3 ms·

I've found that people who are serious about photography tend to behave in a way that is exactly legal but still extremely annoying. They're relatively harmless

I've found that people who are serious about photography tend to behave in a way that is exactly legal but still extremely annoying. They're relatively harmless (after all "it's just a picture!") but the behavior is still a public nuisance A few years ago I read a similar anecdote of a woman being accosted by a photographer on transit, taking photos of the baby she was carrying and persisting even after asked to stop. She wound up having to physically shield herself and the baby from being photographed and the guy kept taking other shots every chance he got, like when she was leaving the train and such. Super rude, but technically legal. This was in Alberta, for those who care It really made me think we need different laws about consent in photography. Surely we can carve out exceptions for photographing notable events, documenting crimes, crowd shots and other such valid reasons for photographing someone without consent, without allowing a rando with a camera to pester (and arguably intimidate) people just going about their day Edit: There was also a case a few years ago of a guy going around taking creepshots of women, their butts and cleavage and such and publishing them. That was clearly illegal so we already do have some rules about public photography that is allowed and some that isn't.

ryandrake 2y ago
> A few years ago I read a similar anecdote of a woman being accosted by a photographer on transit, taking photos of the baby she was carrying and persisting even after asked to stop. She wound up having to physically shield herself and the baby from being photographed and the guy kept taking other shots every chance he got, like when she was leaving the train and such. Super rude, but technically legal. I think there's a line somewhere between "being annoying/rude/obnoxious" and "politely refusing to stop recording." You can see this when you look at a few different "First Amendment Auditor" content creators. Some of them are obviously obnoxious, belligerent, and clearly looking for conflict. Others just quietly keep recording, politely but firmly ignoring the subject's (often themselves annoying) demands for them to stop. I don't have any problem whatsoever with the latter behavior. The former is kind of cheap and trashy, even if it's still legal.
- bluefirebrand 2y ago
  Both are unacceptable behaviors in my opinion Quietly continuing to record is ignoring that the person even has protested. It's still asserting that your right to record them trumps any objection they might raise. It is in effect reducing them from a person to simply the subject of your recording Yes, one of these behaviors you describe is much more visibly obnoxious, but the quieter version is still obnoxious. It shows absolutely no respect for the people you are recording
- _yb2s 2y ago
  You really don't have a problem with someone quietly ignoring your request to stop photographing you or your family minding your own business, and just continuing? It feels like a massive invasion- I am pretty shocked that it isn't illegal already. I have had people do this to me, and I used body language rather than words to show that I was going to physically take the camera from them if they didn't stop- and I would do so, but it never got to that point. At one point I did demand a stranger delete the photos, and I watched until they were done, under the implication that I would be doing it for them if they didn't.
  - ryandrake 2y ago
    I'm not saying I'd welcome it, but I can't really have a problem with it since it's a constitutionally-protected activity, and the filmer is not intentionally antagonizing anyone. We have the right to ask, but we can't force them to stop. Surely doing anything physically to stop them is crossing the line into robbery or battery. We have no expectation of privacy in a public place or in any place that can be reasonably considered public. Photographers do not have to obtain consent from anyone who is either incidentally in a recording or the subject in focus. It's surprising how many people don't know this. Someone, sometime in their past, must have taught them otherwise.
    - _yb2s 2y ago
      You absolutely can have a problem with invasive and inappropriate behavior like this, even if it’s technically not illegal. You have every right to also do anything legal to stop them. You can’t rely on the law to set or enforce personal boundaries, that is your responsibility. I personally would not actually harm or rob anyone, but I certainly will make them strongly suspect that I am willing to by appearing to be extremely pissed off- after exhausting any possibility of reasoning with them. As I described above, this happens to me and my son a lot by virtue of hop how we look and what we are doing, and I won’t tolerate it. I’m actually a very calm person, but I am also a large scary looking man, and very very occasionally I will pretend to be about to lose control, for the sake of the kind of person that understands nothing else. They are lucky to be having this conflict with me, someone that won’t actually hurt them… as a lot of people would.
seoulmetro 2y ago
Why is taking photos with butts and cleavage in the picture illegal but not taking photos of someone? "Clearly illegal"? How? What's the difference?

ryandrake 2y ago

> A few years ago I read a similar anecdote of a woman being accosted by a photographer on transit, taking photos of the baby she was carrying and persisting even after asked to stop. She wound up having to physically shield herself and the baby from being photographed and the guy kept taking other shots every chance he got, like when she was leaving the train and such. Super rude, but technically legal. I think there's a line somewhere between "being annoying/rude/obnoxious" and "politely refusing to stop recording." You can see this when you look at a few different "First Amendment Auditor" content creators. Some of them are obviously obnoxious, belligerent, and clearly looking for conflict. Others just quietly keep recording, politely but firmly ignoring the subject's (often themselves annoying) demands for them to stop. I don't have any problem whatsoever with the latter behavior. The former is kind of cheap and trashy, even if it's still legal.

bluefirebrand 2y ago
Both are unacceptable behaviors in my opinion Quietly continuing to record is ignoring that the person even has protested. It's still asserting that your right to record them trumps any objection they might raise. It is in effect reducing them from a person to simply the subject of your recording Yes, one of these behaviors you describe is much more visibly obnoxious, but the quieter version is still obnoxious. It shows absolutely no respect for the people you are recording
_yb2s 2y ago
You really don't have a problem with someone quietly ignoring your request to stop photographing you or your family minding your own business, and just continuing? It feels like a massive invasion- I am pretty shocked that it isn't illegal already. I have had people do this to me, and I used body language rather than words to show that I was going to physically take the camera from them if they didn't stop- and I would do so, but it never got to that point. At one point I did demand a stranger delete the photos, and I watched until they were done, under the implication that I would be doing it for them if they didn't.
- ryandrake 2y ago
  I'm not saying I'd welcome it, but I can't really have a problem with it since it's a constitutionally-protected activity, and the filmer is not intentionally antagonizing anyone. We have the right to ask, but we can't force them to stop. Surely doing anything physically to stop them is crossing the line into robbery or battery. We have no expectation of privacy in a public place or in any place that can be reasonably considered public. Photographers do not have to obtain consent from anyone who is either incidentally in a recording or the subject in focus. It's surprising how many people don't know this. Someone, sometime in their past, must have taught them otherwise.
  - _yb2s 2y ago
    You absolutely can have a problem with invasive and inappropriate behavior like this, even if it’s technically not illegal. You have every right to also do anything legal to stop them. You can’t rely on the law to set or enforce personal boundaries, that is your responsibility. I personally would not actually harm or rob anyone, but I certainly will make them strongly suspect that I am willing to by appearing to be extremely pissed off- after exhausting any possibility of reasoning with them. As I described above, this happens to me and my son a lot by virtue of hop how we look and what we are doing, and I won’t tolerate it. I’m actually a very calm person, but I am also a large scary looking man, and very very occasionally I will pretend to be about to lose control, for the sake of the kind of person that understands nothing else. They are lucky to be having this conflict with me, someone that won’t actually hurt them… as a lot of people would.

seoulmetro 2y ago

Why is taking photos with butts and cleavage in the picture illegal but not taking photos of someone? "Clearly illegal"? How? What's the difference?