Anzac Square, Brisbane "Portrait"

[rjlhughes]

Greybeard,

I don't understand your first two pars - what do you mean?

[GreyBeard]

Greybeard,

I don't understand your first two pars - what do you mean?

OK, some explanation
p1) tone seemed to be more "This photo is unethical.", rather than "I think this photo may be unethical/inapropriate because..." or " I see the possibility of this etical issue in this image..."

p2) perhaps an example?

A parent taking photos of one's children play on some equipment at a public park. for self? to email to all the relly's? to post on a public blog/album? with other children also in the images? to sell to a paedophile web site?

As above but at a school swimming carnival.

At a footy game?

What if you're not a parent? I think context & intent have as much validity as a judgement based on location. Does someone write legislation to define where when and what circumstance we are permitted to shoot?

Does the person/s in the image know or care, will they ever or are they likely to feel denigrated? abused? exploited? what is your intent when you take the shot? Does your intent as photographer supercede the subject's "ethical justice".

Do we have to think or every possible permutation before we shoot, post or publish? Send the ppic to the legal department to be vetted?

Probably too tired (as my typo rate implies) to be sufficiently sucinct ATM...sure there will be images where most will agree it's clearly unethical, IMHO there's too much fuzziness most of the time, as is here now to be saying that this is so in this image.

Hope this clarifies rather than clouds...

[rjlhughes]

Greybreard, you're right, it is late.

I get very vocal about photos that have been 'sneaked' of people, because of what it says about the person with the camera.

It's not all about location - context and intent are really important when we judge a picture. That's why I was asking about those issues in regard to the original photo.

As to whether we agree with the subject's view of whether it's an inappropriate pic or not - the benefit of the doubt has to go with the person whose image it is, doesn't it? Unless there's a compelling reason not to give in to their request.

I was talking to a woman photographer tonight (a d70 user as it happens) who set up a photo shoot which turned into a party for some young men she knows. She got some very strong homoerotic but loving shots of the two of them which she put up on the web. They were horrified and demanded she took them down. Now she says she'll get model release in similar situations.

I suspect the models will get a one off right of veto as part of that deal.

But I don't think she had any ethical choice but to take the pics down.

The decision of whether to publish or not has to be made on a case by case basis. What's important is that it's thought about, even when people publish their pictures to sites like this, photosig or flickr.

It's not complex. The workable solution, as I've mentioned, is to put yourself in the subjects position and ask how a reasonable person might feel about a picture and publication.

[leek]

Is there anywhere i can find out what i can legaly take pictures of and what i cant?

There's an excellent overview of the Australian situation here... However, in most cases, state law applies so there is no single answer to your question...

Also, while you are there, have a look at the excellent collection of photos called Sydney Unposed

[leek]

I get very vocal about photos that have been 'sneaked' of people, because of what it says about the person with the camera.

The question to ask when we take and publish photos that aren't flattering is: how would I feel if this was done to me?

i.e. it's a matter of personal judgement or taste...

What appears to be flattering or innocent to one person may not look the same to another...

My wife doesn't think any shots of her are flattering... Will that stop me taking photos of her or publishing them? Don't think so...

Did H-C-B secure model releases for all his street scenes? I don't think so... How did he know that he hadn't compromised someone by capturing them walking down the street with their mistress??? He didn't...

Did Max Dupain get model releases from all the subjects of his photos - No... How did he know that one of the guys drinking in the pub wasn't bunking off work and would get into trouble when his boss saw the photo? He probably didn't...

My point?? Many significant photographs were "sneaked" (your word).
Many innocent looking photographs have the potential to upset someone.
Should that stop us taking & publishing such photographs??? Absolutely not...

Bob - I get very vocal when someone tries to impose their views, values and/or tastes on me... Please don't...

[Sheetshooter]

"Do we have to think or every possible permutation before we shoot, post or publish? Send the ppic to the legal department to be vetted?"

In commercial practice, absolutely. And particularly where PUBLICATION is concerned. It should be pointed out emphatically that there is a world of difference between the act of making or taking a photograph and the PUBLICATION of said photograph.

The snag is that posting one's pictures on the internet is, in fact, PUBLICATION. There is no reason why the fact that the internet is not a formally drawn-up entity like a publishing house that the public's right to privacy should be any less. In fact the opposite may be true. A publication such as a magazine is a mediated and/or moderated avenue where a group of trained and expert specialists form part of a selection process - ever mindful of the legalities and public relations of their actions. Selected images are the subject of review and quite often where any doubt exists the matter is referred to the Legal Department for a determination on the possibility of ensuing litigation.

For some time now it has been not uncommon for stock libraries and publishers to require not only a signed Talent Release with ALL submissions of photographs including identifiable persons, but to also require furnishing one or more forms of Photo-I.D. along with the release as verification of the authenticity of the Release (photo-driver's-license, Passport, etc.).

Which brings us to the publication of pictures on the internet which is largely unmediated with no moderated selection process in place before the act of publication. Photographers retain and utilise access to the broadcasting, distribution and publication of pretty much anything they choose. The photos that were once kept in a shoe-box under the bed, or hung at the local camera club for the monthly competition are now openly displayed and viewable world-wide, as evidenced by the international membership of a site such as this. That has given the photographer a far greater scope for kudos, feedback, promotion and acclaim but along with those added benefits MUST come a greater level of accountability and responsibility for the photographer's own actions. Actions inherent in the making of the photograph and actions inherent in the PUBLICATION of the photograph.

None of us are privvy to the exact working methods of the likes of Henri Cartier-Bresson, Max Dupain or anybody else. Since Cartier-Bresson was an independently wealthy man pursuing the commercial aspects of his craft to the extent that he was a founder of a major picture agency I dare say that he was mindful of the legalities of his time which, given the greater naïveté of the populace, may have been more relaxed than our present day. Max Dupain was producing either commissioned works for publishers or Government bodies or shooting amongst his colleagues and in all likelihood had the consent of his subjects or was covered by the legislation covering 'News'. Plus it was happening THEN and not NOW.

This is not a discussion for digging in and standing your ground about what you consider your rights to the freedom of photographing whoever you choose however and whenever you choose may be, as some seem to think, but from my perspective it is almost a responsibility on those of us wth hard-won experience to raise awareness of such matters in the hope that people do not expose themselves to litigation unknowingly. After all, ignorance is no plea..


Cheers,

[gstark]

Greybeard,

IMHO, and yes its just an opinion, is that the politically correct & self important photo nazi's have had some ridiculous spontaneous brain explosion.

Actually, your use of the expression "self important photo nazis" is more than just your opinion. It's a very emotional and emotive term and one which I'd prefer that you not use to describe other members of this forum, who, like you, are expressing their opinions.

Please also accept that we have a mix of people, working professionals through to beginners; some of the the more experienced ones here, where they've actually worked within an arena of publishing work, perhaps can offer more than just an opinion.

[gstark]

All,

There are two points that Sheetshooter has raised in this message that I think are vitally important to this discussion, and there is one further point that I shall raise.

It should be pointed out emphatically that there is a world of difference between the act of making or taking a photograph and the PUBLICATION of said photograph.

The snag is that posting one's pictures on the internet is, in fact, PUBLICATION.

This is vital piece of infomration that we all need to understand fully. Simply making an image is one thing. We may do with it whatever we like, perhaps also including publishing it. But as you all realise, most images are not published.

We take extra care with the selection of images for display (== publishing) and I suspect that Sheetshooter's point is that we should, as a part of the publication process, ensure that all of our "t"s are crossed and the ""is dotted.

This is not a discussion for digging in and standing your ground about what you consider your rights to the freedom of photographing whoever you choose however and whenever you choose may be, as some seem to think, but from my perspective it is almost a responsibility on those of us wth hard-won experience to raise awareness of such matters in the hope that people do not expose themselves to litigation unknowingly. After all, ignorance is no plea..

Exactly!

My final point is to reiterate one of the rules we have here - no flaming. Using emotive terms like "photo nazis", to describe other members of the forum, is not necessary, and in fact I consider it to be very close to flaming.

I would caution you to be aware of the rules, and to avoid using such emotive language when referring to other members here. I see no need for it, and I will act with an appropriate response if it recurs.

[DionM]

This is vital piece of infomration that we all need to understand fully. Simply making an image is one thing. We may do with it whatever we like, perhaps also including publishing it. But as you all realise, most images are not published.

We take extra care with the selection of images for display (== publishing) and I suspect that Sheetshooter's point is that we should, as a part of the publication process, ensure that all of our "t"s are crossed and the ""is dotted.

Hence why I have removed the image.

[rjlhughes]

John,

I'm certainly stating my views, but am I imposing them on you? If you're willing to put unflattering photos of your wife on the net, then I don't think I am having much influence at all.

Sydney unposed doesn't look to be portraying anyone badly at first light. In any case I added the rider from the beginning that doing things for the sake of art might also be legitimate. There's a big difference between an organised well thought through project and a sneaked shot.

HCB did get assaulted on occasion, too. And chased with a pitchfork, I think I've heard, by an irate farmer. And he was definitely sneaky in his approach, using stooges as a way of setting up his shots.

Paul Strand used a lens that had a 45 degree mirror in it, too.

I don't know thre Max Dupain case, but there was a report last year in the Herald where a bloke pictured drinking in the Forbes Hotel at lunch time told the journo some outrageous details of how much he drank during the day and still worked. The problem was he'd made the story up, and given her a workmates name. In that case thank goodness for the photograph.

On flickr, there's a group called The Visible Photographer - the idea is to get the subject caught on the street to acknowledge the photographer, and to take a picture of that facial expression.

This is about a process of understanding, not a hard and fast rule to be available for every case. I'm tempted to make the pun about everything not being black and white.

Just because it's legal doesn't mean its right. What, for example, do you think of shots upskirts or shorts? I think most people here would consider them sleazy, but I'd be interested in your view.

[Sheetshooter]

Also, while you are there, have a look at the excellent collection of photos called Sydney Unposed

John,

Thank you for the link. Most edifying although it may be a matter of red apples and green apples in relationship to the preceding discussion. Does Andrew Nemeth state whether or not he makes contact after the event and seeks a release? I was commissioned to shoot crowds at events at Homebush Bay for S.O.P.A. a year after the Olympics. They assigned two office girls to accompany me and get signed releases from anybody identifiable in a picture since part of their intended use of the pictures could result in publication. Any people who refused to sign (and there were a few, let me assure you) had to be noted and the frames of film destroyed.

In this litigious age where everyman and his dog is concerned about his RIGHTS (prey as well as predator) it pays to err on the side of caution.

Cheers,

[leek]

What, for example, do you think of shots upskirts or shorts? I think most people here would consider them sleazy, but I'd be interested in your view.

I'm surprised that you feel the need to ask the question...

[rjlhughes]

Well I'm interested in your answer - what are the limits that you impose on yourself in taking pictures in public? If what's legal to shoot is OK...where do you personally draw the line?

[gstark]

Bob,

Well I'm interested in your answer - what are the limits that you impose on yourself in taking pictures in public? If what's legal to shoot is OK...where do you personally draw the line?

Shooting up shorts or skirts, though, is not legal.

I suspect therefore that any answer to this question might be moot, if not simply irrelevant.

[rjlhughes]

Gary,

Good point and I don't want to promote bad taste here.

But of course it's a question of degree, isn't it? I'm interested in where John draws the line.

[Greg B]

Many years ago, I took a number of photos of a fellow in the Bourke Street Mall. He was doing the fire and brimstone routine, but otherwise appeared to be the full quid.

Another bloke came up to me and said that I couldn't take photos of this fellow while he was doing this work. I responded that if he put himself out there putting his views in a public place, I could photograph him if I wanted to.

I would interested in whether Bob or Sheetie or anyone else has a view on the position.

(Nothing came of it, I might have entered one of the shots in a photo comp at the camera club, there was no internet back then)

[rjlhughes]

The general rule in newspapers is that if they're seeking public attention then they're fair game.

[gstark]

Greg,

What Bob said. He's an attention-seeker, not a shrinking violet.

[MattC]

Really? I thought that anyone was fair game if a story could be sensationalised and that the only reason that newspapers and TV do not get nailed for it is that they have deep pockets to defend a lawsuit. It seems that ethics go out the window when it comes to selling a story... or is that just a misconception?

Cheers

Edit: In response to last post by rjlhughes

[rjlhughes]

MattC,

Its not my job to defend the media.

I'd note though that there's always a spectrum of behaviours. If a media outlet thinks that a story is important to tell, despite the threat of a defamation action, then we should be grateful that they do have deep pockets, and that they do tell the story.

This applies to deliberate decisions to publish material made by the ABC, the SMH and (I believe) Alan Jones.

The Press Council has the power to order newspapers to print retractions, and the ABC has a very strict policy on fairness and accuracy.

There's also Media Watch.

But it's a far from perfect world.

You could make a case that with a thousand or so members what's published here could well be defamatory, of course, if it damages people's professional reputations. That would certainly be true about allegations about wrong doing by someone involved in selling Nikon gear for example.

That's why Gary's so sensitive.

[Dargan]

Okay. Lets extend this.

I am going to post an image and see what you think is the boys rights in this case.



Any comments?

[Dargan]

At pixspot http://www.pixspot.com/displayimage.php?album=322&pos=6 and click for larger image

[rjlhughes]

I presume this is your pic and you were there? What would you think the problem would be?

Did the woman object?

[lejazzcat]

Im always suprised and bewildered that we have become so concerned with legality and moralityand copyright.
If you feel that your humanity is being threatened by candid photography then put down your camera, period.
Lines in the sand are exactly that, washed away with every new tide of humanity.
Quite rightly, our job isnt to defend the media. Thats why we have lawyers and other parasites.

We are visual storytellers.
To put it context , i quote Mark Twain.

"True literary ethics are summed up in the phrase attributed to Moliere, "I take my own wherever I find it." Commentators are undecided whether Moliere meant to assert the obvious truism that he had a right to regain the goods which plagiarists had borrowed from him, or the apparent paradox that he had a right to borrow all outlying raw material which he and he only could turn into a masterpiece.
Whether the truism or the paradox was his intention, he was perfectly right - because he was Moliere.

It is for public interest that successive inventors should be granted successive patents on successive improvements of some idea whose origin, in the final sense, defies analysis. And this is as true in the world of mind as it is in the world of matter. Public policy requires only that the improvement should improve. But it requires that implicitly. Plagiarism is always a crime, except when the author betters what he takes or restores to the world a gem it had forgotten. Monarchs of mind have the right of eminent domain over the entire field of literature. Shakespeare would not have been Shakespeare, nor Milton Milton, nor Moliere Moliere had they not laid a tax upon their lesser fellows to contribute to their own splendor."

"In short, that author is no criminal who transmutes an inferior metal into gold, but only he who debases gold by an alloy of brass."



Alas i havent seen the image and so I feel noncommital about it , but it would appear that the image wasnt a great one and hence has become a a target for legitimate critisism, rather than become a matter of ethics and debate thereof.
If it had been a masterpiece wed have been more apppreciative ide say

And as for challenging ethics, Fine artist have for generations challenged the ethics of their era, Manet ,Kokoschka,Schiele... all to our benefit.

To patronise a beginner, lacks the grace that your attempts at wit and prose implies, and i also suspect the "slight of hand" of censorship.
What would the candid masters of yesteryear, today and tommorow have to say i wonder ?
Please return the image and embrace the challenge !

[Dargan]

It was my picture. I was in a bus, in rural Rajastan India. Should I have requested a talent consent form? It might be contrued that he was unhappy that his mother was being photographed. Alternatively, it might depict an environment of impoverishment that we would not like to be reminded of. The Chinese were very annoyed early in their opening of photographers taking photos that depicted China's backwardness. It is hard to draw lines when we start to consider others preconceptions. Anthropomorphism is a possible analogy.

[Dargan]

LeJazzCat and Bob

Here is a quote that I cherish and was reminded of in reading LeJazzCats post

From The Liar Stephen Fry Mandarin Books

‘I am a student of language, Mr Healey. You write with fluency and conviction, you talk with authority and control. A complex idea here, an abstract proposition there, you juggle with them, play with them, seduce them. There is no movement from doubt to comprehension, no breaking down, no questioning, no excitement. You try to persuade others, never yourself. You recognise patterns, but you rearrange them where you should analyse them. In short you do not think. You have never thought. You have never said to me anything that you believe to be true, only things which sound true and perhaps even ought to be true: things that, for the moment, are in character with whatever persona you have adopted for the afternoon. You cheat, you short-cut, you lie. It’s too wonderful.’
‘With respect, Professor...’
‘Pigswill! You don’t respect me. You fear me, are irritated by me, envy me...you everything me, but you do not respect me. And why should you? I am hardly respectable.’


‘But if you can furnish me with a piece of work that contains even the seed of novelty, the ghost of a shred of a scintilla of a germ of a suspicion of an iota of a shadow of a particle of something interesting and provoking, something that will amuse and astonish, then I think you will have repaid me for being forced to listen to you regurgitating the ideas of ohers and you will have done a proper service to yourself into the bargain. Do we have a deal?’
‘I don’t quite understand.’
‘Perfectly simple! Any subject, any period. It can be three-volume disquisition or a single phrase on a scrap of paper. I look forward to hearing from you before the end of term. That is all.’

[rjlhughes]

Lejazzcat,

be assured that we weren't meaning to patronise a beginner. Nor were we attempting to censor. Go back to the beginning of the thread and you'll see that this started in a spirit of enquiry and practical debate.

We're not actually talking about copyright. Intellectual property rights are a fascinating subject, but I won't be drawn into that.

This started as an enquiry about the ethical rights of the people being photographed.

My hope was to encourage people to consider what they're doing with their cameras within a wider moral and social framework.

I have addressed the complex issue of whether something is done for art to the extent that space and time allows.

It is a matter of personal decision, finally. If your photographs aren't informed by respect for your fellow humans, whatever that means to you, then you're not working in the tradition of Shakespeare, Moliere or Clemens. Every time we pick up a camera we make a myriad of personal decisions.

There are great photographs that are voyeuristic. There are fabulous photographs that are predatory. But most predatory and voyeuristic pictures are cheap shots.

The distinction I often make is between photographers and people who own cameras. Photographers actually think about what they're doing. Most great photographers I've met are also very clearly and succinctly articulate about their work.

[rjlhughes]

Dargan,

great quote! And aren't fresh ideas incredibly hard to find? That's what art is about - new ideas.

And it's about truth, but it takes great bravery to tell the truthl. And if people aren't brave about it should we force the truth about themselves on them?

All interesting ideas. My own photographs are all derivative if not directly imitative. But my camera is kind.

[lejazzcat]

Dargan,

That's what art is about - new ideas.

And it's about truth, but it takes great bravery to tell the truthl. And if people aren't brave about it should we force the truth about themselves on them?

Perhaps, i guess it depends on whether your a individualist( independant thinker ) or a moralist (social majority).


"Art is not chaste. Those ill prepared should be allowed no contact with art. Art is dangerous. If it is chaste, it is not art."
--Picasso

[Dargan]

Bob and all

If it hasn't been said, let me thank you for your thoughts and contributions on this important issue of how we relate to our images. I see nothing in this thread that is offensive or that I would like canned, (I treat the 'photo Nazi' comment as simply colourful comment for example and it helped to spur a response) I am still disappointed that Dion has removed what I thought was a good image, can we get him to frame it and put it back? This extended discussion is what maintains my interest in the forum and distinguishes our group.

[mic]

Just a guy asleep on a bench,

sigh : aaaaarrrrrhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why do we have to air our laundry so much here

1 : It's a guy asleep on a bench
2 : It's a homeless guy asleep on a bench
3 : It's a guy asleep on a bench thats been kicked out of his home by his wife for cheating
4 : It's a guy thats had a big night out and is asleep on a park bench
5 : It's a guy asleep on a bench that kicked himself out of his home as his wife was cheating

As you can see this can go on unless we wake him and ask him why is he sleeping here in such a fashion

Lets just look at the image in which we can't now as a new photographer has been bullied enough he thought he had better take his pic off show.

Lighten up fella's

It's only 4 months to Christmas.

Mic.

DionM ( Stick your pic back in ) ( Stand by it ) ( be proud )

[rjlhughes]

Mic,

not sure what Christmas has to do with it.

and certainly haven't been intending to bully anyone.

You make it more difficult for Dion to put the pic back up when you suggest that the man on the bench has problems at home, don't you?

I'm reasonably sure that's not your intention - I suspect you were being satirical. But misinterpretation is at the heart of this debate.

And you can see how easy it is to get things wrong.

[lejazzcat]

We're not actually talking about copyright. Intellectual property rights are a fascinating subject, but I won't be drawn into that.This started as an enquiry about the ethical rights of the people being photographed.

Bob,
I had read the entire debate.
The ethics of copyright and the rights of people being photographed are similar. I used the allegory to illustrate a bigger picture.
Celebrities take action against photogs who publish their image as if it were a copyrightable commodity owned by them ...

Libel and slander are clear and maliciously false accusations, and by all means we at time find ourselves accused of things we havent done. Granted, we need protection from that.
But 'opinions' that an image, only based on interpretation, could have a negative association, especially if it was made without the subjects legal consent, should be deemed malicious and unethical, is conservative at best.

That theory, if tested, by different viewers, of different culture and class, would probably discover that we see the same scene in extremely different ways.
Nothing to be gained there.

My hope was to encourage people to consider what they're doing with their cameras within a wider moral and social framework.

And we agree on the sentiment.
Athough, the general public is more worried about trying to protect itself from crass and mediocre photography,(we guard our vanity with great jealousy)rather than involve itself in moral and ethical philosophy and politics.

There are great photographs that are voyeuristic. There are fabulous photographs that are predatory. But most predatory and voyeuristic pictures are cheap shots.

A matter of personal taste and opinion.

The distinction I often make is between photographers and people who own cameras. Photographers actually think about what they're doing.

People who make photos, and the people who take photos ....
History will make up its own mind on that .
[/quote]

[mic]

Bob,

Christmas is 4 mths away, meaning just that, a lot I say here dosen't make a lot of sense to most & my Images, well, them as well.

I was just implying he could be there for whatever reason.

Who cares, I just look at the image and think is it something I like to look at or Isn't it something I like to look at.

Simple, thats me. Somehow I don't think it's me thats making it more difficult for DionM to pop his image back in.

Simple Mic.

[rjlhughes]

ljc

simply not true to say that there's nothing to be gained by considering the current mores of the society we live in. That's a startling suggestion!

And is it also your suggestion that most predatory and voyeuristic pictures aren't cheap shots?

I can take you down the 'truth is relative' po-mo pathway, but it doesn't lead to useful ways of thinking about what you're pointing your camera at.

Perhaps I'm being conservative in my approach to people's feelings. Respect for others is a value of mine.

Professionally I try to communicate appropriately and if necessary with appropriate force. I continue to suggest we should pursue greater thought and skill in our communication, including our photographs.

[rjlhughes]

mic,

it's Dion's birthday - he told me he'd be likely to be away for a couple of days.

[lejazzcat]

simply not true to say that there's nothing to be gained by considering the current mores of the society we live in. That's a startling suggestion!

I ment that subjective evidence is only congecture and speculative at best.
A seeker of the 'truth' want to see and understand all sides of life.
Theres too much information to be lost getting a 'correct' image.
Just as in using autocorrect in camera or PS...

And is it also your suggestion that most predatory and voyeuristic pictures aren't cheap shots?

If its true human behavior captured,i dont mind it. Havent we all had enough of the fake programming of mass media and marketing ?

The candid 'real' TV programs that show the funnier or unpleasant sides of human behavior, are as successful as they are because they help people feel better about themselves .

Whether its because we are laughing at them, or with them is unimportant, because what we are really doing is laughing at ourselves.

[Matt. K]

rjlhughes
It's interesting that you see the image as somehow demeaning of the subject. I did not make that assumption and presumed he had been out shopping and decided to grab a moment for himself and have a relax. As you and I have interpreted the image differently then it's a good bet others will see something different also. Is the image intrusive? The subject was not aware of being photographed and may never see the image. In that sense I don't see it as intrusive. Intrusive is when a photographer comes into my personal and clearly marked space. When I am in public I know I have little or no right to privacy. Is the image a good image? Maybe yes and maybe no. It has some elements of interest, a high POV. unusual composition and a candid approach. There are those who will enjoy this image for what it is. I do not think the photographer stepped over any line of what is acceptable and what is not. I would suggest to the photographer that personally I think if you had gone and spoke to the man and then photographed him eye-ball to eye-ball, you would have got a much better image...but that's only my opinion.
Sheet-shooter....without in any way suggesting you have ever been anything but professional and ethical in every way during your career....I have to swallow my smirk a little when you mention the words ethical and media in the same sentence. I think "ethical PJ's" are the exception and not the rule. Let's start with the death of Lady Diana Spencer and work backwards from there.

[rjlhughes]

Well my response was to ask Dion if he thought the photo was intrusive and perhaps sneaky.

I wondered whether he'd clicked it off without approaching the man - that, after all, would have been the easy option.

He has yet to respond publicly to that question.

Leak immediately jumped in to say something about the homeless. That was his immediate assumption. He's since retracted that.

I suspect most people would think it was a picture of a bag person.

But as Gary noted when you looked more closely he's wearing a watch, reasonable clothes and shoes.

My aim has been to raise the debate about how we photograph in these pages.

And the response and debate has been substantially abysmal.

It amazes me that people who can afford in most cases more than $5000 worth of equipment aren't making better decisions.

In one case a member refused to define the limits of people's rights to privacy in photography when I understand he works for a company that deals with peoples' personal information and he must confront their privacy policy daily.

You've got it right when you say that going to talk to the man would have gotten a better image. The point of engaging with the world through our camera rather than sneaking off possibly voyeuristic and predatory shots is one key to this.

You're not perhaps legally wrong when you say we don't have many rights to privacy in public.

One of my points is that we should respect our fellow humans rights to dignity when we collect their images.

Or at least we should think about it.

And of course when we publish the images in a public forum we need to think very carefully indeed about the reaction of the subject and everyone who knows them.

There are many many ethical photojournalists. Their pictures have greater power through the thought and moral stance that informs them.

[Greg B]

Matt K, once again I find myself very much in tune with your thinking. This has been an interesting and robust discussion, and I am disappointed that I didn't see the image.

Nevertheless, and with all due consideration to avoiding anything which may be likely to bring unwanted attention on Gary (in particular) and this place, I do believe there are varying degrees and contexts in the application of laws and standards. The position for an amateur photographer taking a photo in a public place with no agenda other than creating an interesting image should not and, I think, would not, be subjected to the same rigorous standards which Bob and Sheetie cite as relating to the media. And which the media regularly treats with contempt.

[kipper]

I'm with MattK on this one. I started reading this thread and was going to post when somebody mentioned ethics and the media in the one sentence.
However MattK beat me to it - it's kind of an oxymoron what was said.

Anyway it's sad when somebody feels bullied into removing their photos.

Guess I'll have to be a bit more careful the next time I take a photo of a bird sleeping. I wouldn't want to intrude on it's space and reduce the dignity that it has!


ps. when I said bird, I meant the feathered kinds too!

[rjlhughes]

Kipper,

It was never our intention to bully anyone. I would certainly welcome Dion reposting the picture provided he was confident that it wasn't going to embarrass the person involved. In fact if he is confident of that I believe he must repost it, given the level of interest here.

You'll note that in the intro to the section it suggests you shouldn't post here if you have a thin skin. I don't agree with that sentiment, but that is a ground rule.

Most, I suspect nearly all, of the people in the media do operate ethically.

To call it 'the media' takes you into an area of generalisation that is fraught with oversimplification and error.

To say that as a group they are unethical does many many people a great wrong.

And even if some break the rules, they mostly know what the rules are.

Introducing some of those ideas to this group is an interesting exercise.

Greg raises the suggestion that this site isn't big media, and so shouldn't be subject to the same constraints. Well it has global reach, and things printed here could be defamatory and Gary would have to wear that. It is media and we have already canvassed the differences between taking pictures and publishing them. Putting them on this site is definitely publishing.

The photo prompted me to ask about the thinking behind the shot. And I was surprised that many people really objected to that. I think the comment's gone now but someone suggested I was lying and not very professional.

What amazes me is that we are all adults, mostly in responsible jobs, and we are able to think through things in the work environment. Some people aren't bringing that to this discussion.

If kipper at work suggested the same rules about human dignity should apply to birds in the way he has here, I wonder how his colleagues would react?

[kipper]

If kipper at work suggested the same rules about human dignity should apply to birds in the way he has here, I wonder how his colleagues would react?

Bob, I'd like to know what you're trying to get at, with that statement.

[rjlhughes]

kipper,

let me put it as a question: if at your work you were discussing an issue of employee dignity, would you suggest, ironically, that the same rules be applied to, say a bird?


That's effectively what you were doing here. As an argument about the subject at hand it didn't make sense. It's not a joke either, is it?

[kipper]

No but if you knew what subject matter I primarily shoot, you'd know that it's birds. Hence why I said I better consider it the next time I go out shooting them!

[rjlhughes]

fair enough point - I really like your shot of the river in france with the boats.

[kipper]

tah

[Glen]

I think it is great that we can have this considered discussion here. I think it is tremendous that Bob and Sheetshooter would like to make us think about what we shoot with some social conscience. I do think this wasn't the right image to highlight their points. Here is what I said about this image in another thread:

The gentleman in question was not afraid to be seen in those clothes and sleeping. I personally did not think his clothes suited his body type but his choice to wear them. Also his choice to sleep in public. Ipso facto, his choice to be captured like that. eg I would not scratch my genitals in public unless I wished people to see me like that and of course potentially capture an image of me like that. I know many older succesful people who are very happy their day is free enough to enjoy a coffee, go fishing or lie on a park bench without the pressure of regulated work on them. To them that is the epitomy of success, time, not expensive cars or flash clothes. I think it was the viewers perception that this individual was travelling through hard times, probably not the subjects. The ubiquitous polyethylene bags spell vagrant to some, but viewing into them revealed a cardboard box similar to a DVD box, whilst the other seemed full of more bags, hardly the worldly possesions of a vagrant. I am sure we all could all regale each other with stories of misconceptions based on clothing. I believe the viewers made the choice to view the subject as disadvantaged, where the subject may not. He could quite easily be a moderately succesful retailer enjoying some down time. My daughter views me as disadvantaged with regard to dress sense every time I walk out the door, I do not. It is all about your point of reference and life experience (diversity, not short or long).

(end of quote)


Bob, my thought is that if someone is prepared to be seen sleeping on a park bench in public, they should be prepared to be photographed. If I took that photo over the back fence of my neighbour in has backyard, that would be intrusive. I think this shot shows the preconceptions we have here about polyethylene bags, think I might carry my kit around in one so no one steals it

[KerryPierce]

Bob, my thought is that if someone is prepared to be seen sleeping on a park bench in public, they should be prepared to be photographed. If I took that photo over the back fence of my neighbour in has backyard, that would be intrusive.

Wow.....

I've read this entire thread with sadness and a measure of disgust. I use Glen's quote above, to immediately identify my position and agreement with the thought that he and many others expressed in this thread.

Whether or not this is a useful discussion on its on merits, isn't the cause of my sadness and disgust. The fact that a single photographer and his photo were used as examples of inappropriate photography bothers me a great deal. That he removed the image, bothers me even more.

People have inalienable rights, including the right to be an arse. Politically correct ideology has gone far beyond the appropriate.

In what way can a photo cause harm to a person? Do they bleed and die? Are their souls captured, preventing their ascension to heaven? Are they embarrassed for some reason? If they are embarrassed, why is that the photographer's problem? Their behavior is the cause of them being embarrassed. They shouldn't engage in such behavior.

One such example of "harm" to a person is that you can photograph a guy walking into a hotel, with his mistress. The guy's wife finds out and sues for divorce. The guy's employer finds out and fires him, because the mistress is the employer's wife. That's the photographer's fault?

Another example is the bum on the street. It's not humane to take his photo? It dehumanizes him and removes his dignity? What dignity?

Photography is, among other things, art. Art is a matter of personal taste, which is subjective. Shall we have an official board of art critics to police art objects for taste and humanity?

Who will determine the standards of what is or is not "offensive". I suspect that none in the western world would measure up to the standards of a committee in Iran. We should adopt their standards. All women should be completely covered, from head to toe, so as not to offend or entice anyone. Women should also be completely submissive, subservient and walk 3 paces behind.

Life should just be a bowl of cherries and cream. Photos should only be of top quality, beautiful flowers, so as not to offend the fragile sensitivities of someone, somewhere........ Nah, better yet, cameras should be a controlled item, only utilized by fully approved, sensitive, photographers.

phooey.....

[gstark]

I suspect most people would think it was a picture of a bag person.

I would accept that a number of people might.

Most? I dunno.

It amazes me that people who can afford in most cases more than $5000 worth of equipment aren't making better decisions.

I'm sorry, but I cannot see the connection.

That's akin to saying that because x drives a fancy car they must be smart. I saw an absolute bimbo yesterday in an M class Beamer. To me, she actually looked too young to even have a drivers' license. She was in lane 2 on OS Head Road approaching the intersection with Oxford St and Syd Einfeld Drive - just up from that Caltex in that shot of Leigh's from Friday. She moved into lane 3 (2,3, and 4 are RH turn only lanes) and then proceeded to go straight ahead, carrying across to th wrong side of the road on Oxford St.. In so doing, she needed to brake suddenly to avoid colliding with the car from lane 2 making a legal RH turn, and that almost cause the car behind her, also making a legal RH turn, to collide into her rear. When the car on her left had stopped, she just barged on through, seemingly oblivious to the havoc she almost caused.

In a similar vein, how many of us know people who are higly intelligent - uni professors, perhaps? Often academics, these seemingly very, very smart people simply cannot see the wood for the trees when it comes down to everyday smarts.

Finally, let's hark back to the dickhead who was found guilty of stupidity - er, offensive behaviour - because of his antics on Cogee Beach. Clearly the value of one's photographic equipment has no bearing whatsoever when it comes to the consideration of the thought processes behind that equipment's useage.

You've got it right when you say that going to talk to the man would have gotten a better image. The point of engaging with the world through our camera rather than sneaking off possibly voyeuristic and predatory shots is one key to this.

But the terms "voyeuristic" and "predatory" are yours, and I would suggest that it's very difficult to quantify thoise terms in an absolute sense. We all have standards that we set, and I suspect that they're mostly somewhat similar, the variances being measured more by degree than anything else.