So-called photographer entitlement. Me! Me! Me! The more I read some threads (that are multiplying) the more I realize that this older crowd is like the 'Millennium' generation.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

The more I read some threads (that are multiplying) the more I realize that this older crowd is like the 'Millennium' generation. Everyone here thinks they have all 'rights' since they have a camera and can take a capture anywhere, anytime anyhow.

Wedding photographer asks for exclusivity? Heck no!
Restriction in some public areas? Hell no!
Concert venues? Don't even think about it!
Copyright infringement? What's that?

Part of the crowd here, that are obviously not professional, has no understanding at all on the rights and responsibilities a photographer has not only toward its clients but toward the public in general and society as a whole.

Carrying a camera does not give the right to capture pretty girls in the street or kids playing in a park; in fact it does not give any right at all other than enjoying a form of expression.

I see it as a total lack of respect toward everyone else right to privacy, make a living and ethics. This older crowd should know better but no, same moral degradation as everywhere else, same 'Me! Me! Me!'

Raz Theo Loc: Music City

Rongnongno wrote:

The more I read some threads (that are multiplying... (show quote)

Amen brother.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

You have identified traits that are quite prevalent in the demeanor of many folks in their day to day conduct. Basically,it appears that there is a general lack of respect in our society. I don't mean to sound sour,but look around...

JCam Loc: MD Eastern Shore

Rongnongno wrote:

The more I read some threads (that are multiplying... (show quote)

Oh, my! What got you up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?

I am from the pre-gen X, pre millenial, and pre-WWII generation, although the latter, not by much. Surprisingly, I agree with a lot of what you say (doesn't happen too often

), but I notice the rudeness more at events such as parades, airshows, etc. where some photographers--pro & amateur-- want to be in front of everybody else. However, there is a big difference between "Legal Rights to Photograph" and "Consideration of others". The Rights are spelled out in the law, and if the violation is too egregious can be adjudicated; Consideration, should have been taught by parents, teachers, and other elders when the inconsiderate photog. was growing up, or maybe he--it's usually a "he" so equality gets a pass here--hasn't really grown up.

If the "pretty girl" or the "kids playing" are in a public place, I think the right of privacy is mostly waived, but not to the point of being intrusive, so photos may be taken; the violation of rights occurs when/if he/she publishes or exhibits the photo. However, when photographing kids, especially taking close-ups, asking the parents first is a good practice.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

Rongnongno wrote:

The more I read some threads (that are multiplying... (show quote)

What you say is absolutely true.
I recently an article on the Ethics Street Photography which made the point that just because some thing is legal doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. The author suggested put yourself in the shoes of the "subject". For example, would you want some stranger to walk up to your elderly mother and take her picture just because she is old? He suggests having empathy with those you are considering photographing.

sinatraman Loc: Vero Beach Florida, Earth,alpha quaudrant

!!!!!!!!! You mentioned the one word the entitlement kings do not want to hear.......
RESPoNSIBILITY.

LiamRowan Loc: Michigan

Mac wrote:

What you say is absolutely true.
I recently an article on the Ethics Street Photography which made the point that just because some thing is legal doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. The author suggested put yourself in the shoes of the "subject". For example, would you want some stranger to walk up to your elderly mother and take her picture just because she is old? He suggests having empathy with those you are considering photographing.

Can you post the link to that article, please?

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

[quote=Rongnongno].... "Part of the crowd here, that are obviously not professional, has no understanding at all on the rights and responsibilities a <professional> photographer has not only toward its clients but toward the public in general and society as a whole."

Come on now Rongnongno.... our "professional politicians" can do any thing they want... indeed the mark of a real "professional."

Tomcat5133 Loc: Gladwyne PA

This questions a great one. I shoot triathlons and marathons. Events for youtube. Like a pop up food party for a famous chef.
Common sense comes in play. I do not take pictures of other peoples kids. I shoot at events but decide if the shot is appropriate.
I was shooting soccor (hard to shoot) at my grandson's game for our family. My grandson asked me after if I got the team picture at
game end. I told him would be interfering. Not right to do. I think their are limits to what you can do and we should all have
manners and sensibility to decide what they are.
I do video interviews and simply ask "do you mind if I ask you a question? Great it will only take a minute or two. Can you give
me your name and spell it so I will have it on video. I most times tell them who I am shooting for and where the video will appear.
When working and others are shooting video or stills. I introduce myself an admire their lens.
And young gentleman almost died of a surprise heart problem at a triathlon. I would not and did not shoot that event.
The problem today is rules and regulations. When common decency and sense is the order of the day.

rdiiorio Loc: NYC

Hmm...[partial quote=Rongnongno].... responsibilities a <professional> photographer has not only toward its clients but toward the public in general and society as a whole."

so what are these "responsibilities"?

"just because its legal doesn't mean its right" also can be seen as "just because its illegal doesn't mean its wrong"

the example given for ethics "The author suggested put yourself in the shoes of the "subject". For example, would you want some stranger to walk up to your elderly mother and take her picture just because she is old? He suggests having empathy with those you are considering photographing." Well What about the mother, maybe she DOES want her picture taken, why wasn't she consulted in the first place? Talking about empathy here, there was none of it considered on the part of the elderly mother.

How does one go about "enjoying a right to a form of expression" if they are not able to exercise or use that right?

just some thoughts i had while reading these posts, thank you