Taking pictures of people in a public place.

[Greg McCary]

I have seen this subject posted for conversation here before,and I ran across this while surfing the web....
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...006784,00.html
Greg

[photophorous]

I have seen this subject posted for conversation here before,and I ran across this while surfing the web....
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...006784,00.html
Greg

Interesting article, Greg. Thanks for posting it. They couldn't find a display screen on his Hasselblad. That would be hilarious if it weren't for the rest of the story. Seems like people need to relax a little. If you're the type of person that can't stand the thought of someone having a photo of you in your bathing suit, you probably shouldn't be half-naked in a public place.

Paul

[darkman]

In many ways I agree. IMO, there is a big difference between taking a picture in public that has people in it verses taking a personal picture of someone whether it's sunbathing or sitting on a park bench. I was recently annoyed with someone who was taking pictures of people sleeping while on an international flight. I ask before taking a personal picture of someone or have the courtesy to ask them afterwards if they mind that I'll use the picture.

I also think Dupain's analogy is so wrong it's funny. People on reality TV knew they were being filmed OR signed a release. People who go to see sports that will be filmed/aired know that they may filmed and the film shown. I believe the fine print on sport tickets tell you this too. I see no mention from Dupain that he asked the people whom he shot pictures of if it would be OK if he used them for his book. I doubt he does. Moreover, he could have payed for a permit!!!!!

In a similar vein, I was recently on an overseas trip and visiting places - some "public" too - where they specifically asked that no pictures be taken. It's amazing how many people think it's there right to take a picture. Just like in Dupain's case, I'm sure you can pre-arrange a way that will allow you to take pictures at these places. If it's paying or hiring a guide, so be it.

You need to respect people and places privacy and laws. There was nothing in that article that convinced me Dupain isn't a pervert.

Mike

[SmartWombat]

And at $160 an hour, he can get a LOT of images at 1/500 sec exposure

[photophorous]

Hi Mike,

I agree that it can be rude, annoying, or disrespectful for someone to take pictures of unknowing people in public. I think photogs should have the courtesy to not photograph someone in a bad way or doing something embarrassing. But courtesy is subjective. Some people might say that 1934 photo taken by Max Dupain was disrespectful because that man most likely was unaware. But it has since become a famous photo enjoyed by many, and I can't imagine how it could have caused him any harm. There's no easy way to define what is acceptable and what isn't, and that is (I think) why the laws are written the way they are. You said you are not convinced Dupain isn't a pervert. But, do you have any reason to believe he is a pervert? If someone is doing something suspicious, like pointing an enormous telephoto lens at kids, I'm all for questioning them, but just taking pictures of people is perfectly acceptable in my opinion. No harm is done.

About Dupain's analogy, I can see why you think it is wrong. It is poorly worded and doesn't apply directly to the issue of people knowing they are being photographed. But, I think I know what he's trying to say and it's more about the difference in how society views public photography and reality TV. After all, it is society's views that lead to cops harassing photographers. People are paranoid, and reality shows may have something to do with it. Reality shows depict people in very unflattering situations, behaving badly, and going through all kinds of misery. Sure, the people agree to be on the shows, but I seriously doubt most of those people know how bad they're going to look when it's all done. And if they did, I bet they wouldn't do it. Those shows take advantage of people's ignorance/stupidity in order to make fun of them, and the most disturbing part of it is that society thinks it's great. People eat it up. Taking joy from other people's misery is okay, apparently. Yet, a guy at the beach with a camera is a weirdo pervert because of what he has the capability of doing.

My last point is about getting a permit. I have no problem with this. Require permits so people are identifiable and documented in case something happens, and to encourage photographers to be respectful. Sounds like a good compromise to me. But that's not what the $160/hr fee is for. At most it should cost $5-10 (for administrative costs) and that should cover the whole day. The $160/hr fee is in place purely to restrict people from doing it, because people can't afford that unless they're rich or have a budget for pro work. Make it legal, or make it illegal, but don't make it accessible only to rich people.

Paul

[darkman]

If someone is doing something suspicious, like pointing an enormous telephoto lens at kids, I'm all for questioning them, but just taking pictures of people is perfectly acceptable in my opinion. No harm is done. Paul

I respectfully disagree. First, I hate that we make a distinction between kids and adults; wrong is wrong and I don't believe something is more wrong because a kid is involved. Moreover, you don't know any more than I do what actions Dupain was doing to cause the cops to question him. I really doubt the cops stop everyone walking around with a camera taking pictures at the beach. Maybe the cops came after someone complained about him taking pictures of their kids, or taking a picture of his wife from a naughty angle, who knows?

Sure, the people agree to be on the shows, but I seriously doubt most of those people know how bad they're going to look when it's all done. And if they did, I bet they wouldn't do it. Those shows take advantage of people's ignorance/stupidity in order to make fun of them, and the most disturbing part of it is that society thinks it's great. People eat it up. Taking joy from other people's misery is okay, apparently. Yet, a guy at the beach with a camera is a weirdo pervert because of what he has the capability of doing. Paul

Again, I disagree. Unless they live in a vacuum, I'm sure they know how they'll look on the show. Most probably they get some compensation and want there 15 minutes of fame.

My last point is about getting a permit. I have no problem with this. Require permits so people are identifiable and documented in case something happens, and to encourage photographers to be respectful. Sounds like a good compromise to me. But that's not what the $160/hr fee is for. At most it should cost $5-10 (for administrative costs) and that should cover the whole day. The $160/hr fee is in place purely to restrict people from doing it, because people can't afford that unless they're rich or have a budget for pro work. Make it legal, or make it illegal, but don't make it accessible only to rich people. Paul

Let's see, a $160au is ~$125US. The last place I tried to get into in the US that you needed a permit/guide to legally take pictures was $75. The place before that told me no way. At least w/o a lot of money and paper work. Movies have been filmed there too. Unfortunately, money talks... However, I agree these prices are a little high, but it's what it is and probably for the better. If a sign says no pictures, I don't take any. If I really want to, I inquire. Furthermore, Dupain KNEW he should have gotten this permit. Is it because his dad took a "famous" photo the etiquette and laws should be different? Maybe his dad's shot was staged? He's not above the law and he was (from what he says) shooting to make a profit. Therefore he should have paid for the permit. Every business has costs involved. These, in the grand scheme of things, are cheap.

Honestly, I understand the point you're trying to make. It's one of those, "what's the prudent thing to do?" I'm not so sure I'd be happy with someone walking down the beach and stopping while I'm sunbathing and start taking a picture of me, my wife (and kids if I had them) w/o asking. I'd be less happy if I found them published in a book and didn't even know they were taken. Conversely, if there was a poster of a beach and my family and I were one of many people lying on the beach in it, I wouldn't mind. I believe these are two distinguishably different scenarios.

Mike

[photophorous]

Hi Mike,

I appreciate a good debate. I hope you're not taking offense to anything I'm saying.

There are obviously some details missing about what actually happened with Dupain. I think our dissagreement is really not about him so much as the idea of photographing people in public with out their consent. I personally think it is a tough call that I don't want the government making for photographers. That doesn't mean I'm okay with someone taking pictures of me or my family while sunbathing at the beach. I'd probably be upset too. But honestly, I think that comes from suspicion about what the photographer is going to do with the photos and if the photos are tasteful or not. If I was the guy in the 1934 shot, or something similar, I wouldn't mind at all. In other cases, I might be upset. For me, it really depends on the end results more than anything. That's why I think it's subjective. It's impossible to know exactly what the photographer is doing. Most people just assume the worst. But, being suspicious, annoyed, or even angry, is not justification for banning something...IMO.

Paul

[Ronnoco]

First of all, it is the right of a photographer to take a photo of someone in a public place without their permission. Permits at $160 per hour for example are only required for what is defined as "high impact photography". That means full production crews, perhaps a truck, lots of equipment, auxiliary lighting and generators, and disturbance of the particular park or other environment as well as to the public enjoyment of it.

There is an appropriate "ethical" manner of taking photos of people in a public place and that certainly does not mean sticking a camera in their face, being obtrusive and possibly harassing in approach. Use a telephoto, shoot from the shade or other location where you are not even noticed.

Asking permission is a non-starter. Candid photography is not candid, if the person knows you are going to take a photo. Most subjects stiffen up and pose and that is NOT the type of photo you want.

As to the police or security, you are not doing anything wrong, no matter what they may think, so don't feel or act guilty or be in any way defensive. If you have a professional business card, make use of it and present it to them. Above all don't let them take your camera or card and remind them that they need a court order (US and elsewhere) to do so. No terrorist legislation allows them to violate your rights to take photos in a public place.

Ronnoco

[Frog]

Ronnoco is correct.
The only law breakers in this case were the police.

Candid photography can be accomplished with the knowledge of the subject but only if you want to follow them around so much, they eventually forget about the camera.
I've been watching a pair of men for ages now, trying to get a candid shot without their knowing but the environment makes it very difficult. When and if I do get it, THEN I will show it and ask permission to send them copys if I may do what I want with the image.
I doubt that that is practical when one is taking hundreds of images.

[darkman]

Ronnoco is correct.
The only law breakers in this case were the police.
.

Do you and Ronnoco know AU law and how is specifically applies to Dupain's situation? The article didn't seem to state the police's view of what happened; only Dupain's. I'm sure they're quite different. Again, I would be concerned if someone walking along anywhere stopped and started taking pictures of me and my family doing anything.

Maybe putting a camera in someones face is some form of harassment in AU? I have freedom of speech in the US but if I assaulted someone with it on the beach I would probably get arrested, or at the very least "harassed" by the police. Maybe Dupain crossed the line?

Also, in the US I remember cases where if you're not considered a "public figure" being chased around by someone trying to take your picture is considered harassment.

Mike