I want to forward a question which I think may be appropriate here as it is not related directly to "guys in skirts" but may have a bearing. There is also a tenuous link to posts regarding men, contra dancing in skirts or kilts, The question, when is it okay to take a picture of any other person and then to seek to identfy that person?
I'm not a great believer in the so called political correctness that seems to haunt the U.K. but unless one thinks like a papparazi, there are some good manners to be observed:
1 Only take photos of a "stranger" with their express permission unless they are participating in a public event, such as a parade, where random photos are to be expected by one and all.
2 Anybody caught as part of a "background" should not be subjected to public scrutiny except for point 1
3 Always consider what a picture is worth to you and your own set of morals
This is rough, comments would be very welcome.
Steve
PHOTOGRAPHS
-
crfriend
- Master Barista
- Posts: 14474
- Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
- Location: New England (U.S.)
- Contact:
Re: PHOTOGRAPHS
I think that Steve make a good cut at what might pass as "rules" for public photography of individuals. At least his theses line up with the way I approach photography in public settings.
I've done a fair amount of photography over the years, and if I wanted a shot of an individual I would politely ask and say why I wanted it. Most often the response was either enthusiastic or generally friendly consent. This was a fairly rare event, however, as I tended to do architecture and landscape photography, both for documentary and artistic purposes.
Now, when one is shooting in urban environments it is often impossible not to get people in frame, and sometimes a photograph might look wrong if there were no people in it. I feel that the test is whether (1) the people are tangential to the subject, (2) are not deliberately individually identifiable, and (3) are part of a larger tableau then it's OK to release the shutter without consent.
However, tight shots of an individual, where the individual is clearly the subject of the photograph, ought to require consent. This is the reason I find a lot of cell' 'phone shots of individuals more than slightly upsetting, especially when coupled up with the usual inane (or worse) commentary, especially if the subject of the photograph is flaunting social norms by doing things like, for instance, being a bloke wearing a skirt.
Ultimately, it comes down to a question of respect for your subject. If you ask somebody to allow you to take a photograph of them -- and say why -- most will usually grant permission; if you then post the photograph someplace and make derisive comments about the subject, then you have betrayed the subject's trust and I hope you feel good and guilty about it (the subject will likely feel the same way, along with anger, toward the photographer).
For these, and other, reasons, I have never been a big fan of "candid" photography. The pitfalls for both photographer -- and moreso, subject -- are too legion. If the subject has consented to be followed by the photographer and has granted carte-blanche, it's one thing, but random shots by strangers through long lenses (or even ones taken so by family members at times) cross the line.
In short, if a person is your subject, do the right thing and ask. Don't be a coward and try to conceal your actions; sooner or later somebody will catch you out, and then you'd better hope that they're not of an irascible nature or prone to violent behaviour.
I've done a fair amount of photography over the years, and if I wanted a shot of an individual I would politely ask and say why I wanted it. Most often the response was either enthusiastic or generally friendly consent. This was a fairly rare event, however, as I tended to do architecture and landscape photography, both for documentary and artistic purposes.
Now, when one is shooting in urban environments it is often impossible not to get people in frame, and sometimes a photograph might look wrong if there were no people in it. I feel that the test is whether (1) the people are tangential to the subject, (2) are not deliberately individually identifiable, and (3) are part of a larger tableau then it's OK to release the shutter without consent.
However, tight shots of an individual, where the individual is clearly the subject of the photograph, ought to require consent. This is the reason I find a lot of cell' 'phone shots of individuals more than slightly upsetting, especially when coupled up with the usual inane (or worse) commentary, especially if the subject of the photograph is flaunting social norms by doing things like, for instance, being a bloke wearing a skirt.
Ultimately, it comes down to a question of respect for your subject. If you ask somebody to allow you to take a photograph of them -- and say why -- most will usually grant permission; if you then post the photograph someplace and make derisive comments about the subject, then you have betrayed the subject's trust and I hope you feel good and guilty about it (the subject will likely feel the same way, along with anger, toward the photographer).
For these, and other, reasons, I have never been a big fan of "candid" photography. The pitfalls for both photographer -- and moreso, subject -- are too legion. If the subject has consented to be followed by the photographer and has granted carte-blanche, it's one thing, but random shots by strangers through long lenses (or even ones taken so by family members at times) cross the line.
In short, if a person is your subject, do the right thing and ask. Don't be a coward and try to conceal your actions; sooner or later somebody will catch you out, and then you'd better hope that they're not of an irascible nature or prone to violent behaviour.
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
-
AMM
- Member Extraordinaire
- Posts: 841
- Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2006 4:01 pm
- Location: Thanks for all the fish!
Re: PHOTOGRAPHS
In the USA, at least, under some circumstances, getting written permission may even be legally required.
I am not a lawyer, so I don't know when it is required and when not; I do know that in a number of situations, photographers will ask people they photograph to sign a "model release" so the photographers can use the photographs for various purposes. On the other hand, news photographers don't seem to need to get such a release. See your attorney if you have questions.
Above and beyond whether you could get into legal trouble, posting pictures of people can get them into trouble.
At my last Pinewoods (dance camp) session, someone asked us all not to post pictures that he was in. Someone told me that he apparently worked for someone (a foreign country or something) that would take a dim view of the dancing -- my guess is that they would consider it immoral for men and women to be having physical contact or something.
This is even more of a concern for skirt-wearing men. There are communities and employers that take a dim view of a man wearing a skirt, or even a kilt, even in his spare time. Keep in mind that in the USA, most employment is "at will," meaning that you can be fired for any reason or none at all. So posting a picture of a man in a skirt could get him fired, or cost him his family, or worse.
I am not a lawyer, so I don't know when it is required and when not; I do know that in a number of situations, photographers will ask people they photograph to sign a "model release" so the photographers can use the photographs for various purposes. On the other hand, news photographers don't seem to need to get such a release. See your attorney if you have questions.
Above and beyond whether you could get into legal trouble, posting pictures of people can get them into trouble.
At my last Pinewoods (dance camp) session, someone asked us all not to post pictures that he was in. Someone told me that he apparently worked for someone (a foreign country or something) that would take a dim view of the dancing -- my guess is that they would consider it immoral for men and women to be having physical contact or something.
This is even more of a concern for skirt-wearing men. There are communities and employers that take a dim view of a man wearing a skirt, or even a kilt, even in his spare time. Keep in mind that in the USA, most employment is "at will," meaning that you can be fired for any reason or none at all. So posting a picture of a man in a skirt could get him fired, or cost him his family, or worse.