[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/

[KirinDave]

You're welcome to disagree, but keep in mind exactly the context and conversation you've decided to take up championing photographer's rights in.

This is what sexism is made of. Just fyi. Your principles protecting an abstract group of people outweighs even entertaining the condemnation of a very real and very outrageous violation of personal space and rights.

[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.