cyanatic

October 1, 2015

`I don't want to imply that there are clearly defined "sides" in this thread, but there does appear to be a tendency to lean in one direction or the other in regard to artist statements. The book Les linked to sounds like it would be amusing to read, but as Anders and Fred point out, the extreme examples of high flown artist statements are an easy target. Six years ago I would have gleefully picked up the flag to march against the seemingly pretentious. But using Fred's story as an analogy, that was before I decided to "pick up the dictionary" and try to make sense of the things I didn't understand.

Anders Hingel -- "Still, I believe it is a worthwhile exercise for each of us to try to formulate why and what we shoot as photographers and try to communicate with our photos: Formulating in words what makes our photos particular and personal and different from other photos around and what our photographic ambitions are. The result would be an "artist statement" which each of us can decide to share with others or keep under lock according to temper and ambitions."

</blockquote>

I've gone through the exercise of writing an artist statement, both for a book I published, and for some awards events I have entered. Regardless of the outcome, the writing of the statement forced me to think more deeply about my work, to better refine and edit it, and to better understand what it was that I was doing and what it was that I was really striving to communicate. Winogrand may have believed that he was merely trying to understand what something looked like photographed (although I seriously question how wholeheartedly he believed in that statement), but Szarkowski didn't put his reputation on the line to champion him without finding some real substance in Winogrand's work.

As for complex or less frequently used words versus simple ones. Yes, simplicity is the best in most cases, but as Fred pointed out, some of those more complex words convey nuances that the simpler words miss. And sometimes it is the spaces between the words, or the paradox of seemingly incompatible words, that convey feelings and depths of meaning that are beyond the reach of simpler and more conventional word combinations. Like awakening from a dream that leaves you with emotions and a sense place and situation that are beyond your ability to describe. You have to resort to paradox or words with more refined meaning in order to even approximate what you feel.

A photograph or painting possessed of that complexity and subtlety can often be mistaken for something else by an uninformed, resistant, or less experienced viewer. An artist statement can sometimes act as a guide to help someone see, and feel, the value in a work that caused the gallery, curator, or museum staff to put it on display in the first place. That which is easily apprehended (a beautiful landscape, a technically polished print of an Arabian horse, a tack sharp osprey with a fish in its talons, or a visual pun street photograph) needs nothing to guide its viewing because what you see is what you get. What grabs the viewer's attention upon the first viewing is generally what grabs them upon the second. Easily understood and appreciated. And easily forgotten. Works of art with some meat on their bones are often easily passed by or derided. "That's blurry!" "My two-year-old could have splashed paint like that!" "It's a snap shot!"

Yes, there's pretension to be found in the so-called "Art World". Yes there are cliques, and fads, and politics. But there's also a lot of good stuff to be discovered as well. So if I look at something and think, "What a bunch of twaddle!", the artist statement that accompanies it just might help me to see it in a different way. It might just hit a nerve and skew my vision just enough to grok that particular dream.

September 19, 2015

Long before I took up photography in a "serious" way (whatever that means), I played in a blues band. Our drummer and bass player were both African American. I remember when we did a group pose for a publicity shot, the bass player didn't like the results and commented that "most photographers don't know how to photograph black people". Later, I came to think that it was mostly a question of how one adjusted exposure and color balance for darker skin tones.

Regardless, I found these articles interesting and hope I am not duplicating another post (I did not find one).

"Racial Bias in photography" --

http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/04/16/303721251/light-and-dark-the-racial-biases-that-remain-in-photography

"Shirley cards and optimization of color film for Caucasian skin tones..."

http://priceonomics.com/how-photography-was-optimized-for-white-skin/

September 5, 2015

Chicago's Loop, one of my favorite haunts...<div>

00dTUq-558324184.jpg.0ad20f50409cc037a77c22c4363fb581.jpg

</div>

August 23, 2015

oops! <div>

00dS9v-558150684.jpg.456ecb6ed0b5c4c5cb82b816907a2378.jpg

</div>

August 23, 2015

Good work here!

August 22, 2015

Nice, Barry! (and I don't mean that in a prurient sense! the light, color, detail, and moment...)

After the Cubs game...<div></div>

August 22, 2015

Addison St.<div>

00dS7m-558145784.jpg.dc063170342159f46940ca055c1ff0ee.jpg

</div>

August 22, 2015

Phil S. -- The act of framing or of waiting for a specific moment when certain elements come together is a way of 'staging',

</blockquote>

Good point. Yes, absolutely. Something else I failed to mention when talking about "staged". I think my initial "instinct" or appreciation for staged vs the allegedly "unstaged" has already undergone a change, largely as the result of further thoughts and comments gleaned from this very thread. Another reason I so appreciate some of the better, more thoughtful discussions that occur on PN. If I stay locked into my own initial responses and opinions, I am doomed to limit both my own work and my appreciation of the work of others.

August 22, 2015

Fred -- Thanks so much for bringing this feature back. Rather than bemoan "the decline of PN!" you have just gone out and attempted to do something about engaging the members here. And this is the type of thougtful thread I most appreciate. The thought, aesthetics, philosophy, strategy (call it what you will) of photography or of a given photograph. (As opposed to "how did DiCorcia do this?" or "what camera did he use?" "Is it film or digital?")

I am most familiar with DiCorcia because of the significant <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia">New York Supreme Court decision</a> he was involved in and its subsequent impact upon public candid photography.

Regarding Cuba Libre itself (I have never seen it before, and I think it's a great choice, Fred), I'm not sure I have much to add to what others have already said. My first impressions of it were to note the cinematic feel of it, the echo of Edward Hopper, the echo of Crewdson, and wonder whether it was staged, partially staged, or entirely a candid moment. If the scene and lighting were truly like this....well, wow! What a golden opportunity to come across.

I don't want to make my comments center solely on whether or not this was staged (I have not read all the comments in this thread -- primarily because I don't want to skew my initial impressions -- so maybe this has been revealed already), but I'm leaning toward thinking that it was at least partially staged in terms of lighting and the "planting" or direction of a few of the people who appear in the photograph. Does this even matter? To me it does, but that is only my personal, unbidden, feeling about setting up a scene. I don't want to engage in discussions about the worthiness or value of a photo that is staged vs a photo that is not staged. The photo is striking and fascinating to me (and filled with atmosphere) regardless. However, whether I consciously desire to do so or not, I tend to be more appreciative of a truly candid moment than of a staged moment. In a way, this doesn't even seem to make sense. If this scene was completely staged, then it took a certain amount of technical skill, planning, forethought, and imagination in order to bring it to fruition. If DiCorcia just happened to wander down a street in Havana or Cienfuegos and come across this scene and photograph it, why should I appreciate it more than if he created it out of whole cloth? The skills involved in finding it and photographing it as a purely candid moment are not as many as the skills required to stage it. Such is the perverse nature of my instinct that I would react to an image in the exact opposite way. But it is not "skills" alone which cause me to feel that way. It is also the thought that such a truly cinematic moment should present itself in the "real" world (or in the 2 dimensional simulacrum of it that a photograph represents).

All of that aside, the other sensation that comes to me from this photograph is the atmosphere. The Old World ambiance (the 3 staggered levels of rolling steel doors and the open, ornamental grating above them are seemingly such a South American or Mediterranean phenomenon) makes me feel as if I have stumbled into an Ernest Hemingway novel or short story. It has darkly Romantic existential feel (if one can string those three words together) that is immediately engages me and draws me in. (I have chosen a Hemingway as a way of describing this, but Phil S. choice of a David Lynch film is also apt.)

EDIT:

<a href="https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/x18689-box-003j-pl-n3a.jpg?quality=65&strip=color&w=838" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">THIS</a>, <a href="http://www.thegreatleapsideways.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Philip-LorcadiCorcia_Hustlers_03-925x608.jpg" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">THIS</a>, <a href="http://40.media.tumblr.com/ba897670d3c02cfa4208bc9fc9b97083/tumblr_n2njfjTJAa1qf4o9qo8_1280.jpg" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">THIS</a>, <a href="http://www.elephantmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Screen-Shot-2015-04-01-at-13.56.26.png" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">THIS</a>, and <a href="http://www.sothebys.com/content/dam/stb/lots/N09/N09275/158N09275_6H3GQ.jpg" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">THIS</a> seem to show a mix of sexual persuasions and a pretty even-handed treatment.

</blockquote>

Maybe I should read through an entire thread first. I came across your examples above, Fred, and realized how little I know of DiCorcia other than a few limited pieces and his involvement in the landmark court case.

I want to be sure that my earlier remarks regarding staged vs not staged are not misconstrued. I was speaking only of coming across an erstwhile street scene and not staged, studio, or portrait work in general. Except for the headshot of the woman in red (your first link, Fred), I have never seen the other photographs. I enjoy them and admire them. And as I look at them I see connections between them and some of your own work. A different style, and lit differently, but in some of the DiCorcia examples you linked to, I see, and feel, a similarity with some of the work that you do, Fred. I don't know if I will ever get to that point, but it is a style and approach that, in the back of my mind, I would like to attempt some day.

July 5, 2015

Dave S: "the vitriol The Americans stirred up...among...the editorial board of Pop Photo."

</blockquote>

I am not surprised. The "popular" in Popular Photo pretty much says it all. It was interesting to read what the editors of that time wrote about The Americans. I don't think many people today would so much as blink an eye at the book. In the US of its time, however, I think it played a necessary role by offering a counterpoint to the upbeat, Caucasian-centric, apple pie optimism of the 50's. And that disturbed and offended a lot of people. (To say nothing of the grainy, off-kilter look of the photographs themselves: anathema to the Pop Photo sensibility.)

July 5, 2015

Thanks. I have seen some of his photos before but never really looked into his work.

June 28, 2015

Ridiculous. How do they propose to enforce this? For what good it does, I signed the petition.

June 28, 2015

Thanks for this Lex. Sad to hear of anyone's death, but someone of similar age, and working in a similar genre...I don't know. I'm sorry that I'm only now seeing his work thanks to the link to his gallery. Yes, he was talented and some of his photos are inspiring to me. A slightly different touch and feel. Subtle, but strong and very polished. Sorry I'm only getting acquainted with his work now.

June 8, 2015

be rather specific as to what they like about this or that particular photo--giving whatever reasons or degree of analysis they might want to offer in the process.

--Lannie

</blockquote>

Lannie, my apologies -- Your original post was rather clear about what you were asking but I went off on a different tangent (...that never happens here on PN threads, does it?)

There are many photos I could choose from (including many by posters in this thread) but I will start with this one from Robert Frank, "London 1952-53":

http://blog.ricecracker.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/ntm5-1-16.jpeg

A bleak, foggy, working class neighborhood in London A long view down the rowhomes. An open hearse door at right, and at far left the figure of a small child running down the street. Another figure down the street framed in the rear window of the hearse. The symbolism is easy enough to find (whether or not Frank intended it, the image is dripping with symbolism), but it is primarily the visual power of the scene that strikes me. It is a very personal choice in the sense that I tend to be fond of grainy, somewhat gloomy, or ambiguous, black and white street scenes. I find oddity, ambiguity, and grit uplifting when it is done right. Some people might find the image depressing, but I find a transcending artistic power in it.

A photograph that I appreciate for somewhat similar reasons to Frank's is this one by Bruce Davidson, "Circus Dwarf, Palisades, New Jersey, 1958":

http://www.rit.edu/news/umag/winter2009/images/p22-Davidson-1.jpg

Here there is also oddity and grit in black and white, but the focus is more on a specific individual than an overall scene. I don't always know what it is that grabs me about a photograph. To be honest, if this were a clown of normal stature standing there smoking in a muddy circus environment I am not sure it would have quite the same impact for me. Yet it is not so much the fact that the clown is a dwarf and therefore unusual as it is that he is supposed to be unusual and something about the way Davidson has captured him causes me to think of him as a person. It is 1958, a different world from ours today, and I wonder how frequently was this person stared at or laughed at (in or out of the clown outfit) in his time? What was his life like? What was circus life like? Particularly in 1958? It's the sense of another world in terms of both time (1958) and place (a circus) that also strikes me and takes me away. Lastly, there is an echo of Diane Arbus in here. Although I will not use one of her photos as an example, I easily could (as Fred has already done) because she is one of my favorite photographers.

As I write this it strikes me how amazingly narrow my photographic taste must appear to be. What? No color? No landscapes? No traditionally "beautiful" images to select? I could probably select some, but they would be chose because I find them "pretty". But pretty rarely grabs me on a deep level. Strangely enough, I do appreciate portraits and fashion photography, even though I do few of the former and none of the latter. But I'll just leave with this image by a photographer named Kelsie Taylor whose work I enjoy and came across on flickr:

I find it both touching and odd (there's oddity again, a common theme with me in terms of what I like). Taylor has an interesting style to her (his?) images that I like.

June 5, 2015

Lanny -- Initially one might think this is a simple question and yet it's not. I did not at all take it as you asking about a "formula" (we all know there is none). It sort of echoes something I have been pondering in recent days which also seems a bit simplistic -- a question roughly along the lines of "Why do we photograph the way we do?" or "What do you like to photograph?".

I also found it interesting that the people who have participated in this thread (and some of the PN photographers who have been mentioned) are photographers with whom I feel a kinship -- not always in terms of us photographing in the same way or in the same style, but a kinship of approach in our own work and toward appreciating the works of others (famous or not famous). I could easily see people responding to your question with platitudes about classic composition, or talking about "decisive moment", "telling a story", pointing to the "usual suspects" of famous photographers, or providing links to easily accessible eye candy. Not there is anything wrong with any of that (these things can all play a role in the impact of a photograph, and in the end what each of us is impressed by is very subjective) but that seems the more conventional road and response. Many of the responses and examples shown in this thread are not what I would think of as the typical "man in the street" selections.

Oh, another thing -- Thomas K -- I looked at your photo and also the accompanying work you have in the same gallery on your zenfolio site: interesting work and I think they all gain strength seen as a body.

June 5, 2015

Wow. The more things change, the more they stay the same: both Richard Prince and the discussions we have on PN. I haven't engaged in a good Richard Prince discussion since 2009:

<a href="/philosophy-of-photography-forum/00VHOl">http://www.photo.net/philosophy-of-photography-forum/00VHOl</a>

Good old Luis G. I hope he is well. I'd be interested to hear what he had to say about this latest project by Prince. Regardless of what any of us may think of Prince, he is not the sole representative of the much vilified "Art World".

April 25, 2015

Note to self -- Never post late at night when you are tired, cranky, and frustrated over things which have no real connection to the topic being discussed.

Fred G -- The fact that "the people" may have become a bunch of "manipulated clones" can't be laid at the doorstep of one particular cause.

</blockquote>

No, of course not. And that's not what I meant to imply. If I had not gotten carried away by a anti-corporatist, anti-Godwin's Law tirade, the following pretty much sums up all I really meant to say:

1.) Certain types of manipulation should be acceptable for news photographs (dodging and burning, contrast, perhaps some cropping, b&w conversion maybe?, etc). But other types of manipulation (inserting or removing major elements which significantly alter what appeared in front of the camera) should not. I'm sure AP, Reuters, professional Journalism organizations and the like all have their guidelines which seek to cover the specifics. This should be self-governing (which I believe it currently is), no governmental agency or legislative body should be regulating this outside of enforcing already existing laws concerning libel and slander.

2.) Item 1 above has absolutely nothing to do with Photoshop specifically, nor does it imply that anyone should be criticized or restricted from utilizing any type of manipulation they want to use (analog or digital) in their work. It is desirable that someone does not pass off a manipulated photo as an actual news event which never really occurred. There need be no laws governing this (excepting those currently existing laws mentioned in 1. above). Professionals are answerable to the clients or organizations for which they work, or to which they belong. Private individuals will face the scorn of the public when their hoax is exposed.

3.) I chose to interpret A.T. Burke's comments to be pointing out that, in the context of the article under discussion, photographic manipulation could be used to further nefarious ends or agendas and we should be on guard. Based upon what he had seen of the world since 1919, his viewpoint, though interpreted as a bit extreme by those of us born decades later, gives him a certain wariness and concern toward technological developments which we take for granted and generally see as beneficial. I also felt that he was jumped on a bit and that his words were misconstrued to encompass a draconian censorship, or condemnation, of all photographers who manipulate their photographs. I don't think he meant to imply that digital manipulation is the only or worst means by which oppressive governments or big business collectives seek to control and manipulate human beings.

Lastly, I thank you, Fred, for showing great restraint in not even referring to, or taking me to task, for my tirade regarding Godwin's Law!

April 25, 2015

I feel compelled to chime in here, particularly regarding my interpretation of A.T. Burke's comments. First, however, some brief comments on the article itself, since that is what this thread was originally about. From the article, a quote from Maggie Steber, photographer:

"We can show reality. Or we can, in projects which might be more personal, photograph fictional or staged stories. But we cannot mix them."

</blockquote>

Perhaps it is the fact that my BA was in Journalism that I so strongly agree with this statement by Ms Steber. To Jeff Spirer's point, I don't think we should put photography "into a box", but for certain genres of photography (photojournalism being prime among them) it is necessary for there to be certain guidelines. If that is a box, then so be it. No one is stopping anyone from manipulating to their heart's content. Fantastical manipulations like those done by Miss Aniela <a href="https://calliegarp.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/the-smothering-2008.jpg">https://calliegarp.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/the-smothering-2008.jpg</a> are extremely popular and have been around for years. Photographers can use all manner of manipulations, digital or analog, to communicate their ideas, to create works of art, to express themselves, to give us more creative portraits of individuals famous or not famous, etc. But allowing certain types of manipulation into a photographic genre (photojournalism) which purports to show a two-dimensional version of something which, in reality, actually occurred is altogether different in my opinion.

There was an article in American Photo a few months back (“Processing the News” December 2014) that showed some selected before and after versions of news photographer's work. Although I did not agree with some of the choices from an aesthetic standpoint (the levels of a photo of protesters in Cairo were adjusted to the point that the photo looked more like an Annie Liebovitz set piece for Vanity Fair than a news photograph), they primarily utilized the digital equivalents of dodging and burning. In one there was a slight toning effect. I can live with that. But to my knowledge, none of them manipulated the figures or objects (meaning they did not add or delete any) that appeared in front of their lens. Clone out a dust spot? Fine. Clone out a garbage can or an existing light pole because it created an inconvenient merge? Not fine. I don't know what the contemporary journalistic guidelines are for photographs, but I suspect that some of the things I mentioned above are fairly close to the guidelines in terms of what can and cannot be done. Anything goes in the world of art and I firmly believe that certain types of photographs can be art. But if you include photojournalism under that “anything goes” umbrella then it loses its meaning and purpose. (This doesn't necessarily follow from what I just wrote, but what just popped into my mind was the thought of how much impact Russell Sorgi's "Hotel Genesee Suicide" would lose if it was a contemporary photograph and we found out that it was just a gruesome version of a Miss Aniela style Photoshop manipulation: <a href="http://www.loveisapreludetosorrow.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/suicide.jpg">http://www.loveisapreludetosorrow.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/suicide.jpg</a> )

Regarding A.T. Burke's remarks: I interpreted them differently than some people in this thread have done. (Fred, I have to be honest. This is not an attack on you personally, but I heartily dislike Godwin's so-called “Law” as I find it to be a smarmy way of dismissing an entire argument solely on the basis of it having made reference to Nazis or Nazi Germany. To me it's a verbal internet meme, far too clever by half, and runs the risk of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. “If an internet discussion goes on long enough, someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or the Nazis.” And? So? Meaningless internet canon for the technologically hip. Just as one can “play the Nazi Card” or “play the race card”, it is also possible for one to play the “Godwin card”. Is there a “law” for that? Spare me.) Although I don't liken intentional manipulation to Goebbel's propaganda machine, I do feel more and more as if the constant barrage of social and informational media that we subject ourselves to can turn many of us into easily manipulated clones, unwitting and unknowing torch bearers for a homogenized global corporatism. Although this may not be the type of thing A.T. Burke was talking about, I can see how photographic manipulation can be used to bend and shape social and political opinions to achieve the ends of unseen overlords. But it is possible to see the negative possibilities of manipulation while also appreciating the positive artistic uses to which it can be put. Pointing out the negative does not automatically mean that one is denying, or trying to restrict, the positive.

Interestingly, the article included part of an interview with W. Eugene Smith in which he did not seem to come out against the possible “analog” manipulation of a scene. The manipulation debate existed long before the digital age.

March 25, 2015

Gerry -- Sorry. My post was not intended to be a criticism of yours. I have not retired yet, still working, and depending on the economy, my current job, and unexpected expenses, I may yet be able to be modestly comfortable in retirement. But it is frightening how quickly that can be wiped out. A layoff, Cobra payments, and a dangerous and costly bout with a rare form of cancer for a family member in 2008 turned a comfortable life and retirement contributions into a paycheck to paycheck struggle. Still, we are fortunate to have come through all that have and be where we are today. For that, I am grateful.

As for photography as art or craft -- It's all a matter of opinion and there is no Grand Council of Photography to rule on which opinion, or whose opinion, is correct. Some photographs move me on the same level that I am moved by other visual art forms such as painting or sculpture. I didn't take your remark about craft as being dismissive at all.

March 25, 2015

Sanford Edelstein: I would dispute that "with age comes more available cash to spend on leisure stuff" part.

</blockquote>

As would I, Sanford!

I hope this does not come off as trite or sophomoric, but it does me good to hear from those of you who are in your 70's, 80's, and 90's! I have been blessed with good health and have nothing to complain about, but I just turned 61 and hitting my 60's disturbed me psychologically. I am not sure why, exactly. 30's, 40's, and 50's didn't bother me, but 60 did. Photographically speaking, I'm a youngster in the sense that I did not start photographing with "serious intent" (whatever that is) until around 2006. I started in the digital era so I have few memories or experience of film outside of taking snapshots with Brownies, Polaroids, and disposable cameras. I suppose that with age I have become less vain, less concerned with my appearance, and generally less concerned with what others think of me (although, like Arthur, I usually stay within the boundaries of what one might term "the niceties of propriety").

Photography is to me a creative outlet and an art form. I liked that Louis said "I'm an artist!". I think it takes a certain amount of self-confidence and huevos to say that, particularly on PN where statements of photographic artistry can often be derided or frowned upon. I don't know if age has freed me up creatively or not. Although it may have to a certain extent. The older I get, the more my sense of mortality grows and that drives the realization that I do not know how much more time stretches in front of me. Judging by my current mental and physical state, I could well have many more good years to go. But one never knows. So if there's something I want to do, whether it be a particular project or just a quick photographic opportunity, I'd better do it. The same applies to creative growth and experimentation. But, as Louis also pointed out, that applies more to personal work. For a client, it's all about what they want and expect.

March 15, 2015

Funny stuff, Michael!

February 25, 2015

Gordon beat me to the punch. For a fast "down and dirty" effect, but one with a lot of options and ability to control and fine tune, my first thought was Nik Analog Efex Pro (although I utilize it within LR, not PS).

February 15, 2015

That is amazing, thank you Louis. Also a little scary in a way. Our very existence is dependent upon that mysterious roiling mass of heat and gas.

February 11, 2015

<blockquote>Alan Zinn -- The people that dominated the emblematic mid-century, 35mm, gritty, non pictorial trends were for me: Frank, Klein, Metzker, and the like... </blockquote>

<blockquote>I am interested in the mood they have on me NOW. Degrees of originality or creativity which I value in an artist supersedes crafting skill – their willingness to ignore conventions of craft and conventional formal/aesthetic concerns. Some would insist there is a due-diligence requirement for craft. I can see it both ways. Too much and it is too precious. Too little and its absence gets in the way...</blockquote>

<blockquote>I am interested in the mood they have on me NOW. Degrees of originality or creativity which I value in an artist supersedes crafting skill – their willingness to ignore conventions of craft and conventional formal/aesthetic concerns. Some would insist there is a due-diligence requirement for craft. I can see it both ways. Too much and it is too precious. Too little and its absence gets in the way</blockquote>

<blockquote>The picture is THE text. </blockquote>

F'n A, Bubba. And a hearty "Amen!". The only change or addition I might make is to the emphasis on the last sentence. The picture IS the text.

But to get back to what I take to be the spirit of Arthur's original post, there can be connection without imitation (possibly even without influence). I feel a connection with Klein, Frank, Metzger... and to some extent with Maier, Winogrand, Faurer, Levitt, and Ishimoto.

February 8, 2015

I understand what you are saying, but where do we draw the line then? What if someone photographs me naked through a window in my home and posts it online? What if I'm sunbathing nude in privacy and a drone flies overhead and takes a shot? Why is my privacy potentially overridden by your (not you personally) right to take a photo?

</blockquote>

I am not an expert on the law, but it is my understanding that in the US your right to privacy in those situations is not overridden by someone's right to take a photo as they both meet the reasonable expectation of privacy test. (Unless, of course, you choose to stand naked in your front window with the curtains open and you are visible from the street. That's a trickier situation and may not meet the test.)

As for Saudi Arabia -- Their country, their rules.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by cyanatic