Photography, in practice

[pecunium]

I take pictures. I've done it for years. At times it's difficult (not the oddities of light and equipment, nor the cost and uncertainty [back in the day one had to do some mental figuring because the recorded image wasn't immediately available for review. One was right, or not] nor yet the search for places to present one's work), and some of those difficulties remain.

People don't like strangers taking pictures of them.

These days, "because everything has changed," there are a lot of people who don't like people taking pictures at all.

Last week sometime a guy was harassed in San Francisco Muni hassles shooter Up in Seattle, Wash a guy was more than just hassled Brown Equals Terrorist he had the police come to his house because a security guard had nervous thoughts about him.

Now shooting pictures is pretty straightforward. So long as one doesn't publish them, anyone can, pretty much, take pictures of anyone, anything and anyplace. People tell you they don't want you to take their pictures, but they can't forbid you. If you publish them they can sue (one of the difficulties is the issue of discretion vs. principle [I happen to dislike rewarding brutish behaviour, but the cost of replacing equipment if some lunkhead decides it's worth it to risk an assault and battery charge; and then the hassle of suing for the cost of my damaged gear, which said lunkhead may not have the money to replace, may cause me to stop shooting. A press pass will usually diffuse this, but I digress).

But nowadays people who don't like your pictures have trump cards. Taking pictures near a playground? They'll call the cops and say a pedophile has been around. Near the docks, boom you're a terrorist.

It isn't limited to the States. In Canada (Toronto, as I recall) a guy had some cops at a protest take his camera away and reformat the disk. It backfired, just a bit, because the guy had a spare flash-drive and had done a quick swap (this is one of the reasons I want the wireless widget for my digital).

So there is a file (pdf) which can be kept to refer to when some cop (because a private citizen isn't going to give a damn) tries to hassle you for taking pictures.

Photo Issues, a la Bert P. Krages.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

One of the nice things about cell phones with cameras is that people don't know if you are taking a picture or checking your text messages. The draw back is that now you can't go in some places with them. For instance, I was at an opinion maker screening of "the Chorus" and was forced to leave my phone with the theater manager !!!!! It is a great film by the way.
The other drawback of camera phones, at least mine, is they aren't that good, yet...
I am dreading the day when they will not let you take them into store dressing rooms. I use them to take a picture of what I try on sometimes, then I can send it to a friend or my mom and get a second opinion. This is especially helpful if it is for a special occasion, I also snoop shop with it ;-)

Susan in St. Paul

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

The MTA is going to ban photos on subways. Meanwhile, they had a devistating fire, possibly caused by a homeless person trying to keep warm, that screwed up the system and still has a line running at less than full capacity, but people taking photos could potentially be harmful.

So people with larger cameras who want to take nice artistic stuff can get stuffed, and people with bitty camera phones won't have a problem because who's gonna notice? Bleah.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Yeah, being possessed of SLRs I'm familiar with the "big camera" problem. I have some work arounds (wide angle lenses, and secondary shutter releases, mirror lock and "taking the camera apart" for composed stuff, but surreptituous photography is a pain.

It sometimes amazes me haw many people ignore the camera, which I take everywhere.

TK

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

I shoot around my kids.


Make it look like I'm taking a shot of them, but get something else. As long as they remain kind of short, I'm ok.

[coupesetique.livejournal.com]

Right after Ian (Brown Equals Terrorist) got harrassed last year, there was much media hype and buzz around the area. The ACLU was really quick to jump in and defend him. People were really supportive of his cause.

Now it's a distant memory for most people. There's been no media followup to the story or anything.

I've kept up with his website over the last six months. Good to see that he's still campaigning against racial profiling both on a student and government level...

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

I pay attention, even look for stories like his. They aren't new,m and they won't go away, esp. these days.

Which s scary.

TK

[ladymeow.livejournal.com]

I was on the subway in Boston recently taking some pictures of my friends and I was told by a worker to stop. I didn't understand at all, because what I was doing was totally harmless- I wasn't taking pictures of anybody else around. I took a few pictures of the signs because some of them were old and I liked their designs. The subway is a public place, and I should have the right to take pictures just as if I was above ground walking through Boston.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

And you do. If they are for personal use, there is damned little (and that pretty much has to be posted) you can't take pictures of.

Stores can kick you out, but not public places.

I have a friend who has a business, specialised clothing, sold at faires. He bans photography in the booth. The funny thing is of course, that lots of his stuff is worn, and so gets shot. If I wanted to (which is what someone engaged in ind. espionage would do) I could take a lower light picture.

More to the point, apart from real competion (which would just buy one, or two, and use them to design similar product) no one who takes pictures can reproduce the stuff, unless they have a lot of talent, and the right equipment. It's silly.

TK

[(Anonymous)]

I do take pictures of clothing and knock them off for my own personal use, of course. before my cell phone camera I just drew sketches. Some people go into dressing rooms with sheets of wax paper folded up and take rubbings, not usually of whole pieces of clothing but of an aspect like a neckline or something. I can draft patterns so I have never even considered that. Even the stuff I shoot and knock off, I modify it for how I like it. Lately I have been obsessed by innovative pants and trouser pockets, so if I see one somewhere, I shoot it or draw it.

Susan in St. Paul

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Sure, to some degree one can do that for many things.

And for one offs, unless your Guaultier, who cares.

For Jim to lose a $200 sale the person would need to buy the leather, do the patterning (which is not trivial) sew the leather (and this is about 8 oz leather) map the tooling, tool and dye.

So it goes past silly to pointless. If someone has the skills, the tools and the desire, he's not going to sell to them, photograph or not.

TK

[don-fitch.livejournal.com]

It might be silly to forbid photography, in a used/collectible clothing booth or elsewhere, but it also might not be entirely without significant content. Sometimes, it seems to be a matter of Possessiveness, or of Control. These are qualities that can range from the trivial (and ridiculous) to the downright dangerous, depending on how they're applied. On the opposite hand... I was acquainted with a woman who had a National Reputation (in an admittedly rather small circle) for the superb quality of her Osage- and Ponca-style ribbonwork, used as a part of Indian Dance clothing. She welcomed people into her shop in Oklahoma to take close-up photos of her work, saying "The Creator has given me the ability to learn to make Beautiful Things; they should be enjoyed by as many people as possible". (Of course, she was perfectly aware that hardly anyone would or could emulate her intricate designs and meticulous workmanship, and she did caution me that one item she was working on was "a family design, so anyone who wants to imitate it should change it a little, or at least use a different color combination".) Somehow, I admire and respect her much more than I do the Literary Executors of the Estate of Martin Luther King, who are purported to charge enormous sums for reprinting most of his speeches.

[tongodeon.livejournal.com]

You've missed the whole angle of copyrighted photos of public spaces:

Photographers of "Cloud Gate" in Chicago's Millenium Park will be sued for copyright infringement. (http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/12/179212)

The city of Paris has reposessed the Eiffel tower and it is now illegal to publish photos of the tower at night. (http://www.livejournal.com/users/matrushkaka/157846.html) (via matrushkaka)

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

No, while that is interesting, it is only semi-relevant to the issue at hand.

Those spaces fall into the area of release. To publish them without a release a tort, it isn't (though you may be hassled, when the Cloud Gate is opened, right now it's a theoretical problem).

They are not part of the question of who can be randomly stopped for taking pictures.

TK

Where

[skip-hunter.livejournal.com]

do you fall on people who really just dont want their picture taken? Not the shot, or anything else, just not really wanting to be a subject (or part of one), of your photgraphy?

Re: Where

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Depends on why I'm taking the picture. For the most part, I'm pretty stiff-necked. If I want to take a picture, and they happen to be in the shot, they are going to have their picture taken.

If I am doing personal stuff, working on framing, light, facial expression (I do a lot of intimate portraiture; not erotic, but reveletory, and it takes practice) I'll probably quit, if they come up and say it makes them uncomfortable, but more as an issue of not taking away their enjoyment of place.

TK

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

The issue at Cloud Gate seems to have been more the incompetence/misunderstanding of the guards. Still silly that the copyright remains with the sculptor (whom it seems performed a work for hire).

Details, an extract, The Copyrights: Now that we all understand the permit issue (right?), the copyright issue almost falls by the wayside. The City of Chicago neither grants nor enforces copyrights, which exist solely between the creators of the works and the secondary publisher. Essentially, anyone that’s allowed to take photographs in Millennium Park (as stated above, for now, anyone can take photos without a permit) can take pictures of whatever they want. The copyright issue doesn’t pop up until said photographers attempt to publish images of the copyrighted works without the consent of the artists. If you are a photographer that wishes to publish an image of Cloud Gate (the bean), Pritzker Pavilion, BP Bridge, the Lurie Garden or Crown Fountain, the City urges you to contact the following representatives:..."

TK