People act differently when they know they're being photographed, it really just loses the documentation aspect of the whole thing. It goes from documentation to an awkward portrait session.
-
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.
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
So? Then you move onto somewhere else and hopefully you get a better shot after getting consent. That's how it works. Not every candid street shot is going to work, so don't expect every shot of a consenting individual to work.
That turns into no shots. I'd honestly rather eat sand than talk to a person, which is my own severe anxiety issues at work. You don't want your picture say so, that's how I operate. I have no problem honoring it.
You actually don't know what Duff's authority is here though. Is she a representative of the league? A coach? The team parent? You don't know from the information given here so how can you conclude she's not even the authority here where you don't have any info on her role from the information at hand? Leagues have rules and they have permits to be on the field for their games. It's not like they just show up randomly to a field. These things are planned, coordinated and approved with the venue/city. I once attended a game where a league rep had to talk to a parent about removing their dog from being at the game because it was against league policy to have dogs at the game for safety reasons.
If this guy had simply done the reasonable and respectful thing of respecting the request of not taking pictures of the children after being asked multiple times, this wouldn't have happened but he decided to escalate it. Both sides made mistakes, but he decided to push it further than it needed to be.
You tried to deflect like he wasn't even taking pictures of the kids to begin with though. It's funny how you add speculation like it's fact though here.
This absolutely doesn't matter at all and is completely irrelevant. It has no impact on the way he handled the situation after being asked multiple times to not take pictures of the kids.
The woman isn't going to leave if her purpose is to stop the pictures from being taken though. I don't think she should have called the cop, but if you want to stand by that he didn't do anything legally wrong, then neither did she by posting it to Instantgram. Doing that is legal. At least you can admit both did something wrong rather than side with the photographer doing nothing wrong. You are speculating though about her intent. I could say the photographer wanted to take pictures for malicious reasons too to counter. Where does that get us when there's no proof of either?
OP
OP
You have anxiety talking to people so you want them to come up to you and say no, but what about people that have similar anxiety who are getting photographed?
OP
OP
No...there is not, otherwise there wouldn't be articles like this posted
Your 2023 Street Photography Workshop Guide to Los Angeles (2023)
The best Street Photography ✅ places, ✅ tours, ✅ museums & galleries and ✅ workshops in Lohn Angeles.
streetphotographyberlin.com
Photographers' Rights
Taking photographs of things that are plainly visible from public spaces is a constitutional right – and that includes federal buildings, transportation facilities, and police and other government officials carrying out their duties. Unfortunately, there is a widespread, continuing pattern of...
www.aclusocal.org
People need a lot of clearance to cover things. I cover a lot of events, you don't just walk in. It's got to be arranged weeks in advance and that depends on if they even have a max quota for coverage, which they probably do. Regarding Duff she did what she did, but I'm not exactly going to put someone on a moral compass pedestal because they have kids. I have parents, I have witnessed how parents problem solve. They can be assholes. Both could've done things differently, they didn't.
It doesn't take much to gesticulate. I notice discomfort I leave.
When you roll up on someone with a phone out and recording, you've set the tone of being an asshole.
She literally opened the conversation with a threatening move. Doubly so given the recent context of middle aged white women trying to order around black men.
It is of zero shock that he defaulted to treating her like you'd treat a cop. Short, brief answers with no detail.
If someone is forcing an illegal recording they get zero courtesy because their only reasonable intent is to screw you over.
Depends on how they do it. If it is a polite request, and they point out their kid so I can avoid them (or they get their kid out of the way if I'm taking a picture of a thing) then I'll happily oblige.
If they flat out demand that I leave the area, threaten, or try to act like a cop, I'll just tell them to go away.
Basically, work with me and I'll work with you. I don't get time often to shoot photos, so I'm not going to just give it up.
Thing is, that never happens to me. And I've taken photos of my nieces and nephews at various swim and gymnastics practices. They live on the other side of the continent. I guarantee the parents there have no idea who I am. Never gotten a second look.
I'm not black tho (but I have used the exact same style that this guy uses when dealing with cops and security guards to great effect).
Yo, I think people saying they rather be asked nicely and civilly to not take photos of their kids. which I think is a reasonable request from a parent, and a reasonable expectation of said photographer.
I think ya'll getting each other's words twisted and it's now a back and forth argument.
Her calling the police officer on a black man taking a photograph in public is enough to show alicious intent and intentionally showing his picturw to hwr million of her followers are specific action that she has done, you are trying to atteibute malicious and intent of physical harm on his part with no evidenve except he was rude, the severity of both action are not equal.
And as stated.by him, hes not targeting children, he was practicing and a update was released, he cpuld jave foumded other sport, but he chose that sport game in a pblic area
It is more reasonable that the photographer asks first. Not wait and see if people have a problem with it.
User Banned (permanent): dismissing racism, account in junior phase
This post will get me banned, but I'm going to make it anyway. I don't like what happened to Dude Abides and a few other posters, who were banned for saying what's indisputable: there is no evidence that this incident was racially motivated. The case that it was rests entirely on certain individuals' intuition. Now that intuition may very well be correct, but that's not the point. The point is that a number of posters here made a baseless claim, failed to support it with anything more substantial than "Trust me, I just know," and when some posters didn't accept this magical insight and demanded evidence, they were banned for it. That's not acceptable.
What are is everyone arguing about? The cops she called even said it was legal period it's done.
This was because he is black.
This was because he is black.
I am serious. I'm not objecting to people claiming that it was racially motivated. Maybe it was. I'm objecting to people being banned for not accepting this conclusion as fact when it doesn't rest on anything except "Oh come on."
whatever this is doesn't show up for me :(Hasn't been posted yet but yeah
what kind of "proof" is there ever for this stuff? like i said before, i got hasseled a few times taking photos in public pre-transition, but it hasn't really happened at all now that i'm perceived to be a young white woman. i can't prove that that's because of gendered stereotyping, but it's gendered stereotyping. and again, i'd bet a lens that 90% of the parents and kids at hillary duff's neighborhood's soccer games are white, so this guy would be even easier to single out.
Last edited:
Racism- in this specific case anti-black racism- is culturally omnipresent in western society. This is not only to appease our black members from recent events; it's to recognize that there is no shortage of statistical evidence out there demonstrating this fact in nearly all matters of life, all the way down to subconscious beliefs, and as staff we should act accordingly. To suggest then that incidents of conflict between individuals of different racial statuses is totally free of racial bias just because there is no uncharacteristically overt proof, to hand-wave the reality of life of our black members as mere "feelings" that warrant no consideration, especially in cases like these where white people weaponize American police against black people for minor incidents of conflict, now counts dismissive of concerns of racism, and is no longer acceptable on this forum. The bans on this front will not be appealed.
This does not mean that both subjects of this story were not wrong in other ways, and the relative minimal amount of staff actions should communicate that we simultaneously believe the issues regarding photographer rights and etiquette, and Hillary Duff's contentious history with paparazzi harassing her and her family, were valid issues to discuss. However, the thread has now devolved into flaming, and will be closed and reviewed.
This does not mean that both subjects of this story were not wrong in other ways, and the relative minimal amount of staff actions should communicate that we simultaneously believe the issues regarding photographer rights and etiquette, and Hillary Duff's contentious history with paparazzi harassing her and her family, were valid issues to discuss. However, the thread has now devolved into flaming, and will be closed and reviewed.
- Status