[mc32]

The courts say otherwise see sole focus picture in case of Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia[1]. If it were not possible, we would not have "street photography" we would not have Robert Frank, Cartier-Bresson, Winogrand, Meier or Arbus. Picture in question[2] We also would not have documentary photography.

Certainly it can feel rude to us, but the law allows it and moreover the feeling of rudeness comes more from believing we "own" our likelinesses in public spaces, which we do not. So, yes, I could feel intruded upon by a documentary or street photographer, no question, but at the same time, they have the right to take my picture, no question.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia

[2]https://wmuphoto.wordpress.com/2014/02/07/nussenzweig-v-dico...

If you disagree with the position, post a link to law which states otherwise. There is lots of case law asserting the right of photographers to take pictures unimpeded in public spaces.

[dllthomas]

I don't see your citations speaking to rudeness. Moreover, even if they did it is not generally the place of the courts to dictate what is and is not rude. I very much agree that this kind of photography is not illegal. In no way does that mean it is not rude.

C.f. I can hurl a long stream of insults at you. Rude? Unquestionably. Legal? Also unquestionably. On those grounds you could rightly complain, choose not to associate with me, choose to avoid places I might go, tell others you find me to be a rude person. You could not enlist the government to fine or imprison me. What was being discussed here, before you brought legality into the picture, was actions like those on the former list.

[mc32]

Rudeness is one of those things that's very unique to the individual claimant and I think for art and expression in general, we tend to give the artist (in this case the photographer) lots of leeway. I'm sure lots of religious people would think my thoughts on religion are quite rude, but that does not and should not deter my art or anyone else's art depicting religion unfavorably.

Basically, I don't want photography thrown under the bus on this one.

[dllthomas]

If you feel you need to do something people consider rude for the sake of your art, you can do it and suffer the consequences. Those consequences should certainly not extend to physical violence, should not extend to the involvement of law enforcement.

You should be able to mitigate those consequences somewhat by treating your subjects like people - explaining what you're doing, engaging with them respectfully. They may still feel uncomfortable.

In this case, the person complaining felt violated, and that's not unreasonable. She is plenty within her rights to complain.

[mc32]

>treating your subjects like people - explaining what you're doing, engaging with them respectfully

No qualms with that --most experienced photographers will follow that advice. Still, all photographers have the right to photograph in public.

A tiny minority of the time people don't give the photographer time to explain, fortunately most times, people act indifferently, but sometimes annoyed and self righteous and seldomly violent.

There is a misconception however, by some people, even the ones who are agreeable that a photographer needs permission. It's simply not true. But yes, I agree they need to respect people as much as they can. (if you're going to photograph a man passed out in vomit for some kind of documentary, avoid showing their recognizable face, for example, but that's not a fast rule.

[dllthomas]

"Still, all photographers have the right to photograph in public."

I've always agreed with that. What I have been saying is that there are ways they can exercise that right that will be perceived as rude, and that that perception is definitely not made unreasonable by any absence of law on the matter, and is often in fact reasonable.

[bigiain]

How did we get from "unsolicited selfies with, or down-blouse shots of women at tech conferences" to "art"?

The problem we're talking about is creeps, not photographers, no matter what the creeps claimed motivation is - it's blindingly obvious to almost everybody that there is a difference (and posts like yours are really hard not to read as defending/justifying creep's behaviour).

[mc32]

In a word, "permission"

It comes from knowing street photographers and the flack they get. People ready to beat them up (occasionally they do get beaten). At times it's men "protecting" someone. At time it's men themselves who feel offended. Sometimes it's women themselves who feel offended. You also get people who feel flattered. But overall they are simply "subjects"

[KirinDave]

I am a "street photographer" and have filled income gaps with wedding photography and film portraiture. Mysteriously, this issue has never come up with a woman.

Maybe if we were talking about the right to photograph a building from across the street, but if you think it's legal, ethical, or reasonable to take pictures of people they do not want you to take that are invasive of their privacy... Well... You will not win that case in a court of law, a debate on ethics, or in this forum of your peers.

Because it's a nonsensical talking point trying to turn everyone else into a victim but the actual victim.

[mc32]

I disagree. americansuburbx[1] is a good place to start as any into the culture of street photography and it's many supporting genres [documentary, staged, portraiture,etc]. Also burn mag [2]

[1]http://www.americansuburbx.com/

[2]http://www.burnmagazine.org/

[tptacek]

Nobody is throwing photography under the bus. Please stop using a thread about sexual harassment as a coatrack to hang your concerns about photography on.

[mc32]

I think people have misconceptions about photography. I.e. the photographer needs permission --they don't.

If you want to go against sexual harassment do so, I have no objection. I do object to people thinking that photography is automatic harassment. It's not.

[dragonwriter]

> The courts say otherwise see sole focus picture in case of Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia

Well, first, the question wasn't of legality, it was about rudeness irrespective of legality; second, even if it was, that's a New York case applying New York law (e.g., many states, including California, have right-of-publicity laws that are more extensive in their protection than New York's.)

[bigiain]

There's a broad grey area which includes both "being legally within your rights" and "being a fucking creep".

If you don't understand that, there's a very good chance you are _way_ too close to the latter.

[mc32]

In photography there are all kinds of people. Yes, some people are creeps, some people like taking upskirt photos (illegal in most places). I get it, some people take advantage of telephoto lenses to take creep shots, I know.

What I'm getting out there is that people have a misconception that you need permission to take their (regular) photo. You do not.