Annoyed Subject of the Day.

[jplummer]

<p>Dang Nick, you're right. I missed that. Isn't it ironic that England, the land of the security camera and the high regard to personal privacy even in public. I believe in personal privacy rights and would never take a picture of a person and use it in an embarrassing manner. But once you leave your home, you have very limited rights of privacy. I think most of us would be willing to delete or not use that embarrassing photo but if you don't want an embarrassing photo taken, then stop picking your nose in public.</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>I expected a long queue by this time but nobody came by before the owner spotted me. I should have thanked him.<br /> Tim: Tight detail abstractions in store windows is sort of what I do in the a.m. . <br /> Matt, m. stephens:<br /> Ironic signage and a goofy story to go with it makes a good day.<br /> <br /> <br /> I mostly do street shooting where people are having a pleasant time being out.<br /> Times have changed. Everybody's effected by new fears. There are a lot of people with questionable legal status, runaway juveniles, untreated psychos, and other messy stuff that make it a pain to do street. <br /> In the U.S. we view photography as expression of speech. It isn't practical to allow <em>this</em> but not <em>that</em> before it is expressed. What is done later with a picture IS subject to all kinds of rules. We can just keep making more rules. :-) We place a moral value on privacy only <em>after</em> it has been violated. <br /> Does our system give up our freedom from the unwanted gaze? Giving up that right has the potential to cause real harm to our other rights.</p>

[jeff_livacich]

<p>Hey Keith Reeder-<br>

You know what irritates me? People who disturb wildlife by taking pictures of them. Like that owl on your website. That owl looks plenty annoyed, and I don't blame him. I'm with him 100%.</p>

<p> </p>

[Brad_]

Our fine feathered friends also have rights to not be pestered and annoyed...

[Mike D]

<p>Keith has some good images and articles on his site. I suspect this privacy issue highlights a difference in culture between the US and Britain. It has actually caught me by surprise. Americans are typically very strong on freedom and independence. It's ironic that the streets of London are totally surveilled by video cameras. </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>I make my living in privacy law, and frankly I'd make street photography of any sort illegal: you clearly have <em>no bloody clue </em>just how invasive and offensive unsolicited photography is to many people.<br /> Well <em>I do</em>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, whoop-de-doo!</p>

<p>"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."</p>

<p>I'm with Shakespeare on this one.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

I would support any move to make street photography illegal. If only because it should be made punishable to be so blatantly unimaginative to think that we need yet more of that sort of boring imagery.

[MichaelChang]

<p>I'd rather support a more kindly approach by a photographer respecting the wishes of any stranger's desire to not have their property or persons photographed. </p>

<p>The legality of street photography is premised on solid legal principles but not everything legal is moral, ethical, or neighborly. </p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>. If only because it should be made punishable to be so blatantly unimaginative to think that we need yet more of that sort of boring imagery.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> Yes, because what you've shown us is so much more interesting.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

That old fiddle again, Jeff?<br>But this time, you're absolutely right. It is.

[m_stephens]

<blockquote>

<p>I would support any move to make street photography illegal.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What about street drawing? Illegal too?</p>

[tonmestrom]

<blockquote>

<p>I suspect this privacy issue highlights a difference in culture between the US and Britain.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>not, it's much worse than that. It's about someone pushing his own biased sense of morality down other people's throats. I hardly ever get into trouble out there or have discussions like the one above and I shoot all over Europe. This behaviour from people on the sideline who haven't got a clue what they are talking about however seems to become more and more widespread. The answer is obvious....</p>

[rick_m.]

<blockquote>

<p>I would support any move to make street photography illegal. If only because it should be made punishable to be so blatantly unimaginative to think that we need yet more of that sort of boring imagery.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>LOL. Take a picture of a bum at ISO 6400, de-saturate it in photoshop. Put it in a spare black frame and eh voila....street photography. An acquired taste I am sure. </p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Take a picture of a bum at ISO 6400, de-saturate it in photoshop. Put it in a spare black frame and eh voila....street photography.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You must not spend much time looking. Try <a href="http://www.tonmestrom.com/index.html">this</a>, your characterization is ridiculous and insulting.</p>

[m_stephens]

<blockquote>

<p>LOL. Take a picture of a bum at ISO 6400, de-saturate it in photoshop. Put it in a spare black frame and eh voila....street photography. An acquired taste I am sure.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> All of art is an acquired taste, no matter the technique or subject. "LOL"</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>FYI: Keith Reeder is a British lawyer--public servant is what he calls himself (<em>bloody</em> was the clue!). So knowing the intricacies of the US Constitution may be beyond him (beneath him?).</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br /><br /><br />Privacy law is just about the same here in England. I would have been just as surprised if he made that post on an English forum.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>With pseudo-hi-def<br>

"You shoot IN store."</p><div></div>

[Brad_]

>>> Take a picture of a bum at ISO 6400, de-saturate it in photoshop. Put it in a spare black frame and

eh voila....street photography.

 

>>>> You must not spend much time looking. Try this, your characterization is ridiculous and insulting.

 

Insulting for sure. Still, with such strong and expert views about how street photography is created, I

assumed there would be some great photography lurking under the name. Here's what I found:

[prendy]

Isn't Google Street View the ultimate street photographer?

[rick_m.]

<blockquote>

<p>You must not spend much time looking. Try <a href="http://www.tonmestrom.com/index.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">this</a>, your characterization is ridiculous and insulting.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Try developing a sense of humor. But while we are at it the ones you posted were supposed to make me swoon? Good lord. </p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>JD,<br>

Cool! I was counting on people not knowing these things but with TV crime shows they think anything is possible. Hmmmm, could that really make people extra sensitive these days?</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>But while we are at it the ones you posted were supposed to make me swoon?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

A whole lot better than the ones you have shown us. And, the photographer posted a little bit above in this thread. Maybe you can explain what you don't like about them.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>"You know what drives me nuts in public places? Children! They make ungodly amounts of irritating noise, they behave in totally irrational ways, and they present a clear hazard to traffic and other pedestrians. Little buggers should be outlawed."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>They could be put in isolation somewhere to harvest into "totally irrational" adults.<br>

And then the noisiest and most hazardous of the crop could be selected as internet 'chatter-boxes' - or public riot organizers. </p>

<p>WW<br>

</p>

[jim_service]

<p>Brad: +1<br>

And why stop with street photography and drawing? We should outlaw street thinking. Remember, today's ideas are tomorrow's ideology!</p>

[johncrosley]

<p>Mark Todd and other participants:</p>

<p>Whenever someone tells me they own the sidewalk or even the street, I ask them this:</p>

<p>'Where is your deed that shows you own the sidewalk (or the street?).'</p>

<p>'When you bring me that, I'll examine it and maybe take it to a lawyer or title company to see if you really do own the street and/or sidewalk. Until then, back off.'</p>

<p>Under the law, most home owners do own the sidewalk. In my last home I owned to the middle of the street. But in both cases as in most areas there was an 'easement' for passageway and other public purposes across the sidewalk, (and road) so even if a person does own the sidewalk and street, you almost certainly have a right to use it for public purposes in most cities and most cases.<br>

Another one that trumps complainers is this:<br>

'I think I know my rights pretty well and my reading of my rights comes from three years of an ABA accredited law school followed by my graduation with high honors (cum laude), passing the state bar the first attempt, admission to about ten different state and federal courts and practicing for 17 years (before retiring in the 1980s.)</p>

<p>'So, when your own knowledge about rights equals or exceeds mine, let me know. In the meantime, please call your attorney for advice; he'll charge you $200 to $600 an hour to tell you exactly what I'm telling you now, so please step aside and let me get about my business, and if you do that, I won't sue you for interference with my rights.'</p>

<p>I save that for only the worst cases when 'push comes to shove' and it's an absolute 'must have' shot I ain't got yet. </p>

<p>There's just no sense in having the guy call the cops and having them read him his rights, or worse, having a (mostly rural) cop or one from a small jurisdiction who doesn't understand the Constitution side with a complainant, then having to wait to be vindicated later by some small town or rural judge who himself may not understand the law or constitution.</p>

<p>Cops in places even like LA often misunderstand the law, but in such cases, I ask them to 'call your lieutenant before you do something rash, would you please?' always talking sanely, politely, rationally and with authority. </p>

<p>Cops are trained to 'control the situation, but I give them nothing to control and talk to them at their level or at the level a supervisor or Deputy D.A. would talk to them, which keeps them in line and leaves them without any axe to grind.</p>

<p>Cops get hot heads too, and sometimes they can be called by their brothers or brother-in-law - a relationship you will know nothing about. In such cases that can lead to a very bad outcome for you, especially if you rant.</p>

<p>That's a time when it's probably not a good time to 'stand on your rights' unless there are a load of friendly witnesses, but you won't necessarily know about it, so be careful.</p>

<p>Choose your battles wisely, tread carefully, and know when to back down.</p>

<p>I challenged an LA lieutenant once about the deletions his cops demanded and he backed them up.</p>

<p>(Later I recovered the deleted shots. ;~)</p>

<p>When I told him I was going to resist his order as unlawful, he said 'That's OK, I'll just impound your car' which was right in the center at night of South Central LA, a decidedly ethnic neighborhood loaded with $50,000+ worth of camera gear (hidden) and dozens of terabyte plus hard drives with my entire life's work, not backed up elsewhere (teaching me a valuable lesson). An impound tow company would inventory the car for days then steal all and claim it never was there!</p>

<p>I backed down, but he didn't know I could recover deleted shots. I also learned my lesson about backups -- the backups were with the originals, which is a very bad idea. I also learned a valuable lesson about 'standing on rights' in the middle of a hostile neighborhood faced with hostile cops.</p>

<p>Rights may appear very cut and dried in the abstract when the issue is fought out in court with ample witnesses, but cops do not always testify honestly, they know how to characterize your actions and phrases wrongly, falsely, and/or derogatorily, especially if witnesses other than cop friends are absent. It's your word against theirs and they are professional witnesses, and judges are hesitant to disbelieve a cop.</p>

<p>Courts do not always dispense justice was a lesson I learned in law school.</p>

<p>At most they TRY to dispense justice.</p>

<p>What they do very well is dispense FINALITY (except in never-ending murder cases) and often at great cost.</p>

<p>If you're in a sensitive occupation, one trumped up charge can ruin your life and your career.</p>

<p>Be sensitive to that.</p>

<p>(camera phones and such do help . . . . . . hint!. But beware of laws against 'surreptitious recording' which can be make such actions illegal and the basis of a criminal charge against you.')</p>

<p>john</p>

<p>John (Crosley)</p>

<p>(not practicing for 25 years).</p>

<p> </p>