Attached Link: http://www.nbc5i.com/news/5086442/detail.html

As an on again/off again freelance photographer myself, it's not unusual for me to occasionally go to public events, and to take general photographs -- many photographers do. I wasn't in Texas at this particular Octoberfest, and I didn't see what this man did. But I find the idea that a photographer can face a possible 2 year jail term for taking pictures in public to be rather troublesome.

It's impossible to obtain signed release forms from each person in a crowd of 100's or even 1000's of individuals.

A few years ago, I heard an interview of a famous photographer on NPR. He was best known for his pictures of New York City taken during the 1940's -- he was well into his 70's at the time of the interview. I don't recall his name. Some of you would probably recognize it.

This elderly photographer made what I thought was an interesting comment at the end of his interview. He said that something had changed significantly since his heyday in the 40's -- according to him, back in those days you could walk around in public with a camera and no one would give you a second look. It was easy for him to do his job - and to practice his art. By contrast, he noted that in the current era anyone who's seen in public with a camera is instantly regarded with a high degree of paranoid suspicion as to what their motives are. What are they up to? Why are they taking pictures like that?

Something has definitely changed since the 1940's.

I know nothing about the situation in Texas other than the information that's in this brief article. So I won't make any assumptions concerning guilt or innocence. But I wonder what would have happened to any other photographer who was spotted "taking pictures in public" at that Octoberfest? Where is the line drawn? Or is there a line at all -- other than a police officer's opinion as he watches a photographer walking around in a crowd?

Any photographer that ever works in public would want to know, I think.

Message edited on: 10/12/2005 12:20

Attached Link: The Photographers Right: (pdf file)

after reading the article, I would imagine the images this particular photographer was taking may have been inappropriate.. much like the mirror attached to the tip of the shoe trick.. still innocent until proven guilty

another good article is:
Model Releases 101
& with the world today.. we do need to take care where & who we photograph i was stopped in the mall by security for taking photos, but the mall is private property.. wouldn't want to be accused of scoping it out to blow it up later

Message edited on: 10/12/2005 12:33

It is sad that the world has change so, but we must adapt or leave our cameras at home. I am lucky not to been confronted with this issue personally as yet, but I am sure it is only a matter of time and like cyn, know others on RO that have had problems. That line is constantly shifting and on a case by case basis. I don't think it can ever be spelled out in black and white for all instances.

From a distance, I take all sorts of images. There is no other way to see how zoos attrack strollers and produce kids, for instance. LOL. One shot of two beautiful Indian girls(India) was obtained by asking the father and other man(brother) with them. I wanted the father in the shot, too, but he wanted the kids in there. After leaving, I decided this was almost an imposition...they said yes...did they have second thoughts of what might be done of two beautiful little girls? I hope not since that image will remain locked up. This shot was likely safer than one unannounced of a little girl on a playground...cautious and overly cautious parents can easily overreact. Perhaps carry a few photos with you to show the kind of work you do..perhaps offer an email address, etc., where they can contact you if they want a print(gratis for the subject). We certainly have rights but lots of people are spooked easily nowadays. I would not use my "rights" to force a volitile issue but would certainly try to clarify those rights when approached by an unknowledgable arm of the law. Blatantly rude photographers(we have seen lots of them!) are rarely appreciated. Good manners goes a long, long way in bringing "a sense of goodwill" when in the field. This is just MHO. TomDart.

mmm.. yes... is a bit unnerving.. makes me not to want to go to the beach anymore without feeling a bit paranoid (shhhh!!!!)

Hmm, I dunno, I sortof see this in a good light... From the article it certainly suggests that he wasn't just taking random snaps of interesting things going on... it says the police actually observed him for a period; had he been a regular 'snapper' then I doubt he would have attracted attention, as most of us don't at events, and the contents of the camera obviously warrented concern for them before and after his arrest. (The very fact that they did arrest him I think says quite a bit - the taking of photo's wasn't the charge, it was the content of the photos). If they noticed this behaviour, other people must have. Authorities stamping out this kind of behaviour is, imo, a good thing, and will start giving back some of the confidence to joe public that if we are out taking photo's without repression then we are not to be feared and we ourselves have nothing to fear. We are lucky to live in parts of the world where we are actually able to take pictures without fear - but we do it under trust. If photographers misuse that trust, then yes there should be penalties - and they do need to be enforced, and that is the only way to remove the small minority who tarnish the rest of us - so that we retain our freedom as a group. (",)

Blatantly rude photographers(we have seen lots of them!) are rarely appreciated. Good manners goes a long, long way in bringing "a sense of goodwill" when in the field.

I agree.

But I'd point out that "rude" behavior doesn't translate into "criminal" behavior. Not that I'm advocating rudeness......but there are some shots that you'll simply miss forever if you don't take them when and as they present themselves to you. Stopping and taking the time to carefully ask the permissions of all parties involved simply isn't always feasible. At least not if you want the picture.

News photographers would probably know this better than anyone. While I believe in being reasonable, I've also had the experience of running across individuals who became either neurotic -- or in one or two cases, positively psychotic -- over the idea of having their picture taken. I don't believe in forcing the issue with people who feel that way. But it's not possible to ask everyone in a large crowd where you are pointing your camera if they all feel comfortable with you shooting pictures of them.

I've come to decide that it's simply an occupational hazard. Either you risk offending someone, or else you give up taking pictures in public situations altogether. And, yes -- it seems to be becoming a more and more difficult issue as time passes. I, for one, don't intend to give up public photography. But it might not be a bad idea to wear body armor underneath your photographer's vest. I'm only sort of half-joking.........

Thank you very much for the links, cynlee. I'll have to read them later on, when I'm not at my desk.

Perhaps the best solution is a really powerful telephoto lens. ;)

Yes, a long lens is a plus, if you are steadier than I am most of the time..or have a monopod or tripod handy.

Quoting XENOPHONZ, "But I'd point out that "rude" behavior doesn't translate into "criminal" behavior. Not that I'm advocating rudeness......but there are some shots that you'll simply miss...." I do agree with that. Most crowd shots I take or telephoto have no permission beforehand. Each situation calls for different diplomacy, even if that means "no one knows you are there shooting". Rude is often in the eye of the subject..rude to some, a compliment to others. Call each shot as it comes but still be as nice as you can be in the situation.

Once, at a football game, a "band mom" sat in my seat on the end of the aisle. I was standing behind at the time. She got the camera out and started shooting..that is just fine. But, when I knelt on the steps next to her, she quickly took the camera strap in hand like I was a "grab and run thief." That was her perception. I just wanted to sit in my seat! LOL

I think folks are being trained(at least in the USA) to be more self centered and SUSPICIOUS of others..too bad in some ways beyond common sense precautions, for subjects and photographers. The photographers "rights" might be a good carry-along to have handy. Folks misunderstand this just like they misunderstand freedom of speech...which does NOT exist in each and every place we happen to be standing.

Message edited on: 10/12/2005 18:45

well, from the article, it sounds like the guy who was arrested was taking some indecent pictures. IF that's the case, then i'm glad he was arrested! i've been stopped in the mall and a couple of stores. i was just taking pictures of flowers. once i was really given a hard time at a bookstore. i was just takin' pictures of reflections in the window, some feathers, pictures of their bathroom, etc. the guy was really questioning me as to my motives. i OFFERRED to let him look at all of my images on my cam because he kept going on and on about copyright infringement. i told him there wasn't a copyright on anything i was shooting pictures of...and there wasn't. he chastised me for not asking for permission to take pictures first. Well, i learned my lesson about bringing my cam into private businesses. anyway, now i don't bring my camera in stores or the mall. well, i take it in the camera store but that's it. anytime i ask, they tell me i can't take pictures. oh, and get this...a few weeks ago kemal and i were out walking. we saw the florist we buy our flowers at and wanted to go inside, but they were closed. they had some hanging baskets outside and we were taking pictures of them. Someone came out of the store, looked at us suspiciously, and asked, "Can i help you?" We just told her we were out walking in the neighborhood and wanted to buy some flowers but they were closed. i told her we were just enjoying the beautiful flowers they had and were taking some pictures on our walk. I said, "I hope that's ok" and flashed a smile at her. she said it was fine and then went inside and locked the door behind her. we left shortly after that and walked up to the funeral home and started taking pictures of it! no one came out after us though! LOL! :)

Yes -- it's not just taking pictures of people that might cause problems for you.

These days, if you like to take pictures of buildings - downtown or of individual houses - that might cause you some difficulties, too. Take pictures of someone's car......

sigh If we don't plan to stop using our cameras, then we'll just have to deal with issues like these if and when they arise. Too bad. But that's the reality of the world that we live in today.

Well, to play the devil's advocate... Let's suppose a female got drunk at the Octoberfest and exposed their breasts. And, let's suppose the arrested photographer snapped a picture of the topless female. Now, I don't claim to be a genius at law (etc.) but my understanding is that what happens in public is "free territory". If someone decided to strip in public and had several pictures take of them, that's their fault. Now, let's alter it a bit. Let's suppose the photographer used a zoom lens and the full capture was nothing but breats. Is this (somehow) "more" illegal? And, changing the "facts" again, what if the female was was wearing a sexy peasent top? Taking a (closeup) photo of the top (and her breasts beneath it) is illegal? What about just taking a photo (portrait) of the female from the waist up who is wearing a sexy top? Is that "over the legal line"? Then, where was the Octoberfest occurring? On private property or the public streets? According to the article... "You're committing an offense if, a) you're taking a picture of a person who hasn't given you consent to do so, and b) that picture is for the sexual gratification of any person," I don't know how you read (or interpret it) but because the conjunction used is the word, "and", it sounds like both "violations" need to have occurred. That's, not having permission AND that the picture is for sexual gratification of ANY person! Personally, I'd like to hear the outcome of this case because, IF, for example, this man was taking closeup shots of, say, women in tight jeans and cropping the whole shot to just the rear of the jeans, and he is found guilty because someone deciding his guilt or innocence has decided he did it for sexual gratification, then we had all better quit taking pictures of humans unless they are modeling for us with permission (etc.). Personally, any judge that can assuredly proclaim that this man went home and, hmmmmm, masturbated to the images (for an example) is one hell of a judge! But, if that is where the law is going, then guys who get off (smile) on high-heel shoes on women can also be prosecuted if they are sneaking/taking dirty/filthy pictures of shoes! And, I guess this law extends to photographing sheep, too (LOL)! PS: And, just what IS the legal definition of "sexual gratification"? Does it mean orgasm? Does it mean getting "turned on"? How does one prove an image provided sexual gratification?

That's a big part of the difficulty that I have with this whole thing. Basically, we seem to be saying that whether or not it's legal to take pictures in public depends upon the motivations of the person doing it.

I.E. - if the photographer "isn't thinking wrong thoughts", then it's OK for them to snap away at an Octoberfest to their heart's content. But if the photographer is thinking bad things -- then it's illegal for them to take any pictures. Thats......a bit questionable, IMO.

When the law starts assigning legality/illegality based upon what a photographer might or might not be thinking as he shoots a subject -- then we're getting down into a very "iffy" area......like mind-reading.

It's similar to arguments over what constitutes "art", or garbage. Sometimes, it's all a matter of personal opinion. And that's a very unstable basis for making hard-and-fast legal judgements.

(smile) You just said it better than I did in fewer words, Xenophonz. (I HATE that!)

Yes, very good posts of your thoughts folks. I suppose by calling you "folks" I haven't broken any laws by making it seem like "common folk"...then again..it does get absurd. Similar to "zero tolerance" rules in USA schools which often brand students as offenders when there is "no bend" in the law allowed. I see the reed in the wind bend and survive the storm. The rigid stalk breaks. Some of this goes back to a mentality of "legistating morals", which does not work in the face of personal freedoms. There is always the question of interpretation of the law and unfortunately this will sometimes give way to assumptions of motive. People who do not understand more than a rigid shapshot may consider artful photography in strange light and place the photographer in the same light. Of course, others will very much appreciate the well-done photo and subject as they appreciate other art work and well executed craft. Gray areas do exist. It is not a black/white issue and I doubt any of us will be able to solve it. I have seen enough "takes" on what is acceptable and what is not to know that is a huge range of tastes. Unseemly and dirty photograpy, meaning perhaps subject and methods used can bring wrath. Unfortunately, a social situation is created which brings unfortunate judgment on the "within rights" and dedicated photographer, whether working on creative drive or simply recording a slice of life as it is. Tom.

Cindy, got any good shots of you at the beach? Hummm. want to buy some? LOL :) Tom.

LOL @ Tom. Since we are near the same age and live in the same region, I guess we can both relate to an old school favorite, "Got any naked pictures of your girlfriend? No? Want to buy some?" Trip down memory lane.

Chuck, it is a trip. I am glad "they" DID NOT have those pics! : ). Tom Hummm,, call out the lawyers!

(Chuckling) Yep! ('cause most of the time, it was, "Got any naked pics of your mother?")

I ask if I can take a photo of me in front os some Dali printes he made and sign in a art gallery. they say no and at a art musme[ lol misspelled] but that the only places i was stop at. I have on me some bussine cards of my renderosity gallery they can go to to check me out and I have the local art association phone number too that I belong too. I thinking of makeing a art press card like the news press wares to show people .Do anyone know the law on art press cards? would it help to get in the back stages of bands to take photos of??? just a ideal I playing with.