6 ms·

Something doesn't have to be illegal to be rude. As to norms, there is a big difference between someone appearing in a crowd shot or background, and someone be

Something doesn't have to be illegal to be rude. As to norms, there is a big difference between someone appearing in a crowd shot or background, and someone being the sole focus of the picture.

mc32 11y ago
The courts say otherwise see sole focus picture in case of Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia[1]. If it were not possible, we would not have "street photography" we would not have Robert Frank, Cartier-Bresson, Winogrand, Meier or Arbus. Picture in question[2] We also would not have documentary photography. Certainly it can feel rude to us, but the law allows it and moreover the feeling of rudeness comes more from believing we "own" our likelinesses in public spaces, which we do not. So, yes, I could feel intruded upon by a documentary or street photographer, no question, but at the same time, they have the right to take my picture, no question. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia [2]https://wmuphoto.wordpress.com/2014/02/07/nussenzweig-v-dicorcia/ https://wmuphoto.wordpress.com/2014/02/07/nussenzweig-v-dico... If you disagree with the position, post a link to law which states otherwise. There is lots of case law asserting the right of photographers to take pictures unimpeded in public spaces.
- dllthomas 11y ago
  I don't see your citations speaking to rudeness. Moreover, even if they did it is not generally the place of the courts to dictate what is and is not rude. I very much agree that this kind of photography is not illegal. In no way does that mean it is not rude. C.f. I can hurl a long stream of insults at you. Rude? Unquestionably. Legal? Also unquestionably. On those grounds you could rightly complain, choose not to associate with me, choose to avoid places I might go, tell others you find me to be a rude person. You could not enlist the government to fine or imprison me. What was being discussed here, before you brought legality into the picture, was actions like those on the former list.
  - mc32 11y ago
    Rudeness is one of those things that's very unique to the individual claimant and I think for art and expression in general, we tend to give the artist (in this case the photographer) lots of leeway. I'm sure lots of religious people would think my thoughts on religion are quite rude, but that does not and should not deter my art or anyone else's art depicting religion unfavorably. Basically, I don't want photography thrown under the bus on this one.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      Nobody is throwing photography under the bus. Please stop using a thread about sexual harassment as a coatrack to hang your concerns about photography on.
      - mc32 11y ago
        I think people have misconceptions about photography. I.e. the photographer needs permission --they don't. If you want to go against sexual harassment do so, I have no objection. I do object to people thinking that photography is automatic harassment. It's not.
    - bigiain 11y ago
      How did we get from "unsolicited selfies with, or down-blouse shots of women at tech conferences" to "art"? The problem we're talking about is creeps, not photographers, no matter what the creeps claimed motivation is - it's blindingly obvious to almost everybody that there is a difference (and posts like yours are really hard not to read as defending/justifying creep's behaviour).
      - mc32 11y ago
        In a word, "permission" It comes from knowing street photographers and the flack they get. People ready to beat them up (occasionally they do get beaten). At times it's men "protecting" someone. At time it's men themselves who feel offended. Sometimes it's women themselves who feel offended. You also get people who feel flattered. But overall they are simply "subjects"
- bigiain 11y ago
  There's a broad grey area which includes both "being legally within your rights" and "being a fucking creep". If you don't understand that, there's a very good chance you are _way_ too close to the latter.
  - mc32 11y ago
    In photography there are all kinds of people. Yes, some people are creeps, some people like taking upskirt photos (illegal in most places). I get it, some people take advantage of telephoto lenses to take creep shots, I know. What I'm getting out there is that people have a misconception that you need permission to take their (regular) photo. You do not.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > The courts say otherwise see sole focus picture in case of Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia Well, first, the question wasn't of legality, it was about rudeness irrespective of legality; second, even if it was, that's a New York case applying New York law (e.g., many states, including California, have right-of-publicity laws that are more extensive in their protection than New York's.)

Something doesn't have to be illegal to be rude. As to norms, there is a big difference between someone appearing in a crowd shot or background, and someone being the sole focus of the picture.

mc32 11y ago

The courts say otherwise see sole focus picture in case of Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia[1]. If it were not possible, we would not have "street photography" we would not have Robert Frank, Cartier-Bresson, Winogrand, Meier or Arbus. Picture in question[2] We also would not have documentary photography. Certainly it can feel rude to us, but the law allows it and moreover the feeling of rudeness comes more from believing we "own" our likelinesses in public spaces, which we do not. So, yes, I could feel intruded upon by a documentary or street photographer, no question, but at the same time, they have the right to take my picture, no question. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia [2]https://wmuphoto.wordpress.com/2014/02/07/nussenzweig-v-dicorcia/ https://wmuphoto.wordpress.com/2014/02/07/nussenzweig-v-dico... If you disagree with the position, post a link to law which states otherwise. There is lots of case law asserting the right of photographers to take pictures unimpeded in public spaces.

dllthomas 11y ago
I don't see your citations speaking to rudeness. Moreover, even if they did it is not generally the place of the courts to dictate what is and is not rude. I very much agree that this kind of photography is not illegal. In no way does that mean it is not rude. C.f. I can hurl a long stream of insults at you. Rude? Unquestionably. Legal? Also unquestionably. On those grounds you could rightly complain, choose not to associate with me, choose to avoid places I might go, tell others you find me to be a rude person. You could not enlist the government to fine or imprison me. What was being discussed here, before you brought legality into the picture, was actions like those on the former list.
- mc32 11y ago
  Rudeness is one of those things that's very unique to the individual claimant and I think for art and expression in general, we tend to give the artist (in this case the photographer) lots of leeway. I'm sure lots of religious people would think my thoughts on religion are quite rude, but that does not and should not deter my art or anyone else's art depicting religion unfavorably. Basically, I don't want photography thrown under the bus on this one.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    Nobody is throwing photography under the bus. Please stop using a thread about sexual harassment as a coatrack to hang your concerns about photography on.
    - mc32 11y ago
      I think people have misconceptions about photography. I.e. the photographer needs permission --they don't. If you want to go against sexual harassment do so, I have no objection. I do object to people thinking that photography is automatic harassment. It's not.
  - bigiain 11y ago
    How did we get from "unsolicited selfies with, or down-blouse shots of women at tech conferences" to "art"? The problem we're talking about is creeps, not photographers, no matter what the creeps claimed motivation is - it's blindingly obvious to almost everybody that there is a difference (and posts like yours are really hard not to read as defending/justifying creep's behaviour).
    - mc32 11y ago
      In a word, "permission" It comes from knowing street photographers and the flack they get. People ready to beat them up (occasionally they do get beaten). At times it's men "protecting" someone. At time it's men themselves who feel offended. Sometimes it's women themselves who feel offended. You also get people who feel flattered. But overall they are simply "subjects"
bigiain 11y ago
There's a broad grey area which includes both "being legally within your rights" and "being a fucking creep". If you don't understand that, there's a very good chance you are _way_ too close to the latter.
- mc32 11y ago
  In photography there are all kinds of people. Yes, some people are creeps, some people like taking upskirt photos (illegal in most places). I get it, some people take advantage of telephoto lenses to take creep shots, I know. What I'm getting out there is that people have a misconception that you need permission to take their (regular) photo. You do not.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> The courts say otherwise see sole focus picture in case of Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia Well, first, the question wasn't of legality, it was about rudeness irrespective of legality; second, even if it was, that's a New York case applying New York law (e.g., many states, including California, have right-of-publicity laws that are more extensive in their protection than New York's.)