phillipb
Strange but true....public figures and celebs have less rights in legal protection from being photographed. The law considers them as "public figures" in that they derive part of their income through the manipulation or cooperation of the media. You can't use the media to become rich and famous and then suddenly demand your privacy.
DSLRUsers.com
A discussion forum - and more - for users of Digital Single Lens Reflex cameras.
Is this an invasion of privacy?Moderators: Greg B, Nnnnsic, Geoff, Glen, gstark, Moderators
Forum rules
Please note that image critiquing is a matter of give and take: if you post images for critique, and you then expect to receive criticism, then it is also reasonable, fair and appropriate that, in return, you post your critique of the images of other members here as a matter of courtesy. So please do offer your critique of the images of others; your opinion is important, and will help everyone here enjoy their visit to far greater extent. Also please note that, unless you state something to the contrary, other members might attempt to repost your image with their own post processing applied. We see this as an acceptable form of critique, but should you prefer that others not modify your work, this is perfectly ok, and you should state this, either within your post, or within your signature. Images posted here should conform with the general forum guidelines. Image sizes should not exceed 950 pixels along the largest side (height or width) and typically no more than four images per post or thread. Please also ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is.
To clarify - for a time in the 1960s I was a television newscameraman. Since that time I have always been engaged in 'PRODUCED' photography rather than 'FOUND' or 'REACTIVE' photography. I MAKE pictures rather than TAKE pictures. For a few decades I shot nothing but live subject for various purposes ranging from promotion and publicity to entertainment and advertising. There has never been an occasion when I have photographed a person without either them paying me or me paying them. Moreover, the people have always been aware of exactly what I was doing and what my intent was. Essentially I have spent my life practising what I have preached above. So at least give me credit for not being a hypocrit.
I guess one of the things that gets my back up more than the actual act of photographing unaware and unsuspecting persons is the fact that the results are published and offered for universal display on the internet. Cheers, _______________
Walter "Photography was not a bastard left by science on the doorstep of art, but a legitimate child of the Western pictorial tradition." - Galassi
A celebrity has no more, nor any less, rights than any other member of the community. Some people, however, seem to have an over-zealous interest in some celbrities, and thus there is a market for papparazzi images. Personally, I couldn't give a shit about celebs: they bore me to tears. Now if there was just some way to educate the greater masses of the great unwashed. g.
Gary Stark Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
I myself have wondered about this. In one sense, they get acclaim and fortune, but as a side effect, they get hounded by paparrazzi (funded by the same people that give them their fortune). I have decided however (and I don't give a rat's toosh about celebs anyhow) that if it is something that is interfereing with being able to carry out a "normal" life, do normal things, not be harrassed etc, then I think that those things should be considered and protection is needed. This point goes beyond capturing an image of someone in public, but abusing their image, exploiting (not to mention feeding the public a sugary poison) and ultimately restricts their freedom to carry out a normal life.
I'd like to discuss the question that was asked, but walter isn't willing to respond to the legitimate questions, that were posed by a number of people in this thread. There has yet to be a single response, offering any supporting evidence, as to how the initial post can constitute an invasion of privacy. He just keeps saying that it's "his opinion". Part of his opinion is to paint anyone that does such street photography, as some kind of pervert or other nefarious creature. I reject that notion, completely. I don't see that my opinion, in the context written, is any different than his, with respect to being a personal attack. He stated what seem to be his beliefs, and I stated mine. I like to do street photography and don't take kindly to any suggestion that I'm a pervert or anything of the sort. There's no reason this subject couldn't be discussed without rancor, but if someone wants to sling mud, it's unreasonable not to expect to get some in return.  my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/
In the US, the courts have routinely ruled in favor of the photographers, so long as they were somewhere that they had a legal right to be. This is the same for normal celebrity types as it is for the temporary celebrity or average citizen. Trespass, to get the shot, is still trespass, which is illegal and a criminal matter. Abuse of the image is not a criminal matter. It is a civil matter and is frequently pursued in civil litigation, which is the appropriate avenue of redress, for celeb and average citizen alike. I haven't heard it to be different in Oz or Canada, but I have heard that there is a difference in France, IIRC. Dunno if that's true or not. my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/
Kerry,
In selecting your quote I wasn't trying to single you out as an example, but I do wish to make two points: If Walter chooses to not discuss something in the manner that you would prefer him to, that's too bad. You'll need to accept that. And with respect to someone slinging mud and getting some back in return: the initial slinging of mud is neither welcome nor supported here, and two wrongs still do not make a right. If you feel mud has been slung in yuour direction by somebody, the correct approach is to bring that occurence to my attention, or to the attention of one of the other mods here, and permit us to address it. It is not for individuals here to continue the mud slinging, and again, I emphasise that discussions here must be kept to the point where we play the ball, and not the man. Thanx all for your cooperation. g.
Gary Stark Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
Mr. Pierce, You have put those words into my mouth as you have done previously with regard to other contributors in other threads. Nowhere did I use the terms 'pervert' and 'nefarious creature'. I suggest that you brush up on the language and its syntax. In posting the article that I did I responded as precisely as I could to the question asked by the inital correspondent. It is not and was not my intention to become involved in yet another verbal ping-pong match over this venerable old chestnut of a topic. In particular I am reticent to engage in dialogue with people whose manner and sentiment I find unattractive. I admire and applaud any photography when it is done with flair and sensitivity - including 'Street Photography'. I would suggest that that is not the case with this particular sample and I am not the only one to have said that. The author considers it a masterpiece and defends its values which he is perfectly entitled to do. He is not, however, likewise entitled to discredit differing views from others - once an image leaves the author and enters the public arena he ceases to have any control over its perception. Every photo takes on a life of its own, irrespective of the medium and it is down to the communication skills opf the author as to just how clearly his intent is conveyed. In response to an earlier post - may have been from you or it may not have been - I am NOT the Photo Police but I do have concern and empathy for my fellow man and when I see one being unknowingly preyed upon I shall advise him of the fact and he can react as he sees fit when fully cognisant of the situation. It is a courtesy to which I believe we are all entitled. There have been many instances over the years where I have had to shoot events where on-lookers or audiences might be included in the pictures. It has ALWAYS and at ALL TIMES been the norm of either myself or the people who have engaged my services to advise people that they may be photographed during the event and could be identifiable in the pictures. They are always given the option to relocate if they so choose. Nightclubs and cabarets always presented a very typical scenario where people may be seated in a place they claim not to have been at in thew company of 'strangers'. In the presented picture - if it WAS actually taken in clandestine fashion and not presented in a sort of agent provocateur fashion - it could be that one of the people was involved in discussions like being head-hunted by the opposition to his employer. What would be the ramifications of his employer being made aware of that fact through this photo? Would I choose to be complicit in what happened to him? It is true that certain elements of the media are scurrilous and uncaring: there are papparazzi and there are gossip mongers. I choose not to performn in that fashion and I guess I draw the line far closer to the rights of the simple everyday ordinary common man than to the precious and venerated celebs and identities. Cheers, _______________
Walter "Photography was not a bastard left by science on the doorstep of art, but a legitimate child of the Western pictorial tradition." - Galassi
That wasn't apparent, Gary, but I appreciate your clarification.
heh, well, I have no problem accepting anything of that nature. But, that is a double-edged sword. A discussion is not a one-sided declaration or edict. When someone enters a discussion and then chooses not to respond to questions on their position, pointing out the unresponsive nature of said poster, is a legitimate method of calling into question, the value of the premise set forth, by that poster.
Understood. I'm not well acquanted with moderated forums, so that's my fault for not properly utilizing the appropriate methods of redress. I'll endeavor to do better in the future. my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/
Really? Here are the words you typed, in this thread.
What does this mean, if not that I am an intruder with a particularly tasteless syndrome?
Engaging in behavior not commendable, with a lack of concern?
Trespass. That's illegal, a criminal act in the US.
Deplorable intent. Curious that you know such intent of people you don't know.
Comparing such photographers to armed felons. No, that's not offensive.
This inference isn't offensive either.
If the subjects are prey, the photog is a predator, which is surely a derogatory inference, is it not?
I think I have a very good handle on the language useage. The implications of the descriptive words you chose, were certainly not flattering. I'd suggest that you not use such derogatory terminology, if you don't wish to have objections to same.
Your initial, precise response included "dick lickin dog" terminology, yet you infer that the manner and sentiment of others is unattractive. 
Had you simply said something like, yes, I think it is an invasion of privacy, you'd have made your point. The other terminology that followed is what I found offensive. We can agree to disagree, on any topic and without further discussion. I don't have an issue with that. I do have an issue with statements that carry a negative connotation designed to cast me and others like me in a bad light. my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/
Walter
What you have just accused others of doing to you, you are now doing to me? I did not say that I considered the image a masterpiece...or even an image of merit. I did say its composition was complex/interesting in relation to the use of lines. This is being objective. The image itself is merely an illustration of a topic that needs to be mulled over now and then. I'll let you know when I post a masterpiece or two. Regards
Matt. K
KerryPierce
Speaking of using the language....are we the only 2 forum members who found this to be offensive? It's bad, bad, bad! Regards
Matt. K
Dunno. I guess so. Maybe we're prudes?  my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/
Matt.k & KP,
I'm with both of you, it seems strangely to me over here. 
Perhaps, it's solely for the new 2006 in the horizon Birddog114
VNAF, My Beloved Country and Airspace
This is clearly a contentious subject, albeit one worthy of a hearty debate (IMHO). However, in the good natured spirit that I believe this forum is intended, the debate would be better served if we avoided some of the more emotive words/phrases we have seen (IMHO). Not always possible I know, the English language being what it is. I'm not advocating censorship, just consideration and careful choice of words where emotions are reasonably likely to be stirred up.
Cheers, John I found one of Gary's pet words: ceeensorshhip = fun Made me laugh when I re-read the post D3, D300, 14-24/2.8, 24-70/2.8, 85/1.4, 80-400VR, 18-200VR, 105/2.8 VR macro, Sigma 150/2.8 macro
http://www.johndarguephotography.com/
Hmm, language, now things are getting interesting.
I have not been able to find a clear definition of the "dick lickin' dog syndrome" which Wally introduced to this discussion on privacy issues. I have found "dick lickin' dog", but it just seems to be a term designed to give indiscriminate offence with minimum effort Curious really, because all dogs with dicks, lick them. And as far as I can tell, they are are not in the least bashful about it, nor do they see the practice in a negative light. I am not aware of bitches fellating male dogs, so presumably, the best definition of a dick lickin' dog would be a male dog. Greg - - - - D200 etc
Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see. - Arthur Schopenhauer
Greg B,
Please pay me the courtesy of NOT calling me Wally. I am Walter or Sheetshooter, not Wally. My father was quite happy to be called Wally and Wal and I can hardly remember him being called Walter ... but we are all different. You choose to be Greg, not Gregory. This is an aspect of Australian culture that I find fairly offensive. As I recall you and others also used to refer to me as 'Sheety', I'm not overly keen on that either. It has been my experience that in the UK one is addressed as Mr. So-and-so until it is indicated that first name terms are acceptable and that is a system I greatly admire. It is also a system which I employ in addressing people. Curiously, I do not see you calling Gary, Gazza or Gaz so perhaps you could afford me similar courtesy to that which you afford him. _______________
Walter "Photography was not a bastard left by science on the doorstep of art, but a legitimate child of the Western pictorial tradition." - Galassi
Crikey Walter. Do you wake up each day just looking for a fight? Seems so, from many of your posts here. This could have been a reasonable, adult discussion until you derailed it with derogatory and unflattering words. I feel it is beneath anyone on this forum to behave in this manner. For goodness sake, lighten up. Or don't post. TFF (Trevor)
My History Blog: Your Brisbane: Past & Present My Photo Blog: The Foto Fanatic Nikon stuff!
Trevor,
Is it too much to expect to be referred to by your chosen name? How else does one communicate that fact if they do not state it? Cheers, _______________
Walter "Photography was not a bastard left by science on the doorstep of art, but a legitimate child of the Western pictorial tradition." - Galassi
Quite. As you have done here in two short sentences, rather than the 4 paragraphs of hyperbole in your response to Greg, who I suspect was just trying to smooth some ruffled feathers. Can we not moderate our language to avoid the types of reactions we have seen in this thread? I think this forum is heartily sick of it. I know I am. TFF (Trevor)
My History Blog: Your Brisbane: Past & Present My Photo Blog: The Foto Fanatic Nikon stuff!
Mercifully, the antipodean approach has abandoned this sort of thing, which in my view, substitutes superficial civility for meaningful respect. A good example would be your gratuitous remarks early in this thread concerning the dick lickin' dog syndrome. No amount of Mr this or Mr that will overcome poor taste. Greg - - - - D200 etc
Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see. - Arthur Schopenhauer
Lets stop the nonsense everyone.
Walter, It is an Australian tradition to shorten names, meant as a sign of mateship or comradeship (meant in a non commie way for those old enough to remember when they were the enemy) but also reflecting the laid back lifestyle here. No one would mean offence by it, in fact quite the opposite. You are quite within your right though to ask for your name not to be shortened if you would prefer not. The english system you mentioned has it's own drawbacks, namely a class system which imposed glass ceilings for many. It's not for nothing the English invented the phrase "he should know his station in life". The reason Gary's name (or in fact my name or Greg's) do not get shortened is due to the fact they are only four letters, so it really doesn't leave much to drop. I considered dropping the R from Gary, but figured if I called him Gay enough he may ask to wear my pink cowboy hat and bottomless chaps, and I can tell you there is not enough room in there for both of us 
Glen,
To return to the initial point of my comments the rights of the individual must be recognised and respected not only in terms of what you call them but in terms of their 'personal space' and their freedom for what the legal profession terms as quiet enjoyment. Cheers, _______________
Walter "Photography was not a bastard left by science on the doorstep of art, but a legitimate child of the Western pictorial tradition." - Galassi
Been around since the days of the people in the village. Cheers, _______________
Walter "Photography was not a bastard left by science on the doorstep of art, but a legitimate child of the Western pictorial tradition." - Galassi
Walter, totally agree. My point was that no disrespect is intended, these are just Australian customs. My English grandmother commented on this many times when she came to join the Australian squatocracy in the bush and ingrained the dislike of it in my mother. So much so that my mother named her three boys with four digit names, specifically so that they couldn't be shortened!
I do feel for people such as yourself, which have a two syllable name, which, in the australian physche, begs to be shortened to one syllable, but don't like the single syllable version.
The curious thing here is that my name gets "contracted" to "Gazza", which is two sylables, and of course, longer.
Go figure. But enough of this; it's all off topic, and I'm becoming annoyed - as I know a number of other members are - of the continuing off-topic content of this thread. I've asked that we keep it civil and maintain our respect for one another and each others' PoV. Let's also please keep it on topic, or else I'll just shut the thread down. g.
Gary Stark Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
Damn. I was hoping to be able to make a comment about my name possibly becoming Lezza and the sexual connotations that could've granted me before this thread went back on-topic.
Producer & Editor @ GadgetGuy.com.au
Contributor for fine magazines such as PC Authority and Popular Science.
Too late now Sir!!!!! where have you been? It's back to the topic! sorry, next time. Birddog114
VNAF, My Beloved Country and Airspace
Well, seeing we're back on topic, my opinion is that their privacy has not been invaded at all by the taking (and publication) of this picture. My understanding is that the law in Australia supports this view.
Cheers What's another word for "thesaurus"?
My two bits...
As the image stands...no not an invasion of privacy. Would I like people taking images of me while I was out to lunch..probably not. But I am not going to get myself into a huff over it. If I was then to find that image published somewhere ridiculing (is that a real word) me then I would certainly be unhappy......but would that still be an invasion of privacy....not sure. 
What I would find an invasion of privacy would be if the photographer stood within a metre or less of me, shoved camera in my face and disrupted lunch/activity with his/her presence. I do though, have difficulty photographing people I don't know because I certainly don't want to upset anyone, and we all have differing opinions as can be seen here with this thread. "Sometimes when you are sad Poko, it's good to hug the monkey."
It's hard to join a thread after references to hitler and shameless semantic bashing, but here goes...
The question is too damn vague. Legally, it is not an invasion of privacy, based on some reasonable assumptions. It was taken in a public place and does not reveal a private fact. In my opinion from an ethical point of view, the taking of the photo does not constitute an invasion of privacy either, in sympathy with the legal reasoning. There's more that can be debated beyond that, but the question is so terribly vague and ambiguous as to allow a focussed argument, so in conclusion, I'm right, you're all wrong and my use of da languij iz just schuper, thank you very much.
Please resist a reply to that last bit, this thread's full of crap (including my own) already. :p -- Rog
Canon 20D, 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS, 70-200mm f/4 L, 50mm f/1.8, 420EX Speedlite, Benro C327 & KB2 + bits
I would like to thank Walter for his persistence and patience.
I read all of his posts with interest largely due to my belief that he has a wealth of knowledge and a genuine interest to take us to greater heights with our photography pursuits. At first I thought that we have a responsibility to record life as it is and censoring or limiting this in any way would be irresponsible. Thanks Walter You have made me challenge these thoughts and realign them with my personnel values. There are times when I would not be annoyed to have someone photograph me and post it on the internet. There are times that I would. We should do to others. O1
Well I haven't been in front of a computer for days. I observed the start of this thread, and knew it'd deteriorate into the mess it has.
Firstly, I'm not going to delve into whether I like the image or not because the title of the image was a question that the author wanted us to address, and not the title of the image (or was it)? I've heard all of the debates on this subject and am really in two states of mind as to what is an invasion of privacy. All parties in this image seem to be just casually enjoying dinner and have a bite to eat. Not upto any lude acts or anything else that would demoralise/embarrass them. Now if Matt comes along and takes a casual photo thats all fine in my books. However if Matt sits there clicking away all night that's a different story. Also if he puts on the wide/portrait lens and gets in there face and starts taking shots, I also object to that. While I'm not into street photography, I think people that do this sort of work should respect peoples personal space and shouldn't invade that. It all comes down to what you would like others to do to you or those that are dear to you. Like I said I'm really confused on the matter, as there are a lot of things in this world that are legal but morally wrong. But more and more as humans we're starting to disregard the moral aspect of things and just go "hey it's legal, so lets do it". Perhaps I should of posted Darryl (aka Kipper)
Nikon D200
Folks,
Consider this: is it an invasive action or an intrusive action? In the dictionary that comes with Mac OSX these days it says in part:
Since we are not informed as to whether or not the photograph(er) was welcome or not perhaps it is just intrusive. Cheers, _______________
Walter "Photography was not a bastard left by science on the doorstep of art, but a legitimate child of the Western pictorial tradition." - Galassi
Darryl,
What an apt point - and so appropriate to the Season:
or, more precisely: “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so unto them. . . .” — Matt. 7:12. the famed Golden Rule from the Sermon On The Mount which has its parallel in Mosaic Law as: “Whatever is hurtful to you, do not do to any other person.” Some pages back I had noted that this was not a question of legality but of moral integrity. As photographers, are we above such considerations? As photographers are we no longer human? And humane? _______________
Walter "Photography was not a bastard left by science on the doorstep of art, but a legitimate child of the Western pictorial tradition." - Galassi
It seems as if Apple are trying to make social comments with their dictionaries? They dont even put example in front of the usage, they state it as fact: random drug testing of employees is an unwarranted invasion of privacy. I for one and probably most other air travellers are happy there is random drug testing of pilots. They should probably stick to eroding peoples hearing well before time with their Ipods if they cannot show what is an example and what is a fact.
Walter,
Good question. I consider this image to be neither. It doesn't seem (to me) to intrude upon anything that the four gentlepersons seem to be doing, nor does it seem (to me) to be invading upon any their individual or combined personal spaces, nor of their activities. No more than if one was to be wandering by wherever this image happenned to be made, and happenned to look ascance at these gentlepersons for a moment or three. So, if you're wandering, say, through the Italian Forum this evening, and you glance at a group of diners; would that be intrusive or invasive or an invasion of their privacy? I venture to suggest not, and I cannot for the life of me see where the captuiring of that very same image - available to all and sundry passing by - by the purs and sole virtue of the act of capture, now becomes invasive. g.
Gary Stark Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
Yeah,
I purposefully left that in as a bit of a dig and a bit of a giggle. One day I'll find the carton with the SOED in it and my references will likely be more 'real world' than cyber fact. Cheers, _______________
Walter "Photography was not a bastard left by science on the doorstep of art, but a legitimate child of the Western pictorial tradition." - Galassi
I think I've had enough.
this is not an appropriate venue for quotations from the bible. Thread closed. g.
Gary Stark Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
|
- Mods Database • The team • Delete all board cookies • Reset blocks • All times are UTC + 10 hours [ DST ]
