'The Restaurant'

"definition practically negates itself". Wikipedia's definition not mine.

Where does one stop being a "free-lance" photographer and become a  "paparazi" by your definition?

I've been mulling this photograph for quite some time. Much has been written about it and certain aspects of street photography. I will not say that I have read all of it but have browsed it. Quite interesting, the latter...

To the photograph: I think I would have cropped the photograph a little differently. I see it as a 3:2 composition, which happens to be the native crop ratio of the camera. For me there are two 'zones' of interest: first, the boy, with the baloon to one side of him and the graphic of the salad leaves behind him forming his backdrop; second, the smooching couple, with the plain dark wall behind their heads and the girl in the extreme top right corner (a mirror or an opening) forming their backdrop. The two 'zones' are linked by the table-top. The resulting crop is uploaded...

I do not think photographing people kissing in public places such as a restaurant an intrusion into their privacy - which paparazzi are notorious for.

taking photos of  strangers in a restaurant is in of itself an intrusion. Were I the owner I'd require you to delete the photo, leave and don't come back.

Secondly, the photo is posted on the internet presumably without consent. If the smoochers later became aware of this and John was a wealthy man, then sometime thereafter John might be a little less wealthy :-) -

It is easy to take a photo. It is not easy (for me anyway) to thereafter walk up and ask for a signed release.

Who took the photo in Time Square (end of war -sailor kissing girl)? I forgot. He said (I read) that he was sorry he ever took the shot because of all the legal hassel over not having a release. Everything on public property so I don't understand the problem but there was one.

All this is not important for this particular photo but it is worth discussion in general terms and to me, in that  this photo de-dignifies (I know that is not a word) the subjects, it therefore  flies in the face of what I think is fair.

re; above.  VJ day   Alfred Eisensta...don't know the spelling.

Generally, I reject cropping, and have since I began taking photos reasoning that if I can't get it right in the viewfinder maybe I should take another photo.

In fact, however, this is a crop from an otherwise creditable photo, with part of the right side cropped off (lens did not have enough millimeter reach to attempt what is displayed in my crop, so it was necessary, and desirable.  With a high megapixel sensor, the rules may be a little looser since there is no denigration of quality, or it's not too much, so a crop is not very noticeable.

I like your crop very much -- it's a very worthy use of changing borders, and in the future I might consider displaying this photo that way if challenged to 'work it up' again.

That's my ultimate compliment!

Thanks for all the work.

And also the aside to Meir who seems to be on some sort of rant the last couple of days about nothing that is legally relevant.

Best wishes to you and thanks.

john

John (Crosley)

I was addressing Rajat, re: his last comment.  However, you are correct...". It is not legally relevent because it will never be submitted for publication.