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

[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.