Nick De Marco Posted October 5, 2011 Author Share #21 Posted October 5, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thanks Bill. Those who know me know my 'day job', I'm a barrister. And whatever the ethical/aestetical arguments above, Bill os 100% right legally. There is (thankfully) in the UK no right of privacy held by a private individual in their image against another private individual in a public space. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 Hi Nick De Marco, Take a look here Balmy October with M9 . I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
azzo Posted October 5, 2011 Share #22 Posted October 5, 2011 When in Palermo, don't tell them you're a barrister. ... They might confuse you to a barista. .... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick De Marco Posted October 5, 2011 Author Share #23 Posted October 5, 2011 I make good espresso to Ivan! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
likalar Posted October 5, 2011 Share #24 Posted October 5, 2011 I like the humor here. Both women, I would guess, choose to draw attention to themselves by their style of dress, and adornment. Then they stroll at a very public promenade where there is very likely to be a ready audience and at least a few cameras. They got Nick's attention, so he raised his camera for the shot. In reaction, the woman blocks her face, acting out/fantasizing that the paparazzi have arrived, and "please, no photos!". A funny moment, IMO. Anyway, I enjoyed seeing it. The Zombie Killer bag is a nice touch, too. Larry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick De Marco Posted October 5, 2011 Author Share #25 Posted October 5, 2011 Thanks Larry - I think you got the point well, She was dressed like Amy Winehouse then pretended to be her in front of the papparazzi of her imagination Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted October 5, 2011 Share #26 Posted October 5, 2011 Philip - accept your points. Both of them. Thank you, Nick. You're very graceful. I really don't understand the moral indignation and squeamishness about this. Acting against the explicit wishes of someone, in this case the perceived subject of a photograph, for no demonstrably superior reason. Someone likened a - to him - obnoxious action to walking four abreast on the sidewalk. Are there any laws forbidding such? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted October 5, 2011 Share #27 Posted October 5, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Yes, that would be "obstruction". Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
allamande Posted October 5, 2011 Share #28 Posted October 5, 2011 Acting against the explicit wishes of someone, Philipp, did the subject say "I do not want you to take my picture"? After Nick snapped, did she continue to insist that he erase the frame? These are familiar arguments especially in Los Angeles where movie/TV stars sometimes get into disagreements with street photographers who are all over them, and sometimes these cases end up in court. The conclusion is always the same: unless you get a restraining order (in the US) against the photographer (e.g. one famous case involved Jackie Kennedy), when you are in public people have a right to take your photograph. Ece Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerard Posted October 6, 2011 Share #29 Posted October 6, 2011 I took a picture of a guy sleeping in a deck chair yesterday in a public park. He didn't wake, and I carried on walking. 10 minutes later, he caught up with me and inquired if I had taken a picture of him, he seemed quite miffed. I confirmed that I had, and could see that he was about to launch into a heated 'discussion' that would end in a request for the image to be deleted, so I quickly got my camera out and said "but I don't think you'll mind". He gave me an odd look. I showed him the picture, he smiled and walked off. I'll post it tomorrow, but suffice to say I think he felt sorry for my lack of skill. God bless my pinhole lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
smgorsch Posted October 6, 2011 Share #30 Posted October 6, 2011 Joining the fray late, but I want to lend my support to the OP and echo Bill's sentiments. This debate seems to have neither legal nor ethical legs. Spontaneous street photography doesn't seem to violate any significant strictures, other than, perhaps, "Do not annoy one's neighbor..." stefan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbennett Posted October 6, 2011 Share #31 Posted October 6, 2011 "I showed him the picture, he smiled and walked off" Good example of considerate collaboration. Law is a social construct reflecting a culture at a single point in time. Simply look at other cultures (current and historic) to observe laws that do not necessarily stand the test of time or traverse national boundary. In hindsight many prove to be abhorrent. Law provides structure and order for the lower nature of society. It may be neither right or just, simply law. The higher nature of ethic and reason provide the foundation for advanced cultures (not necessarily “civilised”) over generations. Applied intuitively by any true gentleman rather than academically debated. In the case of the OP's photograph, having generated social debate it has proved the point of any worthwhile image. No doubt, had the young lady protested at the time, with good reason, the LUF member might have respectfully deleted the image. As it is, having chosen to dress in homage to a high profile celebrity she created the attention and as such should be expected to manage or tolerate it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerard Posted October 7, 2011 Share #32 Posted October 7, 2011 As promised... http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/people/204042-one-second-bath-life.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick De Marco Posted October 12, 2011 Author Share #33 Posted October 12, 2011 Re-visting this thread, and the comments on the original photo, I'm pleased with the reaction, including those who thought it was somehow wrong to take or display the photo. The photo attracted some interest, and that's the most I hope for. Had it been a candid shot with no reaction, it probably wouldn't - even thought the objections would be just as valid or more. And I wouldn't have chosen it as my favourite photo from the day. But I liked it precisely because the girl covers her face, and I agree with those who point out it was probably part of the play. Certainly she never came up to me afterwards and complained. Anyway, for those interested, I have now posted Part 2 of the blog here - Rangefinder Chronicles: Balmy October, Part 2 (Saturday 1 October, 2011) - photos taken with iPhone and Hipstamatic and with a Rollei TLR (hence I shan't post any images here). Nick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamato8 Posted October 12, 2011 Share #34 Posted October 12, 2011 In the public being seen by whomever sees her and an image is taken. It is the dynamic tension that makes it interesting and the emotion that is derived in viewing it. It is not static but represents a time and place with a response that is valid and recorded. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted October 14, 2011 Share #35 Posted October 14, 2011 i think larry hit the proverbial nail on the head of why this shot works -- or is at least interesting. the girl is tatooed and her hair dyed, an absolute scream to be noticed. and when she is? no photos please. nice shot! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.