Public Area Photography

[dennisc]

[vid]Gjc7a33ML3U[/vid]

 

[Canonised]

3 years ago I have the same experience at the Fort Canning Park. i told the ang mo off and insisted on my rights.after the incident, I have a long thought about this, and I decided that though we have a right to shoot, it is not a good habit and so I decided to give up totally on shooting little kids in public. now I shoot little ones only with their parents' blessings!

 

[fotoudavid]

U have not meet ppl who insist of seeing ur computer to check. Anyway, ppl dun like dun shoot. simple and easy. no fuss.

 

[redmonsoon]

If I asked nicely for photos to be deleted and the pg is rude to me, I may just start shooting macro of his beautiful eyes... lol

 

[dennisc]

Street photography is safe! if you've subjects like this...

but seriously, I don't really like street too

 

[Edwin Francis]

After i'm done, father says he wants me to delete the photos with his daughter inside, citing his daughter is only 4, and he is concerned about it being uploaded to unauthorised websites. I told him that this was public area, and that he has no right to tell me so. Before i can show him the photos, which btw, was blur until you probably won't need a model release even for stock photography, he decides to interrogate me on why i am trembling (i'm on medication and its a bad side effect) and went on rambling about courtesy and that i am not allowed to shoot because child is underage (the last reason just set my fuse off). the man was very very agitated and unable to listen to reason.

Not trying to be judgmental (I wasn't there), but if you reported the encounter in the correct sequence, perhaps the statement you made ("I told him that this was public area, and that he has no right to tell me so") was unnecessarily provocative.

Maybe if you had shown him the photos FIRST, rather than insisting on your rights, things may have gone smoother? One the red mist comes in, people don't listen to reason, esp when it comes to protecting their young.

BTW with all the talk about RIGHTS, I think it's good to be clear:
- you had the right to shoot the photos
- he had the right to ask you to delete them
- you had the right to refuse
- he had the right to call the cops

So nothing any party did was illegal

Some might remember a few cases of an elderly man a few years ago (at Sembawang Park IIRC) going around taking photos of young girls -- that spooked many parents. Do try to be understanding of the concerns of parents.

I would also like to suggest to photographers that before declaring a stand on your rights, try to win the other party over. There's already talk around the world about the need to change privacy laws. I'd hate to have to go out with waiver forms/releases etc taking up space in my bag.

 

[Edwin Francis]

For those who feel that, as photogs, we should be allowed to take photos in public at will, it's another testament to this "Me Me Me, I I I" attitude that I'm starting to see in lots of people all over the world.

Honestly, owning a camera doesn't give us the right to shoot anywhere in public that we like without thinking of others. They don't like it, we don't shoot it. Simple.

Are you talking about LEGAL or MORAL rights? If you mean moral, then I'd say moral rights vary between communities, and individuals. Which is why we have the law, which does not (in Singapore, now) restrict the photography of strangers in public places (not including certain restricted areas, and as long as you are not violating other laws).

So as to your first statement, it is not that "we feel that we should be allowed to take photos at will", we actually ARE allowed to do so.

Re your other statement, "owning a camera doesn't give us the right to shoot anywhere in public without thinking of others" -- there is no law that says anything like that, is there? Consideration and politeness are not legal factors, even if they would be nice. They are also too subjective to judge. In simpler terms, you can be a real a**hole when taking your photos, but as long as you're not breaking the law, there is nothing the authorities can do.

 

[Sivakis]

Are you talking about LEGAL or MORAL rights? If you mean moral, then I'd say moral rights vary between communities, and individuals. Which is why we have the law, which does not (in Singapore, now) restrict the photography of strangers in public places (not including certain restricted areas, and as long as you are not violating other laws).

So as to your first statement, it is not that "we feel that we should be allowed to take photos at will", we actually ARE allowed to do so.

Re your other statement, "owning a camera doesn't give us the right to shoot anywhere in public without thinking of others" -- there is no law that says anything like that, is there? Consideration and politeness are not legal factors, even if they would be nice. They are also too subjective to judge. In simpler terms, you can be a real a**hole when taking your photos, but as long as you're not breaking the law, there is nothing the authorities can do.

Good. Then I've made my point. That there will always be some photogs who cower behind legal rights, moral rights be damned. That, as a photog, you defend your right to be as obnoxious and ungracious as you like so long as you stick to your legal rights. Well, good luck in this world then.

 

[Shizuma]

I read on a street photography website a tip to shoot on stealth. Pretend to be a tourist and point the camera everywhere as if you are just taking photos of everything. But only depress the trigger when on 'target' , and do not lower the camera after shooting the subject, instead pretend to (or actually) shoot something else in a different direction...

 

[catchlights]

My mom teaches line dancing at a number of CCs and her student aunties are all well to do. They certainly welcome volunteer photographers to cover their lessons and parties. Let me know if you are interested...

I shoot for stocks images for non commissioning assignments,
if no model release, no finders on the shutter release.

 

[catchlights]

You may have rights to shoot, does not mean everything you shoot is the right thing for you to do.





when one day you are a father, you will know better.

 

[kei1309]

I read on a street photography website a tip to shoot on stealth. Pretend to be a tourist and point the camera everywhere as if you are just taking photos of everything. But only depress the trigger when on 'target' , and do not lower the camera after shooting the subject, instead pretend to (or actually) shoot something else in a different direction...

you're quite right.

locals don't really care if you're a tourist.

either that or they're just too afraid to approach a tourist.

 

[Edwin Francis]

I think you misunderstand a statement of fact about the law with a defense of obnoxiousness. Read my prior post to the TS -- I do advocate consideration, even in the defense of established rights.

BTW, there will be those who 'cower' behind morality and moral rights too, assuming that their view is the be-all and end-all.

Good. Then I've made my point. That there will always be some photogs who cower behind legal rights, moral rights be damned. That, as a photog, you defend your right to be as obnoxious and ungracious as you like so long as you stick to your legal rights. Well, good luck in this world then.

 

[Sispecho]

You may have rights to shoot, does not mean everything you shoot is the right thing for you to do.

when one day you are a father, you will know better.

Im a father. I know that if I bring my daughter out to public areas she will be under the public eye.

Sometimes its funny when people talk about protecting their privacy in public while approving the wearing of revealing clothes for others to oggle at. I dont get it man

 

[BBTM]

Human nowadays are sensitive to lens from stranger pointing to them. To counter such, use a wide lens at a close range. They wouldnt notice what u doing in the end. Ha ha!

 

[diver-hloc]

Human nowadays are sensitive to lens from stranger pointing to them. To counter such, use a wide lens at a close range. They wouldnt notice what u doing in the end. Ha ha!

Blame it on the Internet.... :think:

 

[Bukitimah]

It sad that today, we are all so suspicious of the intent of photography. Frankly, until now, I didn't understand what can be done to harm the child in the photo. You mean daily we saw child photos in newspaper whether as advertisement of some public events, they are all in danger?

Of course there is this thing call privacy. Whether you are an adult or child, you have your right. If you don't like to be photographed, politely tell the person to please delete it. As a photographer, I will not hesitate to do so. There are plenty of fishes in the ocean.

Go to a less developed country, they smile at you when you take a photo of them. Aren't we the same in the 50 & 60? Somehow we are thinking more than it should be.

I like children because they are so innocent. They did not pose for you just they natural reaction. Alas, the next best is insect. They never complain and their parent couldn't care either.

 

[redmonsoon]

It sad that today, we are all so suspicious of the intent of photography. Frankly, until now, I didn't understand what can be done to harm the child in the photo. You mean daily we saw child photos in newspaper whether as advertisement of some public events, they are all in danger?

Of course there is this thing call privacy. Whether you are an adult or child, you have your right. If you don't like to be photographed, politely tell the person to please delete it. As a photographer, I will not hesitate to do so. There are plenty of fishes in the ocean.

Go to a less developed country, they smile at you when you take a photo of them. Aren't we the same in the 50 & 60? Somehow we are thinking more than it should be.

I like children because they are so innocent. They did not pose for you just they natural reaction. Alas, the next best is insect. They never complain and their parent couldn't care either.

Of course no one is talking about physical harm..But what do you think a pedophile does with a kids photo? JUST admire their innocence?lol
And I will not claim to know what turns on a pedo..

A parent could be overthinking, but he/she does not have to be a profiler and guess the pg's intention..

But of course if a parent is rude and nasty then...

 

[Bukitimah]

Of course no one is talking about physical harm..But what do you think a pedophile does with a kids photo? JUST admire their innocence?lol
And I will not claim to know what turns on a pedo..

This is the part I didn't quite get it. Daily, there are plenty of children photos being flashed on publishings, newspaper, Facebook and all sort of media. There is no stopping if any of these photos can 'turn on' pedo.

Of course, some individual may have objection to be the possible subject. this is their right. All they need to do is to tell others politely not to photograph them if they are aware of being photographed.

In Singapore context, we have CCTV all over the streets and inside buildings. You are more than likely to be captured in one of these recordings even if you objected to it. Imagine watching news footage on TV with our minister walking about the HDB but all the resident faces blank off because children are around.

So, I am more incline to say this. If you feel uncomfortable, do tell the person to please delete your or family photo taken. Those who don't mind, that is also fine.

Let's live and enjoy life like what we once was. Happy and innocent.

 

[oceanpriest]

That's why I shoot street in manual focus, whenever I tinker with my focus ring, I tend to look more inconspicuous like an overzealous cam enthusiast than a pedophile. Or just stick to shooting pets.

later oso kena scolded, ask u to delete the pics, coz they thought u are zoophile :bsmilie: