Paul
On Sep 26, 2004, at 4:58 AM, Cotty wrote:
On 26/9/04, John Coyle, discombobulated, unleashed:
On this topic, I had an interesting experience a week or so ago. Every
Saturday, a market is held in a pedestrian mall about ten minutes from where
I live, and Jan and I often go there for a browse and a coffee. The market
is very popular, and has expanded to fill a couple of narrow alleys
alongside the mall.
At the end of one alley, I turned around and saw what I thought would make
an interesting contre-jour shot, looking back down towards the main market,
so I switched on my *ist-D and framed the shot. As I did so, the nearest
seller to me, a young woman, jumped up and started yelling something at me,
waving her arms and walking towards me. So I waited until she was out of
shot, and took the picture. Next moment, she said "Don't take pictures,
that's my personal stuff", implying that she had some sort of right not to
have a photograph taken of the items she had for sale in a public market in
a public place.
Interesting.
In a similar French market in the summer, my wife wanted to take shots of
some colourful jewelry arranged on a stall, but was politely informed
that 'it violated copyright'. After a short and good-natured discussion
with the seller, I found out that certain individuals had in the past
photographed such items and subsequently produced copies of said jewelry
for sale elsewhere. The seller's reticence was genuine, and I agreed that
we would not photograph the display.
After that, whenever I found myself in a French market, I went into
Cotty's Cloaked Photography mode - clandestine operations you see - and
got some lovely pics of stall holders and their wares. Pity it has to be
done that way, but discretion *can* lead to a less stressful life.
I am very careful about photography out in the open.
There are police snatch squads patrolling popular tourist venues like
Trafalgar Square in London, on the lookout for - literally - dirty old
men with cameras. They watch for men who photograph children, monitor
their activities, and move in and arrest where necessary (to them). The
photographer's camera is confiscated, he is detained at a police station
and his home is visited and darkroom and/or computer gear gone through
looking for evidence of paedophile activity. If no evidence is found, a
warning is given and the photog released.
A specific case of this was documented in AP the other week.
The guy was retired, shooting film, and one of the subsequent published
pics shows a child removing or replacing another child's nappy by a
fountain (no genitalia visible). Personally that's getting a bit too
close to the boundary - I'm not surprised he was nicked. Apparently a
concerned member of the public tipped off police, and the snatch squad
moved in while he was on his bus returning home. In fact he was later
released without charge when the rest if the film was processed and found
to contain genuine street shots etc. No indecent images were found when
police barged past the photog's alarmed wife and went through his darkroom.
If I go out photographing in Trafalgar Square (and I don't) I dress like
the camera nut on the golf course we all saw recently, festooned with
gear and basically looking like a photo geek. If a police officer is
present, I go up and introduce myself and explain what I am doing and
what I am up to. I'm not keen on this but it's less stressful. It's the
quiet ones that look like HCB that the police take a shine to.....
These are sad times when ownership of the photographic image seemingly
lurches towards the subject and away from the photographer, but I can see
both sides. I especially can see why the police are taking the steps that
they are - apparently of the arrests these snatch squads make, further
investigations reveal that a hefty percentage are found to have indecent
images of children in their possession. These are locked up while the
innocent street snappers are spat back out and told to avoid
photographing children if they want to stay out of trouble.
Personally I'm for the easy life and try and avoid situations likely to
escalate tension. John Coyle was within his rights, but how to explain
rational points to an irrational person? Retreat to fight another day ;-)
Cheers, Cotty
___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _____________________________
