Just because something is legal, doesn’t make it right. In the OP’s case, I’m not sure that deleting pics is illegal. The OP handed the camera over, after all. Now, in the second instance, he did ask her not to delete…but he handed the camera over.
Why do you assume that your right to take a picture of someone trumps their right to whatever privacy they can get?
I am very suspicious of someone who has to resort to sneaky tactics to get pics. Yeah, maybe the subject is fully dressed, but it’s still an intrusion.
I haven’t so far, but what difference does it make if someone takes a picture of a minor who is walking around in public? As long as it isn’t for some horrid purpose, there is nothing wrong with it whatsoever. And by the way, I have found in my life that people who are the biggest opponents against something are often running from something they are ashamed of. Something that relates to what they are opposing.
Because you might share those pics on FB, Flickr, Picasa, or any number of online or print publications. And while you might have no nefarious intentions, those who do might download, print, or share the pics of my little girl. And if I ever found catch astranger taking pictures of my cute kid in a bathing suit, bending over to feed the baby goats at the petting zoo, or playing at the pool, I’m going to alert everyone in the vicinity to the intrusion and probably ask management to remove the intruder.
TLDR: because I don’t want some creeper taking photos of my kid.
Well, this goes full-circle back to the fact that responding to a legal act with a criminal one is an over-reaction (and doesn’t say much about a person’s character). If that’s how it goes down, the photographer won’t be the one who gets arrested. And I’d say there’s a burden on the actor not to engage in criminal acts, not a burden to refrain from legal ones.
Awesome! New York City pays photographers around $30,000 a pop for the privilege of being kidnapped by cops. If that’s the going rate in other places, this could be a seriously profitable venture. “Look! I’m taking pictures! I’m being very, very bad!”
**Disclaimer - I am DEFINITELY not saying that anyone should resort to physical violence over pictures in public. 100% not in favor of that. I also agree that people are within their right to take pictures of anyone in public so please spare me that argument because I’m not saying that either.
I do think that if I was a celebrity with a shitpile of money I’d hire about 100 students and give them 100 cameras and pick a paparazzi guy to stalk. I’d have them take pictures of him, his wife, his children and anyone else in his life every.single.time. they walked outside. I’d also make sure my army of photographers said disparaging things to them rapid fire attempting to get them to blow their stacks just like the real paps do.
I just want to touch on a few things in the thread:
If you really don’t understand the difference I’m not sure there’s anything to be said. Your eyes can’t magically take the images you’ve seen and put them on a website to stay there for the duration of time. It’s pretty easy to understand, really.
Although I am sure most people who take pics do not take them for any nefarious reason, as you stated, there definitely are creeper sites where pictures are posted of little kids to be perused by pervs. One of my law enforcement friends showed me one such website, totally legal, that has thousands of pictures of children which are cataloged and can be searched by location and approximate age. A perver can select his or her desired age range (say 9-11) and then search by city, state, or country to see kids in his or her area. The pictures can be uploaded by anyone and they are encouraged to tell where the picture was taken. Lovely, no?
So while I agree that photographers have a right in America to take pictures of anyone in public, I think only an asshole behaves as if their right to do so should trump someone else’s comfort. I’m sure most people don’t notice their picture being taken and those who do mostly don’t care. I’m betting it’s a small percentage of people who would say something to someone for it and ask them not to, is it so hard to comply and honor the request?
I mean, I guess I can kind of see if you do it for a living and you NEED that shot for being paid, but other than that you’re just doing the “HOW DARE YOU, IT IS MY RIGHT!” horseshit that, to me, pegs one as a ridiculously entitled asshole.
Right; and I said in my very first post to this thread that if she agreed to be part of a posed picture that she had no right to delete the picture. Since that post, the thread has moved on to a wider discussion and we are now largely focused (heh) on the issue of photographing people in public who have specifically told the photographer “Don’t take my picture.”
Her touching the camera is not even the most important transgression.
The really nasty thing she did was destroy Rodgers01 property (the images in question). Isn’t that illegal* (though highly unlikely to be prosecuted in this case)?
*There are, I believe, mitigating circumstances with regards to the legality of her destroying the images. As a former news photographer I have some basic understanding of the legal issues involved when capturing a person’s image, though not detailed knowledge. For example, if the images were made on private property, the photographer doesn’t necessarily have any right to take someone’s photo without permission. On public or “public/private” property, however, the photographer is usually within his/her rights to make a photo/video of anything he/she wants to.
“Public/private” property is a place like a sporting arena or a movie theater–as long as photography is not expressly forbidden.
Well of course. I totally agree with you. What do you think I’m some kind of pervert?! I’ve got standards just like you. You always run to the furthest extreme in order to try and win an argument. Jesus!
Assign a hoverbot with a camera and a bright flash to stay just out of her reach, snap a picture every ten seconds, and heckle her about never being able to delete these pics. Have the bot upload the pics every few seconds in case she gets an antiaircraft gun.
Well obviously both sides of this argument are going too far. How often do you see creepy photographers taking pictures of children playing in a park? Jesus get a grip! And some people on this thread have no sense of decency or justice, because it is unjust to imply that another poster is some kind of pervert just for quoting the law!
No you do not have the right to smash the camera. You probably know that. You might not even have any right to insist that the picture be destroyed because it was taken illegally. See the link to the ACLU’s “photographer’s rights” in my earlier post.
Simple. Because the image has a value to you. This could be news value (e.g.: they just committed a crime) or it could be aesthetic value.
Depending on the situation, you may be a total asshole for taking a picture purely for aesthetic reasons when a person has asked you not to… but you may be within your legal rights to do so (depending on the location of the photographing).
She’s not my superior - we’re peers. The pictures were for fun (someone’s birthday? can’t remember), nothing work-related.
And since the conversation has moved on to the wider question of taking pictures without permission (though that was definitely not the case in my OP), I will say that I would not take anyone’s picture in public without their permission. Only exception is if, say, I’m taking pictures of Time Square and you, a stranger, happen to be in my crowd shot. In that case, well…sorry, but you’re in Time Square. But there’s a big difference between that kind of situation and purposely taking a close-up of an unknown individual without their knowledge or permission. That’s just kind of creepy.
“Hey, Lynn! I just painted this portrait of you, from that day we went to the beach. Took me two years and $5k in supplies. I think I have a gallery showing lined up, and I’m going to include my portrait of you. You want to see it first? Sure! Step into my studio… Sorry, please excuse me. I need to use the washroom.”
All right, you’re alone in the studio. By her invitation. You don’t like the portrait the artist has painted. Questions: are you morally free to destroy the painting? Are you legally free to destroy the painting?
This is a direct analogy, and I await your answers. A photograph is an original work with copyright vested in the photographer. A painting is also an original work, obviously. Photographed in public and painted in (or from) public are legally equivalent–someone uses tools and talent to capture or recreate your likeness. Your prior permission (public, remember) is not legally relevant.
Argue that you have a moral/legal right to destroy the painting and you can argue that you have a moral/legal right to destroy the photograph.
You. Have. No. Right. To. Privacy. In. Public. Places. Full fucking stop.