You can count on us, then again they might throw away the key.
Cesar wrote:
This reminds me of the time that I took some shots in Union Square in lower Manhattan in NYC. They had a farmer's market occurring. I was taking a few shots that were of interest to me.
One of the shots were at a particular vendor. He mentioned to me that I could only take shots of the goods for sale but not the customer. The customer in question actually addressed me and looked quizzically at me and commented that he did not expect privacy out in the open and just rolled is eyes toward the vendor.
I got the shot I wanted and though I should have commented that I had the right to take any shot I wanted since the market was held in a street, I thought better of it and just pressed on.
I may go back the next time I am up there and see if I can 'confront' this vendor again.
Hoping I have character references from this list :-)
César Panama City, Florida
John Coyle wrote:
Unfortunately, there is a growing climate of hysteria about taking pictures of people, not just children, and it's not only happening in Australia. There has been a series of letters in the UK's "Amateur Photographer" about the hassling of a man taking pictures in Trafalgar Square of children playing in one of the fountains. He was arrested, his home raided and searched, and his camera held for five weeks (!), just because some lunatic told the police he was some kind of pervert, with no evidence other than that he was photographing innocent, fully-clothed kids in one of the most public places in the world!
I've related here the story of a woman verbally attacking me for taking pictures near (not of) her in a market in Brisbane, she seemed to think she had some right of privacy, not for her own image, but of the stuff she had displayed for sale!
We as photographers need to make our voices heard, otherwise the paranoids and purse-lips in our community will soon make it an arrestable offence to be seen carrying a camera - something on the lines of "going equipped for pornography", as carrying a jemmy or a crowbar is seen as going equipped for burglary! It is (just) acceptable to ban photography at events such as concerts, where clearly there is a commercial element to the images which can be obtained there, but there should be no general restrictions in places which are public. If an image is offensive or otherwise illegal, prosecute the use of it or the possession of it where appropriate, but let's not be taking a sledgehammer to crack a walnut.
While I support the right of anyone to determine whether or not their image is used commercially, that cannot apply to the sort of candid photography which amateurs do, where the image is generally used only for their private satisfaction, or for very limited exhibition.
John Coyle
Brisbane, Australia
----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <pentax-discuss@pdml.net>
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 5:58 PM
Subject: Re: Shutter shutdown
All I can say is thank god I don't live in Australia, even with security it hasn't gotten that bad here yet.
Derby Chang wrote:
An interesting article from yesterdays Sydney Morning Herald. It isn't easy being a street photographer these days. The Rex Dupain anecdote is rather sad.
http://smh.com.au/articles/2005/02/25/1109180112027.html
(you might need to do the free registration)
D
--
I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime.
--P.J. O'Rourke
--
I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime.
--P.J. O'Rourke
