No you don’t have the right to that.
If a person is in a public place, with no reasonable expectation of privacy, then they can be photographed. You’re in a bar. It is up to the bar owner. Not you.
If your reaction to a annoyance is an act of vandalism, you have a mental disorder, not a “right”.
To the OP
Why did you give her the camera a second time? What did you think she was going to do?
What conceivable reason, other than being jackass, can you offer for insisting on photographing a non-famous person who has specifically told you not to do so?
The OP answered this. Twice. Most recently in post #30.
But agree you don’t have a “right” to not have your picture taken if your in a public place, and certainly don’t have the right to destroy other peoples property in retaliation.
If you don’t want to be seen in public, don’t go out in public.
If you don’t want your picture taken, you shouldn’t be posing for pictures.
The person in question POSED for the pictures. This has nothing to do with the situation in the OP.
If someone started deleting pictures off my camera after I asked them not to, they’d never touch my camera again. And they’d never get a picture of them taken by me again, even if they posed.
No she was not within her “rights”. People in public have no expectation of privacy: you can take their picture without their consent. The only place you can’t do it is on the subject’s private property or in a place where a person does have a reasonable expectation of privacy, which basically means they can be naked there if they choose. It’s a Constitutionally protected sort of thing. It may seem bad to you, but if photographers did not have this right, for one thing freedom of the press would be severely damaged. And Freedom of the press is an important safeguard of liberty.
What if they are not the “subject” of the photo but just “in” the photo? What if I’m a journalist and I’m capturing an event? What if I’m an artistic photographer and this I’m trying to capture something?
But hey, that person is bouncing photons at me! I’m taking their photo to prove that they are bouncing photons at me!
What reason, other than being a danger to society, would someone have to assault me and damage property. (worth hundreds or thousands of dollars) Just because that property was collecting photons that happened to bounce off them?
So, you’re falling back on the “because it’s my right!” justification?
Is she your superior at work? Are you taking photos for yourself or for work? Don’t let her touch your camera again.
Yes, because I have an actual right to take photographs in public. You know, legal and everything!
And because if Scumpup and people like him got their way, no one would be able to take pictures in public. I mean, there would have to be a law preventing it to avoid tons and tons of lawsuits and assaults and everything! Free society would be finished. It would become a secret nation, like North Korea, or something. The rammifications would be incalculable–like killing all the mosquitoes. Kill the mosquitoes and the entire ecosystem would be disrupted. Frogs would starve, storks would starve because their frog diet would disappear… You get the idea.
It being legal for you to take my picture after I tell you not to do so isn’t a reason for you to take the picture anyway.
Correct.
Not gonna lie. I’ve deleted photos of myself from people’s cameras before, which is a prickish thing to do, but that’s because they started it (childish argument, you may say) by being the kinds of pricks who either takes photos of you while you’re half dead with food in your mouth or something and are all, “Oh dude, this is totally fine,” or they take my photo after specifically being asked NOT to. Seriously, what is wrong with people that they insist on trying to snap photos of you when you’ve made it clear as day that you don’t want this to happen? I’m not shy, I don’t have body issues, I’m not in the mood for whatever amateur psychoanalyzing you’re trying to pull regarding why this is, I just don’t feel like being in your stupid picture, okay? I’m sure that makes me sort of an asshole deleting people’s pictures, but if someone told me to knock it off, I certainly would, and I’d also expect that person to knock off taking pictures of me.
But anyway, enough about me. What Lynn said. In this case she should have left your camera alone when you told her to and you should have left her out of the photos.
Well maybe the very fact that you don’t want to be photographed is a reason to take your picture! Ordinary people can be interesting to photograph. Recently when I went to the zoo, I pretended to be shooting the animals, but really I was photographing the people who were looking at the animals. To me it’s a type of wildlife photography.
Then you should have no problem agreeing that some wildlife can be dangerous and that any harm that comes to you and your equipment just comes with the territory.
Chalk me up as another shy person who hates having their picture taken. I generally hide when the cameras come out, and I ask friends not to include me in pictures or to post pictures of me on FB (which they agree to). I also have my FB settings set so tagged photos of me don’t appear in my timeline, and any time I get a notice that a photo of me was tagged, I go in and untag it and ask the person not to re-tag it.
All of that said, I don’t think the woman had the right to delete photos from the OP’s camera, and I would have been livid if she’d done it to my camera. If she didn’t like the pics of her I would have happily deleted them if they were of just her, or cropped/agreed not to post them if she was part of a group. But I’m very protective of my stuff and the first time someone deleted anything off my phone/camera would be the last time they ever got near it.
You know, I’ve never even thought about this, but when showing someone photos on my camera, I never hand them my camera. I hold the camera out so they can comfortably look over my shoulder while I flip through them.
Partly I guess I just like to be a part of sharing my work, but I also figure there’s a reasonable chance that someone unfamiliar with my camera could screw up the settings or delete something, whether they intended to or not.
You might want to adopt this. There’s no reason to let go of the camera if all they want to do is look.
(Also, in case it wasn’t obvious, I fall squarely in the “if I can see you, I can shoot you” camp. I honestly don’t get why, if I see you in public, that’s okay, but if I take a photo it’s suddenly a grave offense? If you’re that weirded out by people seeing you, why are you out in public in the first place? What’s the difference between seeing with my eyes and seeing with my camera? I of course respect reasonable privacy – I’m not going to sneak into your bushes and shoot through your bedroom window, and I don’t respect anyone who does. But if you’re in a large group of people, guess what… they can ALL see you!)
Nobody has expressed an unwillingness to be seen, so I don’t know why that is even being brought up. This centers around an unwillingness to be recorded after having expressed that unwillingness.
A picture with you as the main subject, I agree. But sometimes you’re going to be captured in a shot when I’m taking pictures at an event. I’ll make every effort to crop you out but I can’t guarantee you won’t appear somewhere in the shot. Either way, the photos are mine and they may contain images that are valuable to me even if I never publish them.
You have a right to object to publishing unwanted photos of you, I have no quarrel with that. You have a right to object to me pointing a camera at you and taking pictures when you asked me not to, I have no objection to that request. But if you are in public I may end up capturing your image from time to time and you’ll just have to deal with that.
It’s being brought up because:
In point of fact, my eyes and my camera will be seeing the same thing, yet…
I see you with my eyes, all is well. I see you with my camera, you viciously assault me. Uh… WTF?