What Part of "Don't Take My Picture!" Don't You Understand?

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
101

Pictures of me do not look good. I’ve taken three good pictures in my life, one when I was 6 months old, one at about 3, one in my twenties. I’ve had about 4 ok-ish pictures. And that’s it. Whether or not all the other tons and tons of photos actually look like I look is a matter of debate - but the creature in the rest of the pictures of me is flat-out hideous.

I have no desire to have a permanent record of that. I don’t particularly wish for other people to have it either. Yes, it’s vanity. I vastly prefer to be recalled through the hazy (but flattering) lens of memory or even forgotten than to be remembered as that ugly thing in the photograph.

102

Many of the conventions I have attended have an explicit policy placed right in front of the entrance that by entering the convention, you agree that you are entering public domain and that photos may be taken of you, and even used to promote the event, or ed up on the web as evidence of a successful event.

Did you check the policy?

I understand the frustration, but if that’s the policy, you have the right ot ask her not to, but she had the right to take it.

Not that I condone her behavior - sounds like she was a nutter, but you should check the event rules.

Inky
Who makes it to 5-6 conventions a year.

103

I wish people would stop talking about the legality of the actions. It is completely misleading, and I would even say slightly off-topic. It is certainly not what Siege’s post is about. (or did I miss something?)

What Siege was talking about was being upset and angry over a situation of excessive rudeness.

Does something have to be illegal before we’re allowed to be upset over it?

I don’t think it’s a matter of “allowing” the photographer to take a picture. I think from the early part of this discussion, the crux of this thread is - should Siege be allowed her emotions?

I consider this an emotional issue, and I think her emotions are valid for her.

Well, actually she was asking if you would do something to prevent it. Not to get back to the legal commentary, but there really wasn’t much that she could have done legally. She couldn’t leave the room easily, and since she objected to the photography of her person, “covering her face” was not a solution.

Also - you wouldn’t object? Neither would I. But neither of us have lived her life. So we didn’t learn to object to having pictures taken, but she did.

So if you don’t object to that, how about this scenario?

You’re sitting with a group of people you just met. Someone reaches for a french fry from your plate.
You ask them not to. This person does so anyway. Then the person gleefully says “I got a french fry! I got a french fry”.

To not ask is could be considered slightly rude, depending on how you were raised. To do something after you’ve been asked not to is just flat out rude.
To gloat about it afterwards shows a total lack of respect for other people’s feelings. I am neither surprised nor sympathetic to the person being in a 12-step program.

I don’t know your buttons, but I’m certain that there is some behavior that you could plug into this little playlet that would piss you off as well. The point is not the specifics of what happened, but that her boundaries were violated with malice and beyond her control. Maybe your boundaries are looser, but you do have them and it is proper that people honor them. People who don’t are invariably dysfunctional.

104

I don’t like it when people look at me. I am especially enraged when people look at me after I’ve asked them not to. It’s very rude. Sure, they’re not breaking any laws, but they’re affecting my pursuit of happiness by doing something I don’t like, so they’re, like, violating my rights or something.

105

Of course not.

However, several people claimed that the photographer’s behavior was more than just upsetting or impolite. They claimed that it was against the law. That misstatement needed correction.

106

There were posters who said the action was illegal. Those assertions needed factual correction.

Well, then that’s just too bad. She chose to enter the room of her own free will. People are not leagally entitled to any expectation that they will not have their picture taken while they are in public. Furthermore, she was not harmed in any way. Why are people acting like she was being threatened with a gun. For the life of me I can’t see how a person is injured by bing photographed.

And her objection was legally meaningless.

This is a ridiculous analogy. A person who take my food is stealing my property. I have a legal right not to have my property stolen. I do not have a legal right not to have my picture taken. The situations are not comorable.

The woman had no obligation to honor the request and taking the picture did not cause any harm. Neither did “gloating” about it. I think some of you have a very distorted perception of what truly constitutes injurious behavior.

I disagree that her boundaries were violated. I disagree that the “don’t take my picture” boundary even exists. It’s exactly like claiming you’ve been violated by someone looking at you.

107

OK, first of all, for those of you who are worried about me dying tomorrow and leaving my loved ones without a single photo to remember me by :dramatic sob:, Here’s proof that photos have been taken of me and even posted on line. You can also check last year’s Gettysdope thread and there’s a photo of me on file at Cecil’s Place. The fellow I’m crazy about does photography for a hobby and an old friend loves taking pictures. The latter has taken and sent me photos of me taken with a digital camera; I can e-mail some to anyone who wants proof. Diogenes, just to prove to you I’m not as irrational as you think I am. :wink: I’ve gotten used to the notion that both guys consider me cute, even if I can’t quite see it yet, and I’m used to them taking pictures. I’ve even taken a few myself.

Second, I never intended to imply what the woman did was illegal in any way shape or form and, if someone had tried to take legal action against her, furious though I was, I would have defended her. That doesn’t mean what she did was any less rude, and it’s her rudeness I was objecting to more than just her taking a photo.

As I said earlier, if she’d just taken a candid shot, the most I would have done was grumbled, assuming I even noticed. What I found objectionable was her insisting on taking a photo even after I objected. I did try to cover my face by putting my arm up horizontally between my face and her camera to block as much of my face as possible. Not only did she take the photo, she made a point of telling me she’d gotten my face. Look, this is what I’d been wearing for about 48 hours when she took the picture. It’s not the exact model, but it looks enough like mine that I can’t tell the difference and I’m wearing the thing now. I didn’t have the thing on when she took the photo because, as you might imagine, it does chafe and had been doing so rather badly. I did have indentations left by it in my leg. (I’ve since realized I don’t have to fasten it quite as tightly.) It’s heavy, uncomfortable, clumsy, and it makes walking awkward, although I will concede it’s better than crutches. I tend to be a bit insecure about my appearance at the best of times because I wasn’t given a reason to be secure about my appearance until I was in my 30’s. Wearing that thing made it worse, although I am getting used to it. Yes, I was tired, cranky, and in a bit of pain. That’s why I asked her not to take my photo.

Sheesh, people! I’m sorry, but I don’t find a knee injury conducive to mental health. If I’d known it was coming, I assume I could have made arrangements in advance, but I didn’t. If I’d known I was going to be confronted with a woman with a camera and difficulty understanding the words “don’t”, I would have made sure I was elsewhere, but I suspect the knee brace interferes with my psychic ability, so I didn’t and I wasn’t. :wink: Let me repeat something. What was objectionable wasn’t that she took my photo. What was objectionable was that she did so after I did everything I could under the circumstances to stop her.

Please tell me *someone * gets this?
CJ

108

I’ve agreed that it was mildly rude, but I honestly don’t think it was anything more than that.

109

Diogenes, I’m going to remind myself we’re in MPSIMS and, as a rule, I like and respect you.

I suffered from some very prolonged and nasty psychological abuse which started in childhood and lasted until I left home. That abuse was directlytied to my appearance. I was told the most I could hope for in terms of appearance was “presentable if I worked at it.” That’s a direct quote of something my father said to me several times when I was growing up, and that’s the closest he has ever gotten to complimenting me on my appearance. Let me give you an example of his typical behaviour. My parents were visiting me in Hawaii one Halloween. I was meeting them and my fiance at their hotel in a harem dancer costume I’d made up. I had a scrap of fabric across my face which I let down to say “Hello” to them. My father’s first words to me in front of my fiance were, “You looked better with the veil up.” He doesn’t know how close my fiance came to decking him or that each man who’s loved me doesn’t think much of him.

Yes, I have issues about my appearance and those issues used to be subscriptions. I’ve addressed them over the years. I no longer look in the mirror and see an incredibly ugly thing, but I have no idea how attractive I am on a scale of 1 to 10 or any other scale. I don’t know how to make someone else understand this, but I cannot see myself that easily, although I have learned what does and does not look good on me. When my gentleman friend calls me “cute”, even though I try, I cannot see that. He’s shown me pictures he’s taken of me and asked me if I don’t think I look cute. I can’t see the girl he sees; only the same ordinary features that have been looking out of my mirror for the past 30-odd years.

As I said, normally, I don’t mind having my photo taken and it’s been a few years since I asked someone not to. Saturday’s circumstances were unusual in that I was uncharacteristically in pain and needed to put something on which I found incredibly ugly to move. I joked about it and got as good a laugh as anyone when an SF writer friend made a comment about my “prosthetic Thruster” during a panel on sex in heavy G’s. Still, I don’t feel attractive or photogenic right now. That’s why I objected. If that’s not sufficient for you, tough. It was sufficient for me and I would have appreciated my wishes being respected. They weren’t.

CJ

110

No means no means no.

And Siege, I’ve had a similar problem with people who try to physically put food in my mouth. And because I’m one of those Picky Eaters [sup]TM[/sup], this usually happens after prolonged wheedling, with the person talking baby talk to me and so forth, so you can imagine how defensive I feel by that time. I’ve never bitten anyone who’s tried this, and I know full well it would be assault if I did, but as far as I’m concerned, jabbing at my mouth with a forkful of egg is assault as well.

For you it’s pictures. For me it’s food. In both cases, it should be over after the first “no”.

111

While I am firmly in the morbidly obese catagory, and not photogenic in the least, I am pretty comfortable about my body and both I and a significant number of other people think I’m pretty damn sexy. Nonetheless, I dislike having my picture taken.

My problem tends to be with tourists: Yes, I’m a gothy girl. Yes, there are a bunch of us in New York. No, this is not a theme park and I’m NOT going to stop and pose for you. I need to get to work. No, the fact that your cousin back home “would just LOVE me” doesn’t make me any more eager to pose. I repeat: this is not a theme park, and I am not dressed this way to impress you. Treating me like your personal freakshow does not make me friendlier.

This may be obnoxious in return, but I’ve started demanding something in return. “Hold still so I can take your picture” is met with “Sure, but that will be $30!”. Makes the vast majority of people go away without further hassle. I’m sure there are a fair number of people out there who shake their heads over that vain bitch who thinks her snapshot is worth $30, but it gets me what I want - peace.

mischievous

112

You know, a lot of what you said is legally true, and I agree with it, even if I think the woman taking the picture in the OP was a stupid rude bitch. But here…

I call “cite”? Specifically, I would like the cite for attempting to stop someone from taking your photo by covering your face (as the OP said she did), hiding, avoidance, or any other means which is not already a crime of assault or battery, or a personal property crime, being a civil rights violation in the United States at this current time. CFR or Federal case law equally good.

113

Never mind Diogenes, I see now you withdrew your blanket assertion of “civil rights” on Page 2. I skipped a page in reading; my fault entirely for missing it.

114

He didn’t withdraw anything. It would be a violation of someone’s rights if you actually attempted to stop them from taking pictures in a public place. Putting your hand in front of your face, however, is not an attempt to stop someone from taking a picture – it’s simply changing the appearance of the thing that they can still take a picture.

115

er, that should end, “it’s simply changing the appearance of the thing that they’re still perfectly capable of photographing.”

116

OK, then humour me, since I seem to be dense on several fronts tonight. Cite to current controlling Federal (or State) law that says it is a “civil rights violation” to “attempt(ed) to stop them from taking pictures in a public place” in a manner not already covered by assault and battery or personal property criminal law? As I said before, either the code or case law will do.

117

I was at this same con and I think I know who you’re talking about, CJ. I didn’t interact with them, though, because I didn’t really talk to anyone I didn’t know.

Without getting into the legalities or even the etiquette of this situation, I have to speak out against the compulsive shutterbugs of the world. If you don’t know me, why do you want my picture? What do you have to gain by taking a picture of some random person you talked to for five minutes? I find it creepy and bizarre that someone I don’t know would desire to have an individual picture of me, and chances are that I wouldn’t want someone possessed of such a personality to have my image. Like, why is it so important to have a visual reminder of every single person you meet? Are you trying to prove that you have friends? Maybe if these compulsive picture takers would spend half as much time trying to meet people as they would trying to steal random souls, they would find that they had a much more receptive subject, and that their pictures would mean more since they would be of actual friends instead of just acquaintances. What do you do with the picture later, look at me and reminisce “oh yeah, I bumped into her in the hall and said hello, god that was a fun time!” Seriously creepy.

118

I see. Yes, you are correct that (as far as I know) it’s not considered a violation of someone’s rights to assault them in order to prevent them from taking your pictures. It’s illegal. The distinction I (and I believe DtC) was trying to make is that you can say “preventing him from taking the picture is illegal” and the response, “oh yeah? so I can’t cover my face?” is not relevant, because covering your face is not an attempt to stop the picture from being taken.

So you’re right to say that he backed off, but not from the point you seemed to be contesting. Even before he backed off, he made no claims about covering your face or hiding.

119

I had no idea that anyone felt as strongly as some folks in this thread do about not having their picture taken. I really thought that everyone who objected to having their picture taken was just being silly and deep down they didn’t really care.

While I can’t possibly understand this feeling (I have no idea how many times I’ve had my picture taken, with or without my knowledge or by whom, and I don’t at all care), I’ll certainly be more careful about how casually I snap pictures from now on, lest I run into somebody who will smash my camera on the ground or something.

I really only take pictures of friends, aquaintances, crowds, and people at fencing tournaments (who should have every expectation that their picture will be taken). I agree that it’s pretty weird for a person to individually take pictures of relative strangers, but, as I said, I wouldn’t give a rip personally.

120

My major was photography and I worked in the field a bit, and some of my friends are still in the business, so I hear them bitchin’ about this sort of thing from time to time. Nothing makes a photographer’s blood run cold like having a photo come under scrutiny, legally speaking. The legalities of consent and privacy and use etc. are so twisted up that even some long-time pros aren’t always sure what they’re doing is legal (and some take advantage of nobody completely knowing what’s what, too). I or my lawyer could probably take almost any photograph and find a way to make it illegal or legal to have been taken, or used, etc. at some point in the process.

So you know what truly professional photographers (not stalker-razzi hacks who gleefully stomp the laws under their feet) do when someone objects to having their picture taken? They don’t take the picture. It’s not worth the hassle because there’ll always be another cute kid in the park to photograph whose parents won’t object. Siege’s shutterbug may not be a professional photographer, but a good lawyer should be able to find a way to stop her at some point.

As for me, I don’t like having my picture taken. No, make that I hate having my picture taken. I know very well the power of a photograph and how meaning can be manipulated to show anything you desire, and it wouldn’t require PhotoShop either. I’ve done it myself, just by putting several photos, that on their own were quite innocuous, next to each other. Visual slander or libel in a sense. How could Siege know how that photo might be used? What damage might be done before it came to her attention?

Aside from legalities, I completely agree that Siege’s request should have been honored the first time, simply because she asked. Quibbling over whether she had the right to not have her photo taken should be waaay down on the list of things for her to consider. It was probably quite obvious even to the shutterbug that her desire for a photo wasn’t as important as respecting Siege’s request, but she stomped all over Siege’s wishes in her rush to forget the Golden Rule. What Ms. Shutterbug wanted, as center-of-the-universe and arbiter of all that is right and good, possessor of the only emotions that really matter, is what Ms. Shutterbug was going to get, to hell with anyone else (until Siege got medieval on her, yay!).

That shutterbug is playing with fire and she’s going to get hurt if she doesn’t wise up about the power a photograph can have for some. She might not agree that a photo is powerful, she may believe that Siege wasn’t being rational, but since when do you have to agree with the request before you grant it? It’s the civilized, kind, and prudent thing to do, not over legalities but because that shutterbug is going to get her block knocked off eventually. She’ll be perfectly in the right to sue or press charges or whatever, but that won’t make the black eye she got hurt any less.