I read Goldenroad 's reply above. I am just glad he isn't the decider of what is or isn't an art form. Or who knows, may be he is.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Ok ERA where do you fall on the rights of Photographers? Hillary Duff calls Photographer creep for shooting Childs soccer game.
- Thread starter TheGhost
- Start date
- Status
Nope. You can have artistic candid shots. You can also respect the request of someone who'd prefer they not be included. I don't understand why it's so hard to do both.
There is, however, a moral obligation to stop taking photos of them when asked to by their parents. It's not rocket science.
So you think this dude was taking photos of the lovely sunset at a scenic playground, and those darn kids just got in the way?
Just to be clear, I don't think this dude was some kind of pedo.
I think he's papparazi trying to get pics of Hillary Duff's kids to sell.
i'm gonna go wayyyy far out on a limb and guess that almost all the parents at a soccer match where hillary duff lives are white and if the photog were white she'd just have assumed he was a dad.
She didn't quite handle it in the right way. However I do find it kind of creepy that some man is taking photos of kids from far away. At least take photos of adults or something you know? Or ask permission to take photos, maybe make some money.
Anyway I don't think this has anything to do with race and I do agree that her threatening him was uncalled for.
Anyway I don't think this has anything to do with race and I do agree that her threatening him was uncalled for.
Documenting other peoples children playing soccer is very important. Only a true artist would do that.
If they're taking particular photos of their child then maybe. If they're taking photos of the scene/game/place in which their child is participating, then no. They don't own the park, the area doesn't become off limits to photography because their holy child has stepped onto the grass.
Not what I said. The argument moved passed that to not taking photos in public places without consent. In which case the whole genre of street photography would be invalid and pointless.
But.
You do you.
This.
No doubt this is something a number of us come across, whether as photographers or otherwise --- but some folks are just really sensitive about having their picture taken, justified or not. I don't want to deal with the hassle and just respect the request; parents are often overly cautious by nature and that's a force not worth shaking up. I get that it can interfere with candid shots, but even like doing scientific experiments on people, there's gotta be some balance/etiquette in how we interact with a subject (and that line can be hard to define across all cases).
Last edited:
OP
OP
No, I think he was playing with a new lens and building his portfolio to use to get comissioned jobs with a school district probably.
The last thing I would think is he is some creepy perv that warrants a talking to. But then again I'm a photographer and I get it.
I go down to the surf competition and take pictures of the surfers. Some of them are just kids. People approach me, for my email, no one says "you better not be taking pictures of my kids". Because I am taking pictures of your kid. I'm shooting for fun, and while The dad's head is buried in his phone ignoring his kid surfing 6 foot waves I'm capturing those moments. Dudes wife is thankful when I offer to send the photos over free of charge though 😉
Is using a term like "aggressive street photography" supposed to make us okay with this?
This is the correct response. I just don't get why it's so hard to understand.
If I'm out somewhere with my kid and a photographer makes an effort to interact with me and talk, I'm much more likely to be ok with it. But if you just stand off to the side, never acknowledge my presence as a parent or if for some reason I ask you not to and you get defensive or ignore me, then it's not cool.
OP
OP
I'm sure it's happened, to be honest. I live near a large lake in Seattle that has tons of people taking pictures. But that doesn't make it right if someone is aware of it.
You even acknowledged that you often talk with people that you see when you're out photographing, that might be all those people need to feel comfortable with you and if that's enough for them, then great. It just shouldn't prevent someone from not being comfortable and asking.
This is kind of my stance.
I think if I had been testing a lens or something on people in public (kids or otherwise), and someone approached me this way, I'd apologize and explain that I was testing my equipment and agree to leave and shoot something else.
It's not quite the same as shooting people in New York City. It's specifically targeting a quiet, residential park full of children.
It's kind of a grey area. Nobody would care if it was any other situation than an adult male photographing young kids. I understand why people see it as creepy, but it's also unfortunate we live in a world where the first instinct is to think he is a pedophile or something.
If a person objects and makes it known by something simple like putting their hand over their face I leave them alone and will delete an image if confronted.
I saw it as a guy taking pics, if anything he messed up by staying there too long.
OP
OP
Listen, if we are being honest, most pictures of people I do get are silohettes, or all I see are their backsides. I'm honestly not comfortable posting pictures of people's faces online for the simple fact that I wouldn't like that.
So despite the fact I have every right to do that and have done it unintentionally many of times and just cropped them out because they add nothing to that particular frame, I don't do that or try not to at least.
Hell I shot for a local travel magazine and was encouraged to shoot first and ask for consent second. Most people just don't care, at least in NY they have places to be and don't have time to talk or object.
With that said I am a photographer and I do have rights to do what I want.
Some shots call for it. If I'm on a boardwalk and I have my 70-200 or 600mm with me and you're riding a skateboard directly down the middle of the boardwalk right into this sun that is taking up 80% of the frame, I'm grabbing that shot. The best feeling in the world is when a friend of theirs recognizes them and tags them in the photo and they love it.
I have yet to have someone say "take that down". I'm a nice guy, you approach me with respect I can emphasize and relate and will more than likely take it down. You got a crazy ex you don't want knowing where you and your kid live? Yeah I get it, absolutely I don't want you getting stalked I'll take it down.
But if you come at me sideways and start cursing at me? Well I'm going to be a dick back and that picture is never coming down. Unless it's under performing.
This is hella disingenuous, you think Vivian Maier would fight with a parent about taking shots of their children?
We have no idea what she went through as a street photographer.
Frankly, I don't care if the picture is beautiful, if the parent asks you to stop and delete you should.
Again, not what I said. Is there evidence of this photographer continuing to take photographs after Hillary confronted him? They had an argument, that's evident, but did he continue, or stop as you keep harping about?
This is all I'm getting at. It can be argued that as a society when we leave the house we accept that an person with a camera may take a picture, but consent always ends at "no".
Hell I was doing street photography in Bushwick Saturday and a kid ran up to me:
"Hey I'm doing street portraits, can I take your photo?"
"Yeah I don't see why not!"
And he took multiple portraits.
Which is fine for street portraits, but people actively interacting in their environments isn't where you disturb the moment and ask for permission. That would ruin the whole moment. How is that a thing?
"Hey I'm doing street portraits, can I take your photo?"
"Yeah I don't see why not!"
And he took multiple portraits.
Which is fine for street portraits, but people actively interacting in their environments isn't where you disturb the moment and ask for permission. That would ruin the whole moment. How is that a thing?
It's one of the more handy things of being mild/moderately disabled for me lol. I appear a lot less threatening to people and they just sorta ignore me. Also I really only shoot waist-level with tilt screens which also hugely helps.
OP
OP
You shouldn't be nervous. Just use common sense. Chances are no one is going to bother you. If someone asks you not to use a picture don't use it. Most of the time they won't even care. You need experience and need to get your first rejection under your belt so get out there.
And even when you do people escalate the whole problem beyond what it should be. Usually the photographer unless he's being an outright asshole isn't the person causing that much of a huge ruckus over it, it's the other person and probably threatening to or even assaulting the other person.
I taken photos of friends kids playing hockey and baseball at parents behest. The guy is doing nothing wrong, but at the same time I couldn't do it. I would feel creepy. *shrugs*
Having said that I have done some street photography, mainly in foreign countries. Example:
_DSC1621-Edit by Jkreutz, on Flickr
I didn't ask permission and it's a photo of a kid, yet I didn't feel creepy taking it. Not sure what my point is, but there ya go. :)
Having said that I have done some street photography, mainly in foreign countries. Example:
_DSC1621-Edit by Jkreutz, on FlickrI didn't ask permission and it's a photo of a kid, yet I didn't feel creepy taking it. Not sure what my point is, but there ya go. :)
I think people are starting to use the "artistic shots are ok" to defend what is essentially a paparazzi.
Someone posted some black and white artistic shots, used an example of "photos of loved ones in a sunset/thunderstorm", but until we see the photographers photos, and knowing Duffs fame, Im going to assume it was a paparazzi taking photos of her kid(and possibly of Duff in the same shot) to sell to a tabloid.
I doubt there was an artistic intent behind it. There are times where taking shots of family outings, crowded places, other outings to make an artistic picture is fine. Its understandable. Knowing how the paparazzi operate though, it was probably multiple shots of the same subject without intent to portray something as art.
Id be happy to be proven wrong and to see the persons photos, but...using the artistic defense makes actual photography art look bad when it was probably for a paparazzi.
Someone posted some black and white artistic shots, used an example of "photos of loved ones in a sunset/thunderstorm", but until we see the photographers photos, and knowing Duffs fame, Im going to assume it was a paparazzi taking photos of her kid(and possibly of Duff in the same shot) to sell to a tabloid.
I doubt there was an artistic intent behind it. There are times where taking shots of family outings, crowded places, other outings to make an artistic picture is fine. Its understandable. Knowing how the paparazzi operate though, it was probably multiple shots of the same subject without intent to portray something as art.
Id be happy to be proven wrong and to see the persons photos, but...using the artistic defense makes actual photography art look bad when it was probably for a paparazzi.
So what do you do if you ask someone to stop, and they insist on exercising thier right to continue taking pictures in a public space? Some people seem to think that once you've asked it somehow becomes a no holds barred situation and they can now confiscate people's property and/or assault them. Do your rights somehow hold more weight than the photographer's because you have kids?
Why hasn't anyone said to just leave that area?
Why hasn't anyone said to just leave that area?
OP
OP
I would love to post examples of what I do but I'm legit being told I can't post pictures in this thread when I try to upload them here.
I've wanted to do that before in foreign countries but I just can't seem to bring myself to point my camera at people who haven't asked me to take their picture. It's like a mental block.I taken photos of friends kids playing hockey and baseball at parents behest. The guy is doing nothing wrong, but at the same time I couldn't do it. I would feel creepy. *shrugs*
Having said that I have done some street photography, mainly in foreign countries. Example:
I didn't ask permission and it's a photo of a kid, yet I didn't feel creepy taking it. Not sure what my point is, but there ya go. :)
great shot btw
You need to upload them to something like Flickr and link from there.
I believe you take pictures for artistic intent. I would not call paparazzi artists however, and its an insult to artistic photographers to compare the two.
OP
OP
Why would a paprazzi photographer be standing on the side lines. Especially an older one who has been in the game for decades. If he was one these pictures would be all over the place by now. Though I wouldn't doubt after being slandered and her threatening to use her fan base (thank God he didn't give his id) that tabloids are reaching out to him.
Yup. This shit ain't that hard folks.
Yes you can do it, but should you? No. The correct answer is no.
Because in the context of playing an organized sport, just walking off the field in the middle of the game is kinda frowned upon. In that scenario, the photographer is the one who should leave because they don't have actual responsibility to be there.
No, in that scenario the parents are already in the wrong because photographing a sporting game in a public park is an entirely reasonable thing to do.
Today I learnt that photographers are super entitled.
Anyway, did she live stream this confrontation or was this just a video she posted later? I imagine if the guy was apologetic and explained he was just trying to get action shots, but since it makes them uncomfortable he'll stop now, she probably doesn't put the video on Instagram.
But when he comes back with "It's legal" that's adds a million creep points. She still shouldn't have put it on Instagram, but then again everything is performative for social media these days.
Anyway, don't take photos of kids without consent. Not exactly a hard rule to live by. I don't care about your 'aggressive street photography'.
Anyway, did she live stream this confrontation or was this just a video she posted later? I imagine if the guy was apologetic and explained he was just trying to get action shots, but since it makes them uncomfortable he'll stop now, she probably doesn't put the video on Instagram.
But when he comes back with "It's legal" that's adds a million creep points. She still shouldn't have put it on Instagram, but then again everything is performative for social media these days.
Anyway, don't take photos of kids without consent. Not exactly a hard rule to live by. I don't care about your 'aggressive street photography'.
Rational basis? Really?
'Creepy' is becoming the new 'sketchy' really fast here.
People get "put on edge" and "uncomfortable" for pointless stuff all the time. See the bathroom hysteria in red states.
Someone doing perfectly normal stuff shouldn't have to fear a paranoid over reaction.
Publishing for commerical use requires consent.
Publishing in a way that violates a right of publicity requires consent.
Aside from art and news, publishing generally requires consent if the subject is identifiable.
That is a key element of US law. Taking photos is a right. Publishing photos has regulations.
This is media law 101. Plenty of resources available with a simple Google search. Or you could check ACLU resources.
This is also a good place to start if you want to learn:
Bert P. Krages - Attorney at Law
www.krages.com
Given that 2019 was the year of the entitled white woman calling cops on black folks for existing, his response was pretty restrained.
You don't offer up an ID to be an ass.
Anyone who is worried about surveillance should very much worry about security cameras instead of a rando with a camera.
Security cameras capture patterns of action and are more likely to be fed into a ML database than the man on the street.
This. Most photographers I know are friendly to a fault and will happily answer questions unless someone comes up on them like a wannabe security guard.
At that point it simply becomes a matter of telling the person to stop being an idiot.
Respect goes both ways.
There's every chance he would have been friendly if she didn't come at him with video on. Given recent history he was likely expecting exactly the BS she threw out.
She's in the right to film video of him. She's wrong to threaten him with harassment.
Why would I worry about a rando taking a photo in public?
If they have sweet gear, I'll ask to check it out and ask for a copy if it looks good.
If they sell it without permission, I've got a slam dunk lawsuit. Yay for a free payday.
Last edited:
Do people not realize that kids are everywhere? I get that this was a sporting event for kids, but how do you carry out this logic in general? The instant "creepy" labeling is offensive. It's also obvious it's done because the photographer is a man. A woman taking photos that involve unknown kids would not get this kind of reaction.
Over the end of 2019, I went skiing and went to a frozen lake. There were lots of people and lots and lots of kids around. It didn't stop me from taking photos. Am I suddenly a "creep" for daring to do such a thing? Hell, I took this photo of some kid because I thought it was a great photo. Is this photo suddenly "creepy"?
Over the end of 2019, I went skiing and went to a frozen lake. There were lots of people and lots and lots of kids around. It didn't stop me from taking photos. Am I suddenly a "creep" for daring to do such a thing? Hell, I took this photo of some kid because I thought it was a great photo. Is this photo suddenly "creepy"?
. Am I suddenly a "creep" for daring to do such a thing? Hell, I took this photo of some kid because I thought it was a great photo. Is this photo suddenly "creepy"?
That depends. Is this the last known photograph of the child?
And there were presumably other fields they could've gone to when asked to stop. It probably would've been as difficult as turning around on the spot to take shots of the field behind him.
I have the right and license to carry my handgun on my hip in a public place. Do I have to put it away if someone asked? No, but I'd have the courtesy to do so if I were able to.
It's not always about what's right. Sometimes it's just about being accommodating. Be respectful of others is all I'm asking...is that so hard?
- Status