shot on or from a public place...it's fair game. This is a very good article from PDN that sums it up fairly well. <ahref="http://www.pdnonline.com/businessresources/modelrelease.html#">hyperlink</a>

[jennifer_kwasniewski]

I didn't write the hyperlink correctly....here it is. www.pdnonline.com/businessresources/modelrelease.html#

[arthuryeo]

Todd asked how Mary Ellen Mark did her work with the "damaged" people; well, she get to know them and build a relationship with them before taking their photos.

[arthuryeo]

Nice link, Jenn. Enjoyed reading it.

[arthuryeo]

I also think HC-B's style is just the opposite from Mary Ellen Mark's (MEM). Which style is more useful or more effective?

<p>If your intention is to write about a people with photos to illustrate and to persuade, I guess MEM's would be more effective. If your intention is just take creative single shots with no intention to study a people and empathize with that people, HC-B's is the way to go, then.</p>

<p>In the last 2 months, I have browsed thru somewhere around 15-20 photo essays published by HC-B, Stieglitz, Weston, Winogrand & MEM. In particular, I was very intrigued by HC-B's style. In some ways, his style is playful (like Mozart's music), creative and entertaining to look at; especially, his famous ones. The emotions I have after looking at his photos are normally that of 'wow' and 'good timing' and 'fast thinking'. I seldom come away with a 'the subjects need help.' MEM's photo-works stir up more empathy.</p>

<p>The more I read about their works, the more I ask why am I shooting photos of strangers? Did I truly just wanted to record life in a fraction of a second or to persuade my viewers about something I believe in? Only you can answer it for yourself and you can, then, apply the appropriate style.</p>

[karel_geertsema]

Hi Douglas,

 

Since you queted me 3 times, maybe some more thoughts about this highly interesting subject.

 

First of all, you are right ehh, correct that is :-), about me being subjective when I talk about something like "legal" right and my personal "moral" right. I know this is a very fine line and I'm trying to get a hold on it along the lines of this forum. I still don't have the right answers, but I think there are two extremes:

 

- street photographers who are collecting their own freek picture shows: "gee look at the weirdo I shot today!"

Personally, I hate this exploitation. It may be legally right but subjective wrong. Flame me for my opinion if you like.

 

- street photographers who are truly engaged in what they see and who do deeply care about their subjects and who hope that their photography of appaling things might help improve things. Maybe the Rodney King video belongs here, maybe the photography of the Vietnam napalm girl, maybe lots of others on poverty in the cities, child labour and so on.

(and probaly there are some freak-show collectors whose work turns out to "do good" as well, to make it even more complicated).

 

 

It is the intention that counts. Where do you stand?

 

 

And I agree that is it often difficult, if not impossible, to see an interesting situation and split-second decide wether or not your subjetc agrees in being photographed while you fiddle with composition and lighting.

 

Difficult but interesting...

 

And of course there are the vast amount of "photographs with people in it" that cause no problem (except maybe if you photograph a loving couple where one of the two is cheating on their wife or husband :-) )

 

Keep the discussion going,

Karel

[douglas k.]

Re Karel's comments above: My original post describes legal rights and was not conveying a recommendation to shoot anyone, anywhere, anytime. The law confers specific rights, within which each photographer decides when to shoot and when to walk away. I agree that shooting every odd-looking person one encounters is akin to collecting a "freak's gallery" if there is no theme or project holding them together, and so I don't do this. And to tie this to another active thread, I also shy from photographing street people simply for the sake of it, though I have shot street people in anonymous, iconic compositions (faces unseen) when I foresee a point to the photo. I generally shy from photographing people who are down-on-their-luck unless I can do it quietly and without showing their faes, since to do otherwise seems a bit predatory -- I'm not Mary Ellen Mark, after all. And I would not photograph a reticent party unless he/she was engaged in some flagrant public display (such people, such as Mardi Gras revelers, usually seem to appreciate the attention, however, so it's a non-issue).

 

But, to tie this with some other recent posts: once I press the button, the film is mine. I may later decide not to print a picture, but I will never hand over film to anyone, no matter how angry he may be.