Old Street

[rabanito]

The problem with that, Rab, is that when you're out in public you have no right to privacy. It wold be like saying, "Here I am in this crowd, but you folks aren't allowed to look at me." The whole thing is ridiculous. If you want privacy, stay home.

I do not agree with that.
That other civilizations, other societies, other costums are "ridiculous" is IMHO going a little too far.
Is different maybe from the US American laws. That doesn't make them less valuable, just different.
Looks a little like "cultural colonialism", "we know what is right" etc.
Other people think differently.
And "so called art" is not the measure of all things. We should be a little more humble, maybe 

[petermfiore]

It looks like I couldn't explain myself.
As always, let's blame my poor English.
You wrote
"A lot of great art would me missing from the world...
But I wouldn't sit Rembrandt at the same table with any photographer.
No offence intended, guys. Just my humble opinion.

Artists , Painters and sculptors past and present, don't even enter this conversation. All worked from models. Almost all artists I know that use the figure, are working with models. The models are huge part of the process and are paid.

Peter

[rabanito]

Artists , Painters and sculptors past and present, don't even enter this conversation.
Peter

Of course, Peter. The subject of this conversation is roughly whether you have the right to your privacy only at home or also outside.
It looks like in the US is greatly different from other countries and that the US Citizens are happy with their rules and that others are happy with theirs.
Different idiosincracies.
The rest is DISGRESSION. I can disgress to a point, why not, this is a chat among friends.
All this talk of art, losses to humanity, imagine a world without the works of Robert Capa etc is OK with me.
But the point here is whether one has the right to use another person as "model" without pay or permission as if he/she were a flower, a building or an animal regardless of if he/she agrees or not and all this for the sake of some superior goal, in this case "art", whatever that may be 

[RSL]

Rab, Henri Cartier-Bresson pretty much is accepted as the father of street photography. If you disagree, we can argue that point separately. But do you feel that HCB was violating some sort of general agreement among Europeans? Of course, he wasn't the only one "taking advantage" of the people around him. There even was Brassaï, who worked in French brothels. Whether or not you accept their work as fine art, all these guys together give us a kind of history lesson that would have been impossible without going out on the street and into the restaurants, etc. You simply can't do this with models and poses. It has to be caught in the raw, and in the long run Europe is going to be poorer without it.

The law in the United States simply says that when you're out in public you have no expectation of privacy. Seems like common sense to me.

[chez]

Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

[Rob C]

Sorry, Rob, but I don’t really see the difference. If you’re talking about someone, like a little kid, saying to a single person, “You can’t look at me,” that’d be one thing, but to say to a crowd of people “You can’t look at me,” essentially is saying “Even though I’m out here mingling with you, I have an expectation of privacy, which you’re not to abjure by looking at me.”

Here’s an example. As far as I’m concerned, this photograph by Winogrand is an extremely powerful work of art. Are you telling me we should hide it because the girls and a bystander are recognizable? How about HCB’s “Locks at Bougival?” Another work of art that would disappear.

I can’t see any reason why humanity should be stripped of images that reflect our humanity. Do you? Really?

Russ, reread the post: the difference lies in "looking at me" and "photographing me"; they are not the same thing.

And no, I am not suggesting hiding anything. What's already out there is out there, and that's basically the point: one may not want to be forever out there in somebody's photograph. Nobody has the right to do that to you. It's what model releases were invented for: to grant permission to the snapper to "put them out there". That they do it for the money, and signing a release confirms the point in two ways: they are accepting the fact that they will be "out there", and confirming, too, that they do not object to being out there.

The law is accepting their right not to be exploited by cameras, for otherwise, no such law protecting them would ever have been drafted: all you'd require would be a slip from the model agency saying you'd paid in full. And even with a release, you are often confined to specific uses of the models' images. For example, if you shoot nudes for a calendar or a beauty product you are often prohibited from submitting them to any "men's magazine" publishers. And rightly so. And though I have used nudes as an example, restrictions on usage apply in all kinds of model photography, fully clad or otherwise.

The entire idea is the protection of the model from exploitation, whether commercial, of character, or anything else via the use of photography. The business accepts that people need freedom and protection from possible abuses through photography.

Models are no more favoured under this notion and convention than is anyone else. Why do you think extras in movies get paid? No act of kindness, but to protect the producers in any future claim against them for unlawful use of image. Rights to privacy are understood, just not desired to be understood by wannabe paparazzi. Trying to split it into subsections of commerce or otherwise is a game played by lawyers. The basic morality of photographing somebody without their permission remains the same.

If folks get their jollies by shooting strangers, then they admit the pleasure of walking that tightrope and should not be surprised if they get a bloody nose, or an equally embarrassing public dressing-down. Serves 'em right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yqf10CmdiD0

" you can look as much
but if you much as touch
you gonna have yourself a case
I'm gonna break your face"

It's all in humanity and human reactions and behaviour.

;-)

[rabanito]

Rab, Henri Cartier-Bresson pretty much is accepted as the father of street photography. If you disagree, we can argue that point separately.

When I was introduced to HCB  many years ago he became the Photographer to Emulate to me. Magnum and Co was the way to look
Those are  times long gone.
I remember loading Ilford cartridges with Plus X and TriX from movie rolls.(you had to destroy PlusX cartridges to open them, Ilford let you open and close again) And the M4 was the Holy  (unreachable) Graal :-)
People perceived photography and being photographed differently. This has changed.
In my humble experience and depending on where you are some people now don't care, some ask you for money, some beg you to photograph them and not the others and vice versa and a lot just DON'T LIKE IT.
My perception of the work of HCB hasn't changed.
I've known other people I respected photographically but unveiled themselves in different degrees of clownship or arrogance. Probably a consequence of times as they go nowadays.
Still, I am glad that their work does exist.

The law in the United States simply says that when you're out in public you have no expectation of privacy. Seems like common sense to me.

Nevertheless, I believe that everybody has the right to his own privacy. The pertinent rules for different countries can be found in Internet and are sound for the society that has to follow them.
In the US there is still the death penalty, something actually unthinkable in Europe and many other countries. Spain has still bullfights, that wouldn't go in Sweden or Germany.
Different societies, different "common sense"

Sorry I made it too long 

[RSL]

Rab, Your response wasn't too long, and I respect your point of view even though I don't agree with it. I even have friends who agree with you. (Including Rob, I think)

What do you think about news cameras? Should they be banned? We could go back to engravings, or the kind of sketches they do in courtrooms.

[Martin Kristiansen]

I find it a interesting that the societies most concerned with privacy now are western democracies and they are home to the most users of social media and the wholesale pillaging of personal data. 

Facebook can determine with a high degree of accuracy when a female user of the platform is ovulating and will shamelessly sell that data on to advertisers who will then target her with appropriately weaponized advertising campaigns yet a photographer can get into trouble for taking her photo as she walks around a public space. Sounds fair.   

[petermfiore]

I find it a interesting that the societies most concerned with privacy now are western democracies and they are home to the most users of social media and the wholesale pillaging of personal data. 

Facebook can determine with a high degree of accuracy when a female user of the platform is ovulating and will shamelessly sell that data on to advertisers who will then target her with appropriately weaponized advertising campaigns yet a photographer can get into trouble for taking her photo as she walks around a public space. Sounds fair.

The entire world knows you, all of us, more and more everyday. It's freighting how we feel so falsely secure.

Peter

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Paraphrasing the  Blackstone ratio. "Better a lost work of art than the general loss of the right to privacy" 

🤢🤮

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Seems like a lot of Neanderthals still exist in Europe. Or maybe too many Sharia followers in Europe influence this newly-found puritanism? Someone stealing your soul by taking a photograph? Sheesh.

[RSL]

Russ, reread the post: the difference lies in "looking at me" and "photographing me"; they are not the same thing.

And no, I am not suggesting hiding anything. What's already out there is out there, and that's basically the point: one may not want to be forever out there in somebody's photograph. Nobody has the right to do that to you. It's what model releases were invented for: to grant permission to the snapper to "put them out there". That they do it for the money, and signing a release confirms the point in two ways: they are accepting the fact that they will be "out there", and confirming, too, that they do not object to being out there.

The law is accepting their right not to be exploited by cameras, for otherwise, no such law protecting them would ever have been drafted: all you'd require would be a slip from the model agency saying you'd paid in full. And even with a release, you are often confined to specific uses of the models' images. For example, if you shoot nudes for a calendar or a beauty product you are often prohibited from submitting them to any "men's magazine" publishers. And rightly so. And though I have used nudes as an example, restrictions on usage apply in all kinds of model photography, fully clad or otherwise.

The entire idea is the protection of the model from exploitation, whether commercial, of character, or anything else via the use of photography. The business accepts that people need freedom and protection from possible abuses through photography.

Models are no more favoured under this notion and convention than is anyone else. Why do you think extras in movies get paid? No act of kindness, but to protect the producers in any future claim against them for unlawful use of image. Rights to privacy are understood, just not desired to be understood by wannabe paparazzi. Trying to split it into subsections of commerce or otherwise is a game played by lawyers. The basic morality of photographing somebody without their permission remains the same.

If folks get their jollies by shooting strangers, then they admit the pleasure of walking that tightrope and should not be surprised if they get a bloody nose, or an equally embarrassing public dressing-down. Serves 'em right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yqf10CmdiD0

" you can look as much
but if you much as touch
you gonna have yourself a case
I'm gonna break your face"

It's all in humanity and human reactions and behaviour.

;-)

Rob, yes, I have a stack of model releases, and the situation with model releases in the US is pretty much as you describe it. But I think “looking at me” is very much the same as “photographing me.” When I’m out in a crowd everyone around me is able to look at me. When I’m in a photograph anyone who sees the photograph is able to look at me. Looking at me is not the same thing as exploiting me. When I’m in an advertisement I’m being exploited, probably not adversely but still exploited. That’s why we pay our models. In fact, in Colorado there must be “compensation” in order for a model release to be valid. Not true in Florida, though Florida does require explicit acceptance.

Then there’s the argument that even though we don’t believe people should be “exploited” by street photography, we do believe street photographs that already exist should continue to exist. It would be hard to come up with an argument more internally inconsistent than that one. If it’s wrong now then it always was wrong, and works of art like “The Locks at Bougival” should be banned, and if possible, destroyed.

The other internally inconsistent thing is the difference between street photography and photojournalism. If I’m a TV reporter I can photograph just about any damned thing, and everybody rushes to the tube to see what this criminal or that celebrity is doing. There may be as many as thousands of innocent bystanders in my photographs or films whose privacy has been violated. Not only that, but those poor folks may be remembered as having been somehow connected with the criminal who’s the center of attraction. But this is NEWS! So it’s inviolate.

When it comes to exploiting people, I agree that it’s wrong. I don’t shoot pictures of hoboes, for instance, unless they ask me to do so. When I used to go out at night in the sixties I’d sometimes see prostitutes. I’d avoid shooting them. I think that if you look at genuine street photography you find that most of it is on the gentle side. If it’s good street photography it’s also on the human side. It doesn’t exploit its subjects.

I could go on and on and on, but this already is too long. We may just have to disagree and let it go at that. But please don’t go around destroying HCB’s pictures. It would be wonderful to see a new HCB pop up to record the early part of the two-thousands. But it ain’t gonna happen in Europe.

[Rob C]

Rob, yes, I have a stack of model releases, and the situation with model releases in the US is pretty much as you describe it. 1.  But I think “looking at me” is very much the same as “photographing me.” When I’m out in a crowd everyone around me is able to look at me. When I’m in a photograph anyone who sees the photograph is able to look at me. Looking at me is not the same thing as exploiting me. When I’m in an advertisement I’m being exploited, probably not adversely but still exploited. That’s why we pay our models. In fact, in Colorado there must be “compensation” in order for a model release to be valid. Not true in Florida, though Florida does require explicit acceptance.

2. Then there’s the argument that even though we don’t believe people should be “exploited” by street photography, we do believe street photographs that already exist should continue to exist. It would be hard to come up with an argument more internally inconsistent than that one. If it’s wrong now then it always was wrong, and works of art like “The Locks at Bougival” should be banned, and if possible, destroyed.

3. The other internally inconsistent thing is the difference between street photography and photojournalism. If I’m a TV reporter I can photograph just about any damned thing, and everybody rushes to the tube to see what this criminal or that celebrity is doing. There may be as many as thousands of innocent bystanders in my photographs or films whose privacy has been violated. Not only that, but those poor folks may be remembered as having been somehow connected with the criminal who’s the center of attraction. But this is NEWS! So it’s inviolate.

When it comes to exploiting people, I agree that it’s wrong. I don’t shoot pictures of hoboes, for instance, unless they ask me to do so. When I used to go out at night in the sixties I’d sometimes see prostitutes. I’d avoid shooting them. 4. I think that if you look at genuine street photography you find that most of it is on the gentle side. If it’s good street photography it’s also on the human side. It doesn’t exploit its subjects.

I could go on and on and on, but this already is too long. We may just have to disagree and let it go at that. But please don’t go around destroying HCB’s pictures. It would be wonderful to see a new HCB pop up to record the early part of the two-thousands. But it ain’t gonna happen in Europe.

1. That is where we differ very strongly.

2. No, what was done then is now history: I do not believe in rewriting it. I'm told homosexuality is to be "celebrated" today; a few decades ago it could get you a prison sentence or worse - in some places it still can. The same thing is often both right and wrong. I would never advocate destroying art anymore than do I agree with renaming city squares and streets that were originally named after tobacco traders and things associated with slavery; pulling down centuries-old statues of people once considered heroes is daft: a country deserves to know its own history, for better or for worse.

3. Photojournalism is a public service, whereas street photography is a private indugence. Street photos are usually about one person or group; collateral damage is mostly far enough away not to count as subject of the picture. Klein and others tell one that they often use a very wide angle lens and get close because people think the photographer is actually shooting past them, and they sometimes turn around to look for what they think is going down behind them. It's often said one must avoid eye contact with the target, because that way, they won't suspect it's they who are the subjects. Something like not looking at lions if you happen to walk past them. ;-)

4. Absolutely! And that's why HC-B is also above reproach.

Rob

[rabanito]

Seems like a lot of Neanderthals still exist in Europe. Or maybe too many Sharia followers in Europe influence this newly-found puritanism? Someone stealing your soul by taking a photograph? Sheesh.

Maybe you are right.
Not long ago one "Greater Nation" near Europe tried to remedy that situation through the so called "ethnical cleansing" in their region and around but were bombed back into humanity by other Neanderthals and subhumans.
Backward peoples, not ready to see the Light...

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... It's often said one must avoid eye contact with the target, because that way, they won't suspect it's they who are the subjects...

No, that is not the reason. The purpose of avoiding eye contact is to preserve the candid nature of the shot, that is, to avoid the impression that the subject is posing.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Maybe you are right.
Not long ago one "Greater Nation" near Europe tried to remedy that situation through the so called "ethnical cleansing" in their region and around but were bombed back into humanity by other Neanderthals and subhumans.
Backward peoples, not ready to see the Light...

Your personal attack duly noted.

[rabanito]

Your personal attack duly noted.

Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

Neanderthals usually just throw the stones back.

[rabanito]

What do you think about news cameras? Should they be banned? We could go back to engravings, or the kind of sketches they do in courtrooms.

It's something like guns, I think.
It depends on what you do with them.

As Dan Matthews used to say:
"It isn't the car that kills, it's the driver!" 

[Rob C]

No, that is not the reason. The purpose of avoiding eye contact is to preserve the candid nature of the shot, that is, to avoid the impression that the subject is posing.

Tosh!