Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your argument seems to be that one bad photographer might do something bad with public photography, so we should all stop public people photography?
This has happened over and over already. You'll need to read my answers in the other thread. I don't do "public places" photography unless I have model or property release signed regardless of the photos being personal or for commercial purposes. It doesn't take a lot to be civilized and just ask permission.
Agreed. Altough in the case of the OP, he was in the wrong for not doing what the owner of the property told him to do.
I guess I saw it more as the OP trying to explain to the owner why his photography was okay. Yes, as I mentioned, the owner had every right to determine what photography he would allow/not allow, but it doesn't sound like there was a clear blanket photo policy in place, so I don't see the issue with the OP trying to discuss it with the owner. The OP was accused of taking suspicious photos of people, and so the OP was trying to explain his side of the story (that he wasn't). The OP states that he offered to leave if the owner wanted, but the owner didn't -- the owner simply asked him not to bring his camera on future visits; the OP said that would not be an option for him, so basically he would not be going back, thus agreeing to the owner's terms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhotoProIP
This has happened over and over already.
My statement still stands -- so what? If one, two, or a hundred people do bad things with photography, all of us remaining normal photographers should voluntarily "give in" and should be okay with being treated as sleazy, suspicious, or a threat?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhotoProIP
I don't do "public places" photography unless I have model or property release signed regardless of the photos being personal or for commercial purposes. It doesn't take a lot to be civilized and just ask permission.
Maybe I misread -- I didn't see where you said that that is what you personally do. Since you made a generic comment about how "taking photos in public has become a no, no" and did not specify that it had become a no no for you personally, I assumed you meant it for everyone. If you want to get releases and ask permission before shooting, you are absolutely free to do that and no one is stopping you. All I'm saying is that do not expect everyone to do the same, and realize that if your way becomes the law, it will result in the death of big parts of photography. And as to your last statement, it often does take a lot to ask for permission. I do a lot of urban/travel photography. Below are two shots I took recently. It would be practically impossible for me to ask permission and get releases for every single identifiable person and building/property in the scenes.
I will agree somewhat with one thing--once the OWNER told me their position, I should've ON THE SPOT stated my objection and left, respectfully (somewhat), and immediately, versus continuing to hang around (even though they seemed okay with it) because I KNEW if I stayed I wasn't going to resist taking photos of things that interest me. I didn't want to interrupt the fun my wife & kids were having, but we should've just left then immediately regardless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
I guess I saw it more as the OP trying to explain to the owner why his photography was okay. Yes, as I mentioned, the owner had every right to determine what photography he would allow/not allow, but it doesn't sound like there was a clear blanket photo policy in place, so I don't see the issue with the OP trying to discuss it with the owner. The OP was accused of taking suspicious photos of people, and so the OP was trying to explain his side of the story (that he wasn't). The OP states that he offered to leave if the owner wanted, but the owner didn't -- the owner simply asked him not to bring his camera on future visits; the OP said that would not be an option for him, so basically he would not be going back, thus agreeing to the owner's terms.
That is correct, there was no blanket photo policy in place, and I very patiently & thoroughly explained who I was & what my intentions were. The owner, although not at all the most hostile person I've seen, didn't seem so much interested in listening to that as simply getting a yes or no with regards to if I would agree to his terms in the future (the first person listened somewhat better). I finally said, with some emphasis, "anywhere I go, I'm going to take photos, if I can't, I don't go there at all for that very reason."
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSD610
You should have waited for your wife to be closer before having girls you have never met take a video of you jumping off a pier. That pier was not going anywhere and you could have waited for your wife.
Oh please. I should WAIT for my wife who was doing her own thing with the kids at that time when I had perfectly-fine and friendly persons right there at the moment able to do so? It's called being FRIENDLY, & I appreciate it that they were as was I. It's not like I was asking them to rub lotion on my back or complimenting them on their physical assets. Holding someone's camera for them is now cause for suspicion? That's lunacy & paranoia at its worst (or best?). Especially given that I wasn't going "oh baby, you're hot for a 15 year old" etc, and the observers weren't their parents or the owners just observers period, I submit the "observers" should've just minded their own freaking business.
As for the letter being one of apology, I can see acknowledging that once they stated they'd rather I just stop taking photos or limit it to photos of my kids & nothing else, I should've stated my protest to it respectfully but emphatically (if that's possible) and left ON THE SPOT, rather than continuing to stay knowing I would end up taking more photos of whatever, even though they were okay with me staying. That said, they do need to be educated and told of how the customer was just being paranoid & that such paranoia ruined the experience for a paying customer, leaving a sour and "chilled atmosphere" kind of mood for a visitor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
While the OP could have perhaps handled the situation better (as has been pointed out, it is private property, and the owner is perfectly within his/her rights to ask the OP to not take pictures/not return with a camera), this rubs me the wrong way:
Taking photos in public has become a no no?? Your argument seems to be that one bad photographer might do something bad with public photography, so we should all stop public people photography? "One idiot might ruin it" for us, therefore let's voluntarily ruin it ourselves first by stopping public people photography? It doesn't matter why I want to take pictures in public or for whom (commercial uses aside). The more we give in to these paranoid ideas about privacy in a public place, the more we will lose our ability to shoot normally and freely in public. Unless I misunderstood your point.
Now again, I'm not saying that we should be belligerent about shooting in public even though we may be in the right. A few weeks ago I was asked by a London Underground agent to stop shooting inside the Tube station since photography was prohibited. I knew she was wrong but instead of starting a fight, I informed her that I'd looked up the rules and it was allowed. She said that I'd need to talk to the station manager. I could have just asserted my right and argued with her or just left (and thus given her the impression that she was right) -- but instead I went and talked to the station manager who confirmed that photography was allowed. No altercations, no arguments, no shouting -- we just resolved it and made one more "official" aware of the rule/law.
I am all for handling these situations amicably (although sometimes some people are just looking for a fight), but I strongly object to the idea that we should voluntarily cave in to paranoia.
That is an excellent post, and I really like how you handled that manner.
Most of all, I agree, I also (obviously) object to the idea that we should voluntarily cave in to paranoia. No no no, we must FIGHT it. HOW we fight it might be arguable, but we should most certainly fight it.
I mean, I've heard of schools telling parents they can't take photos of their kids performing in games or swim meets etc because other people's kids might incidentally end up included in the photos. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about. If they told that to me, I would pull my child from the group altogether. If my child is in an event and I want to take photos, I'm doing it. Period. Otherwise, they can't be in it at all.
express to them that as the owners of the place they could make up whatever rules they wanted to & I understood that their priority...
I then continued taking photos as I had been...
Later the main owner showed up and told me that if I wanted to continue to visit in the future I would need to all but take no photos of anything at all...
When all was said & done the owner was pretty much adamant about that if I were to return I'd pretty much have to take no photographs of anything, not even my own kids doing their thing, and certainly not "scenic overviews." I explained to him that would not be okay,...
I realize fully a property owner can forbid photography on their premises...
(On a side note, they're selling the place, and apparently someone has been in talks with them about possibly buying it, so maybe they'll have new owners at some point & I could maybe try again.)http://pics3.city-data.com/forum/
What are your observations?
LRH
My observation,
You was on private property and asked by the property manager and property owner not to take pictures. You argued and proceeded to pictures. I'm amazed they didn't have you arrested for trespassing.
Its not about "giving in", its simply about being polite and considering the other parties involved.
It is indeed about giving in when you talk of blanket "public photography" with no context or sense of scale/degree. I shoot a lot of urban scenes. By your logic, I should give in to people's paranoia and stop shooting anytime there could be identifiable people and/or buildings in the frame unless I gather releases from dozens of people and property owners/managers. There is no expectation of privacy in public. Now if I was going to stand 2 feet in front of you (a stranger) and take a shot of you in the street, then yes, I would ask you first, out of politeness (even though the law would be on my side about my right to shoot without asking). And no, I don't shoot kids either, unless its my kid (and other kids happen to be in the frame/background). But when it becomes a blanket idea/rule/law that I need to ask permission from anyone remotely in the frame when shooting in public, I object.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhotoProIP
Your examples are not daytime such as what the OP was doing! Now we are comparing apples with oranges. The OP was shooting in the middle of the day.
1. Time of day doesn't matter. What matters is how identifiable/prominent the people were in his pictures. We do not know what kind of pictures the OP was taking (e.g. how identifiable/prominent the people were in them).
2. You simply said that you "don't do "public places" photography unless I have model or property release signed" -- no mention about what kinds of shots. Releases (for commercial usage) are needed when people or properties are identifiable, regardless of whether its daytime or nighttime. There are dozens of identifiable people and buildings in my examples, hence they still stand (I do have hundreds of daytime examples as well).
Quote:
Originally Posted by SVTRay
You was on private property and asked by the property manager and property owner not to take pictures.
Could be my oversight, but where did you read that the manager/owner asked him not to take pictures? I read that the OP specifically asked if he should stop shooting and the manager said no. The owner asked him to not shoot in the future only.
Maybe OP, you can clear it up? Did the manager/owner ask you to stop shooting and did you continue to take pictures after that?
What are your observations? Should I have just played along & figured that whoever the complainer was probably wouldn't be back next time we returned & it would be a non-issue at that point? Also, have any of you experienced any such thing?
Maybe OP, you can clear it up? Did the manager/owner ask you to stop shooting and did you continue to take pictures after that?
Yes I did, when I should've expressed my disapproval & left immediately. I was asked to only take photos of my own kids, and not anything else at all, versus walking around snapping the scenery. I told them of my nature & disposition etc and that snapping photos is a hobby of mine and that if I couldn't do that freely as I was doing I wouldn't be coming back, and yet with the first person anyway I wasn't told to leave on the spot. I continued to shoot, if less often. I will admit--I did wrong there in that I should've left ON THE SPOT even though that meant uprooting the other members with me. (Yes I know I could've stopped shooting altogether and stayed, but sorry, maybe I'm wrong, but I can't respect such stupidity. It's either leave or damn the rules & shoot anyway.)
Even the second person didn't ask me to leave anyway, just that I wasn't going to be welcomed back. At that point, I figured, if I can't come back anyway and nothing's going to be pursued legally, I might as well go for broke and do what I came to do.
Wait, so you are unable to control yourself when asked by the owner of the property to only take photos of your own family, even though you acknowledged that he had the right to make that requirement, to the point that you knew that you would continue to take the kinds of photos that the owner had asked you not to take? And you chose to stay, knowing that you would do something you'd been asked not to do?
Do you realize at all what you're saying about yourself? And those photographers that cause problems for all the good ones that are being discussed? You might want to look in a mirror.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
