Another Photography Ethics Thread!

[rexbobcat]

Okay, so I'm having a debate with this guy on FB (lame, I know) about the ethics of photographing people in public without a model release with the intent to not sell the photographs personally or commercially.

He seems to me to be a bit paranoid. He says that if he takes a photo of a person in a public venue and they don't sign a model release he deletes the photos.

This is what he said:


Police can't selectively enforce a law - although you and I both know they do. But with the passing of the new law regarding improper photography how are you going to tell the DA that it is art when you are in a public pl...ace taking pictures of people without their knowledge or consent. Okay - you see a man or woman walking down the street and you shoot them - a. is it art or b. are you taking it for your own personal enjoyment. Lets say they file charges on you - then the DA get a warrant and goes through you entire house, including your computer- ugh..... I am sure that wouldn't be pleasant for anyone - then they get your bing searches and your google searches for the last 10 years. Your CC statements etc..... Before it is all said and done that innocent little search you did about how to spruce up you and your wifes love life turns into a full scale porn hobby..... Now your labeled... Doesn't matter if it is art or not - your toast.... just a thought...... If your going to go out shooting people you need to be ready for the consequences because someone, sometime is going to get you.

I mean, does that really happen?

I just imagine he has STACKS of unused model and property releases floating around.

UPDATE!

He's referring to this law:
http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/21.15.00.html

It basically says that photographing without consent with the intent of sexual gratification is illegal. I think he's just an authority skeptic.

 

[Derrel]

There was a movie made some years back, based I think upon your Facebook friend's life! What a coinky-dink! The movie starred Mel Gibson. It was entitled "Conspiracy Theory". You oughtta' buy a DVD copy of it, and somehow get the DVD to him--without the authorities finding out!!!

Here is the trailer for the movie on YouTube. I hope it's still okay to link to videos.

Conspiracy Theory - Trailer - YouTube

 

[Robin Usagani]

Easy.. just tell him... have you looked at those gossip or even people magazine? You really think the star signed a model release of them half drunk with nip slip?

 

[rexbobcat]

I've tried. But he's too busy being skeptical of the government to listen. He's talks like getting a search warrant is just no big deal.

I just can't fathom a judge who would actually take the couple who sued seriously.

 

[Derrel]

I've tried. But he's too busy being skeptical of the government to listen. He's talks like getting a search warrant is just no big deal.

How would it sound if he came to whoever he sends the affidavits to and said "yeah um....this guy was photographing on the street and...well....I think he was doing it to get off." If the judge agreed then I would move. I would move to Canada.

SERIOUSLY--you've gotta buy a copy of Conspiracy Theory. But pay for it using small bills. And wear sunglasses. And buy it in an "ethnic part of town", so the store's clerk will later be unable to give an accurate description of you, and will simply tell the cops, "He was just, well, just some white guy. They all look alike to me..." And ride public transit to get the disc, and ride a DIFFERENT train home and walk the last 16 blocks to make sure you are not being tailed. Can't be too careful you know. Oh, crap, I've gotta go...there's an alert on the perimeter monitors....BRB..

 

[bentcountershaft]

You could mention that there are people that are sexually attracted to trees and see what he says.

"Well inspector, we opened up his computer and we found a plethora of tree porn. Some just posed, single tree shots and some were full on forest orgies. You can see he had a bit of a thing for dogwoods, too. Everyone knows dogwoods are the whores of the perennial world."

 

[rexbobcat]

You could mention that there are people that are sexually attracted to trees and see what he says.

"Well inspector, we opened up his computer and we found a plethora of tree porn. Some just posed, single tree shots and some were full on forest orgies. You can see he had a bit of a thing for dogwoods, too. Everyone knows dogwoods are the whores of the perennial world."

You rang?

(Linkified) http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_SZcjZyLEcFw/Se9FoIXgCtI/AAAAAAAAAeA/Ibc7BWvw50Q/s400/btree.jpg

 

[table1349]

Post this to his facebook page and tell him your friends are there to help.

 

[slackercruster]

If a person is in public I shoot what I like. If they don't like it sue.

...and what are you even wasting time with that bull**** OP. You should be out blasting away.

 

[MLeeK]

I've tried. But he's too busy being skeptical of the government to listen. He's talks like getting a search warrant is just no big deal.

I just can't fathom a judge who would actually take the couple who sued seriously.

While I think your "friend" is probably a loon and is WAY over the top here... I think Derrel is right about the DVD... What it boils down to isn't so much what a judge thinks, it's following the letter of the law and the procedures that have to be followed.
Anyone can sue for ANYthing in this country. And they do. AND attorneys make BIG BUCKS off of frivolous lawsuits. Because of what each person is entitled to and what the laws require they be afforded the frivolous lawsuit is very easily gotten in front of a jury. A jury can swayed by God only knows what. A judge can be swayed by God only knows what. I have seen photographers sued for more insanely stupid things, go in front of a judge who says "well, you know how those photographers are..." and awarded the plaintiff whatever they wanted. Thanks, Judge Judy and Judge Joe...
Take a look at Gary Fong's latest crusade for a photog being sued for $300K. It's incredibly interesting.
A year or so ago there was an article about a photographer who had done a STUNNING job of wedding photography. We're talking Top. Of. The. Line, here. However, there was one key photo or a couple key photos (can't remember) missed at the end of the day when the photog was beyond his hours anyway. The groom was suing for MEGA bucks and to have the wedding re-created at an enormous cost EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE DIVORCED. The suit was filed just before the statute of limitations was up. It was INSANE. However, there was enough of a hair of possibility that, according to the letter of the law it had to go forward... I have no clue what the outcome was, but everyone was just DUMBFOUNDED after seeing the images and even hearing the groom's story that it would go forward.
Therein lies the problem with our sue happy nation!

 

[JAC526]

You could mention that there are people that are sexually attracted to trees and see what he says.

"Well inspector, we opened up his computer and we found a plethora of tree porn. Some just posed, single tree shots and some were full on forest orgies. You can see he had a bit of a thing for dogwoods, too. Everyone knows dogwoods are the whores of the perennial world."

I made that my signature. If you are offended I will remove it but that quote is hilarious.

 

[rexbobcat]

If a person is in public I shoot what I like. If they don't like it sue.

...and what are you even wasting time with that bull**** OP. You should be out blasting away.

Idk. My city is severely lacking in top-quality photographers. And the professional ones who are sociable and at least kind of friendly are kind of...average...So those are the only ones I really get to network with....

There is only one photographer in my city I truly respect, but he's always so busy he doesn't have time to deal with students etc...

 

[jaicatalano]

Does the photographer have a lot of money? If he does I would always be insured just because suing has become a pastime.

 

[PhotoCalifornia]

For yearbooks we shoot people without consent, i mean if someone comes up to me and says dont put that picture of me in the yearbook we dont, but nobody ever asks for consent. So it is ok to take pictures of people in public but if they know and ask you not to use it or delete you should comply.

 

[gsgary]

I've tried. But he's too busy being skeptical of the government to listen. He's talks like getting a search warrant is just no big deal.

I just can't fathom a judge who would actually take the couple who sued seriously.

Why are you bothering to talk to him he is not worth your time and energy