moral and legal query

thebaz

recently i have been taking photos of strangers , aparently legally it is ok to take pictures of adults over 18 on public property , what is the legal requirement of under 18s ?

also morally it has raised an issue for me, as people in compromising and less fortunate positions in life, make better photographs in my opinion .
If someone asks not to snap , i won't , but i have taken a few where i have not got permission.
Am i robbing there dignity , or should i keep recording such images .
I don't want to be a paperazzi for normal everyday people in life, but if your into photography its hard not to photo strangers.

Here are 2 examples where i did get persission

http://www.flickr.com/photos/thebaz/474982155/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/thebaz/475004815/ (by the stare you can tell that i got permission AFTER pressing shutter button)

Fajitas!

You can take a photograph of anyone in public, of any age. No legal problems there. As long as you don't make a profit from the images, or are used to make profit, eg advertising etc.

The moral debate is up to you though, tbh. I say keep recording images.

magicbastarder

to be frank, i find photos of grizzled homeless people to be a bit hackneyed. which makes no comment on your original questions, i know.

Roen

Keep shooting

sineadw

I'd have to agree - keep shooting. As for kids though... we talked about parents going ape over photos being posted, but apart from the usual hysteria I can see a point in this regard. I wouldn't like a stranger randomly taking shots of my kids. My oldest and his mates were approached by a photographer when they were boarding down by the Lower Deck a while ago. While I'm 99.999% sure it was innocent and fine and probably even one of you guys (:rolleyes: ) I was still relieved when he told me they'd refused to let him. I'd ALWAYS ask a parent, before taking the shot. There are some crazy parents out there apart from anything else.

ThOnda

It is more question of your personaly brave. There are no legal limits of your photography.
One documentary photographer (http://www.viktorkolar.com/) told me interesting thing. He never took a picture to make a laugh from the people or to decrease their moral, human or social state. I don't know if the translation is correct, but I hope you understand the meaning.
It changed my sense of photography a lot. I have realised that it is important to think in split of second if I am going to harm photographed people. Meaning of my photography attitude is to take good pictures, not to harm people. And there were lots of moments when I had lowered my camera without pressing the trigger.
If you become familiar with that attitude, you shouldn't be worried taking pictures among people. At least within Europe and civilized nations (exclude USA).
But be careful about taking pictures of young children - parents have become very nervous about it. I do understand them. You can't judge photographers what they are like and what is their purpose of their photographs.

To summarize - be sincere, think, don't try to hurt people and be opened to their attitudes and you won't have problems.

Edited: I am editing regulary to correct typos and mistakes. Please feel free to report me those in PMs, please. You could help me to learn English!

peveril13

http://www.eastcorkcameragroup.ie/weblog/index.php

check out the above link. there is an article on it about what the photographers rights are taking pics of people.

heres a quick comment from it:
Irish law has been quite grey in a few areas when in comes to photography and publication of certain types of photos. For example the taking of a photo of a garda while on duty is not illegal however the publication of said photo is, if the member of the force is identifiable.

The photography of minors is a very dangerous area for any photographer and one area I avoid like the plague.

Blasphemy is still illegal in this country, therefore pictures that are considered so will get you into all sorts of hot stuff. This extends to artistic photos too.

thebaz

thanks for feedback , i guess i'll keep snapping , but be carefull of minors , i have 2 kids myself so would be sensitive to this .
Just to re-iterate Thonda, my shots are not to belittle anyone , i view all humans as equal, the reality of life , which i try to record , is everyone goes through hardship, and bad times , but a bit like the thread on graveyards, sometimes people in unfortunate situations show a lot of emotions , and make great subjects for the lens, but it certainly is not to put them down -- in a boom economy like ours, its important to remember not everyone is on the gravy train.

ThOnda

I agree with you. However it could be easy to use or misuse situation of those pople for getting "interesting" pictures.
The more documentary and respectfull, the better for you and your conscience.

snickerpuss

I wouldn't ever just take random pictures of people because i wouldn't like people taking random pictures of me without my knowledge and putting them on the internet. I guess it weirds me out a bit. Like you can't control whats pictures of you there are.

Thats just me. So if anybody sees me, no snaps please!

magicbastarder

peveril13 wrote:

Blasphemy is still illegal in this country, therefore pictures that are considered so will get you into all sorts of hot stuff. This extends to artistic photos too.

it's not illegal; the supreme court ruled that because the law relating to blasphemy made no mention of what construes blasphemy, the law is unenforceable. now, it may be that blasphemy is still illegal in a technical sense, but there is no crime of blasphemy.

Dara Robinson

I'd say that this debate could and probably will go on for years to come.

Personally I have not taken that many pictures of randomers but I have done it. I have never asked for permission but I would have to say, as long as I don’t take a picture that could be considered as humiliating or exploiting the subject I'll be personally fine.

Kids are a way different area. I'd say don’t take them unless you ask. but asking, well you've gotta feel like a weirdo asking a parent. I would anyways. Bring a girl and get her to ask for you

daedalus2097

peveril13 wrote:

The photography of minors is a very dangerous area for any photographer and one area I avoid like the plague.

What I think is a good idea - though not always practical/possible - is to find the parent(s) looking after the child, talk to them and put them at ease. If you have a business card that'd be even more likely to relax the parent, and maybe then arrange to have a copy of any photos taken of their kids sent to them. They're far less likely to think you're up to dodgy stuff with their kids, which will make you feel better about the images too.

Just don't act creepy. If you act guiltily then people will be uncomfortable. Just take loads of pictures, as if you are taking pictures indiscriminately, and people will feel less targeted when you turn the camera on them. If you hang around someone and then take a couple of pictures and leave, it is intimidating and alarming.

Make your presence felt, so that they know you're not up to something that (you think) you should feel guilty about.

Spyral

I just avoid rnndom andids, you become annoying. I knew a guy who would record everything as if he were a f**king lawyer and needed to record everything. Tired to set himself up as the student voice over issues an stuff.
@$$

Blasphemy is still illegal in this country, therefore pictures that are considered so will get you into all sorts of hot stuff. This extends to artistic photos too.

why is it illegal if there is no crime of it ? an examples of what would be considered it ?

Draco

Maybe there should a be a sticky made with this sort of info in it since it comes up a bit?

why is it illegal if there is no crime of it ?

It's specifically mentioned in the constitution as one of the limitations on free speach.

minikin

apply the mammy principle...

if you'd be happy for someone to take a pic of your mammy looking homeless/depressed then there shouldn't be a problem...

thebaz

minikin wrote:

apply the mammy principle...

if you'd be happy for someone to take a pic of your mammy looking homeless/depressed then there shouldn't be a problem...

if she was homeless and depressed , then it would be a reality of life , and if she was photographed for non profit or expoitary reasons , i may not like it but i would accept that she could be photographed like any other non minor in our society.

minikin

of course you 'could' but this is about 'should'
it's very esy to grab a shot of a beggar on o'connell bridge but it's exploitative unless you at least ask permission / have a chat with them / offer them something for the trouble...

thebaz

minikin wrote:

of course you 'could' but this is about 'should'
it's very esy to grab a shot of a beggar on o'connell bridge but it's exploitative unless you at least ask permission / have a chat with them / offer them something for the trouble...

Thats your opinion , but its just that , some would differ with you , including me. We do not have moral police .. yet

Morlar

thebaz wrote:

Thats your opinion , but its just that , some would differ with you , including me. We do not have moral police .. yet

You asked the question yourself when you said

"morally it has raised an issue for me, as people in compromising and less fortunate positions in life, make better photographs in my opinion . If someone asks not to snap , i won't , but i have taken a few where i have not got permission.
Am i robbing there dignity , or should i keep recording such images ."

sparking the whole thread - so in other words you asked for the opinion you got and then turned around and said 'thats your opinion, but its just that'.

Mine (opinion) would be that its generally exploitative if a photographer is taking pictures of an homeless/alcoholic/drug addicted person begging on the street. IF the photographer is taking the pictures thinking about getting impressive results all the while treating the person /unwilling subject of the pictures like a piece of furniture or an inaminate object then yes its exploitative. It is legal though so anyone is free to fire away if they like.

One good example of photographing homeless people came up a few months ago when shrimp did a whole series of black and whites - it was done with some sense of purpose and showed the person involved a good deal of respect imo.

minikin

baz

what's the point of starting a thread asking for opinions if you're just going to dismiss those opinions you disagree with?

You asked the question: Am i robbing there(sic) dignity , or should i keep recording such images

why bother asking if you already know all the answers?

magicbastarder

a related issue; irish charities have banded together to come up with an advertising code, which dictates how to use images which show people in a 'compromised' manner. apparently, trocaire boxes as they have been would violate this code.

thebaz

minikin wrote:

baz

what's the point of starting a thread asking for opinions if you're just going to dismiss those opinions you disagree with?

You asked the question: Am i robbing there(sic) dignity , or should i keep recording such images

why bother asking if you already know all the answers?

ok , sorry, it just came across a bit preachy --
i think i tried to imply somewhere in the thread that i don't want to exploit the homeless etc , and like to think i treat all people equal, regardless of circumstances -- homelessness and drink/drug problems can hit anyone in our society -- and i'm well aware of that -- and i think it is important to record it , in these supposed boom times.
B.

thebaz

one place that would interest me to photograph would be inside a prison --
this is as close as i could get to Mountjoy , before being chased off :-

http://www.flickr.com/photos/thebaz/452916469/

Has anyone here actually shot inside a prison , i'd imagine you'd need all sorts of clearance , and definitly need agreement to photograph, but i'd imagine the results would be interesting .

magicbastarder

i've been in prisons. pain in the ass, it takes about half an hour to get in and half an hour to get out.