Correct me if I'm wrong and I'm sure some will ... but: I thought it was okay to take pictures in a public place and use them in publications without any permission from the subject. Of course MacChicken or Captain's Cook, or wherever it was, is not a public place, or is it? To take pictures in a department store, for example, you need the owner/manager's permission. But outside (maybe even in a fast food joint) -- surely -- you don't need any kind of permission? It would be quite okay in South Africa, for example, or a London street. Every day thousands of pictures go out in newspapers. How many photographers ask Tony Bliar [not a typo] if it's okay to publish his picture?
Thousands of pictures are being taken in Iraq. How many of those subjects have given their permission for them to be published? But as far as showing/ publishing goes you've done that; and pretty thoroughly. Don _______________ Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery See New Pages 'The Cement Company from HELL!' Updated: August 15, 2003 "Oh my God! They've killed Teddy!" ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 8:36 PM Subject: Re: The morality of taking a photograph > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Good points, Christian ... but let me ask this: Is it a more honest > > portrayal of > > a subject when they know they are going to be photographed and start > > "performing" for the camera? I suppose it could be in some situations, > > but > > perhaps not all. What are your thoughts on that? > > I agree with that statement. McCurry has to watch out for the performers as > does/did HCB when he thought he wasn't being noticed. > > > > > I've made numerous photos by engaging the people I've photographed, and > > the > > results have often been wonderful, but it seems that you feel there's no > > time > > when a candid shot is appropriate. Let's step back to HCB for a > > moment. You > > never did address the point that much of his work (as was the work of > > many, many > > other photographers) was candid, or voyeuristic, and without that > > approach > > there'd probably be just a small pamphlet of his work, rather than > > volumes. And > > just to be clear, I am not comparing myself to HCB ... > > Honestly, of the photographs I've seen from HCB, the ones that are more > engaged or where the subjects knew their picture was being taken, appeal to > me more than his more voyeuristic shots. It's all about personal preference > here. > > > > > And then we have the situation where a photographer has been given > > permission to > > photograph some one, but still grabs some candid shots when the subject > > isn't > > "engaged." Where does that fit in? > > > > Permission was given. They knew they would be photographed in some way. > > Christian >
