I think the word hunting is inappropriate Rob and I think you are using it to try and reinforce a dubious defence of privacy. The Amateur Photography magazine - UK - stated bluntly that if a person doesn't like their image in photograph then they should stay in the house. It was blunt and to the point. There isn't a privacy law in the UK and imo that should be the norm. Take the argument to it's conclusion then there wouldn't be any street images - with people in them - published in newspapers, magazines or the internet and television. A poorer world? Rob I conclude that you don't like your picture taken in public and this is the nub of your argument. I bet you have taken images that have people in them in public.
1. ďI think the word hunting is inappropriate Rob and I think you are using it to try and reinforce a dubious defence of privacy.
2. The Amateur Photography magazine - UK - stated bluntly that if a person doesn't like their image in photograph then they should stay in the house. It was blunt and to the point.
3. There isn't a privacy law in the UK and imo that should be the norm. Take the argument to it's conclusion then there wouldn't be any street images - with people in them - published in newspapers, magazines or the internet and television. A poorer world?
4. Rob I conclude that you don't like your picture taken in public and this is the nub of your argument. I bet you have taken images that have people in them in public.Ē
1. I think the word hunting is precise, and to the point: which euphemism would you rather I adopt Ė hanging around waiting for something to happen?
2. The AP has never been my bible. Itís produced for the people it says on the cover, and what else would you expect it to say? Think before you shoot?
3. Are you absolutely sure of that? If you are right, then perhaps itís time to have one. Published pictures of people in the media you mention almost invariably (today) carry the tag Getty. Traditional magazines mainly use commissioned or stock images of people doing things for which they are either paid or from which they seek publicity. Rights to privacy are very real in that world: try selling model pix without a model release or, in France, shots of somebodyís country estate as background to your car adverts if you donít have a property release. Television regularly shows moving images of fat people walking down the public streets every time thereís a news item about the dangers of obesity; mostly these are trimmed off below the chin. I rather suspect that itís more a legal consideration than any deep sense of friendliness and compassion on the part of the studios.
On Aljazeera today (it might have been yesterday Ė one day runs in to the next) there was a programme about tv reporters and also other types of photographers covering the Arab Spring. It seems that many of them (one actuall bullet killing was shown to happen on camera) are now targeted because no faction trusts them to present a straight report. How quickly they learn the mores of the press!
4. You conclude correctly. Yes, I have made pictures in public places with people I donít know in the shot; these people are not the subjects of the images and as far as I can remember, they are nothing more than stuffing for the main course, which ainít them. I donít think any would be able to identify themselves; they were certainly never held to ridicule.
On this point, thereís a personal tale to relate. Back in í81 I was given an assignment by a tour operatorsí location representative company to shoot a list of hotels in Spain for possible brochure illustrations. The principal selling points were the pools. I was give a letter of authorisation by the head of the company which I was supposed to show at reception in each hotel on his list in order to get their permission to work. After doing a few of these hotels I realised that no official gave a damn, so I ended up not showing the letter to anyone, just getting on with the job. Big mistake. In one hotel, I was working at the pool when a member of staff came up to me because a complaint had been made by a resident. I was marched off to the reception where I produced the letter. Smiles all round, and I was accompanied back to the scene of the crime, where I was then left in peace to work. I was embarrassed as hell, but also a bit smug to have survived the ordeal. So yes, even back then during the Age of the Deluge, people were sensitive to being photographed. So why was I embarrassed? Because I understood perfectly well the feelings of the person /persons who complained; it just didnít suit my agenda, as it doesnít suit that of the amateur street camera-artist.
During the same shoot I was in Marbella; on presenting the offical letter to the desk, the PR manager refused permission because of the class of guest he had staying there Ė celebs donít appreciate snappers unless they are invited. I understood. I went on to the next hotel.
I was working at Lindos, in Rhodes, on a calendar shoot; A then-famous tv presenter was on the beach, stoned out of his mind, and surrounded by a group of topless girls. My model kept urging me to shoot, shoot, the tabloids will pay you a fortune for the pictures! I didnít even raise the camera. In the end, you have to live with yourself.
Nope, Iím no paragon of any virtues, stamper; I just donít happen to like to cause other people discomfort or possible damage, especially for no valid reason at all, which amateur street certainly does not have either. It serves no purpose other than snapper ego: the thrill where we came in.