Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
General Chit-Chat (non-photography talk)
Photographer’s Rights?
Page <<first <prev 4 of 9 next> last>>
Nov 27, 2013 10:34:18   #
sirlensalot Loc: Arizona
 
amyinsparta wrote:
On the contrary, the 'rant' as you call it, pertains to photography, because the issue is the same-shall we have a free-for-all society in which I take any picture I want, when I want, of whom I want, and if they don't like it, too bad; or shall we self-police?

We obviously have not self-policed, or entertainers would not be prohibiting any kind of photographic implement during their concerts because they feel it distracts them and prevents the audience from participating in the show because they are too busy photographing it and sending the photos to their friends who aren't there. In addition, many people video tape the concert with their phones, which in almost all cases, is not legal.

So the issue is the same, regardless of subject matter. We haven't self-policed ourselves, and so rules have to written. There are simply way too many people in the country wanting to do their own thing at the expense of those deemed irrelevant.
On the contrary, the 'rant' as you call it, pertai... (show quote)


Good response. In this particular case, it is the photographers themselves that promote or cause changes to rules/ laws/regulations. Too many I am afraid, feel the rules should apply to everyone else. Enter big brother.
There is no inherent "right" to photograph, but there are photographers rights depending on circumstances. Thankfully, for most, it is not an issue. Generally speaking, we are free to photograph in most cases as hobbyists and professionals.

Reply
Nov 27, 2013 10:41:23   #
Pepper Loc: Planet Earth Country USA
 
sirlensalot wrote:
Good response. In this particular case, it is the photographers themselves that promote or cause changes to rules/ laws/regulations. Too many I am afraid, feel the rules should apply to everyone else. Enter big brother.
There is no inherent "right" to photograph, but there are photographers rights depending on circumstances. Thankfully, for most, it is not an issue. Generally speaking, we are free to photograph in most cases as hobbyists and professionals.

The reason for this thread was to suggest that as photographers get more intrusive and obnoxious, stalking people taking shots at the most inappropriate times only to embarrass and humiliate people. Threads like “Looking for trouble with a camera” will move society to regulate it. My concern is that if we don’t regulate ourselves and extend at least some common courtesy to our subjects the lawmakers will step in. When that happens you know how much whining we’ll hear and how many arguments and debates will erupt and no one will remember this conversation. Justify and rationalize all the way to the legislature and we’ll see who wins. Having said all that I will confess that at my age it won’t affect me one iota but it will impact my children and grandchildren and it’s on behalf of them that I am trying to sound a warning. Look around and you’ll see more and more signs being posted banning cameras. One day you’ll be required to get a “permit to carry” a camera oh you’ll still have your rights you’ll just need a permit to exercise them.

Reply
Nov 27, 2013 10:59:01   #
Armadillo Loc: Ventura, CA
 
chrisscholbe wrote:
Even though I fundamentaly agree with what I think you're trying to say here, be careful.

I also believe that people scream about their "rights" when the issue at hand has nothing to do with "rights". Like, it's my right to smoke. No, smoking is NOT a "right". It's a privilege based on your ability to buy smokes. If it was a "right" the smokes would be provided to you.

WHen you say lawmakers would regulate them.....remember you're talking about the people you elected to do what their constituents want. This is very much a double edged sword.
I agree we have to be very careful.

Basically, it all boils down to the individual.
Do you give the whiner what they want or do you protect everyone else's "rights"? The squeeky wheel get the grease.

We should not let the wants of the few dictate to the many.

P.S. This is NOT a liberal thing. This applies to ALL political parties.
Even though I fundamentaly agree with what I think... (show quote)



chrisscholbe,

What many Americans have forgotten about,
"The squeeky wheel get the grease."

The squeaky wheel also gets replaced. :roll:

Michael G

Reply
 
 
Nov 27, 2013 11:03:28   #
sirlensalot Loc: Arizona
 
Pepper wrote:
The reason for this thread was to suggest that as photographers get more intrusive and obnoxious, stalking people taking shots at the most inappropriate times only to embarrass and humiliate people. Threads like “Looking for trouble with a camera” will move society to regulate it. My concern is that if we don’t regulate ourselves and extend at least some common courtesy to our subjects the lawmakers will step in. When that happens you know how much whining we’ll hear and how many arguments and debates will erupt and no one will remember this conversation. Justify and rationalize all the way to the legislature and we’ll see who wins. Having said all that I will confess that at my age it won’t affect me one iota but it will impact my children and grandchildren and it’s on behalf of them that I am trying to sound a warning. Look around and you’ll see more and more signs being posted banning cameras. One day you’ll be required to get a “permit to carry” a camera oh you’ll still have your rights you’ll just need a permit to exercise them.
The reason for this thread was to suggest that as ... (show quote)


Maybe a permit to carry a "concealed" camera?? Of course that will a special permit with mandatory government training and certification before being issued the permit. LOL

Reply
Nov 27, 2013 11:05:37   #
Jim 100 Loc: Everett, Washington
 
[quote=BigDaddy]It's a left right thing. All the way left being government owns and controls everything, all the way right, government owns and controls nothing.


Close, but not quite. All the way left, government controls everything (Socialism). All the way Right, corporations own and control everything, including the government(Fascism)

Reply
Nov 27, 2013 11:23:40   #
jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY
 
UP-2-IT wrote:
Greed and ignorance prevents self-policing.

:thumbup:

Reply
Nov 27, 2013 11:23:53   #
sirlensalot Loc: Arizona
 
I think FredB has a great view on this topic. I think it would be reasonable to add it is more about the centralization of power and has been since the mid-1800's. The ball really got rolling in the last 50 or so years. It matters not which side of the aisle your beliefs are, but I would say the project is more a mantra of the left.

Reply
 
 
Nov 27, 2013 11:58:05   #
SharpShooter Loc: NorCal
 
Joecosentino wrote:
What we the people need to do is for 2 full election cycles vote anyone in office out of office. Replace them, if they see that we really do have the ability to vote them out,mt hen they will start to listen to the people.

Congress was never mention to be a full time job for anyone. No one should be Washington for 20 years.

So it does not matter democrat, republican or independent vote out the incumbent for the next 8 years. And then we will take back our country and once again have a government by the people for the people
What we the people need to do is for 2 full electi... (show quote)


Joe, I just want to mention a few things as they pertain to your comment. Most don't realize how complex government is. And that complexity is put into the hands of those elected by a majority to do the job.
Government runs in long cycles that sometimes don't happen with frequency. And the only way to train for government is to be IN government. It's purely OTJT. It's estimated that it takes four years to become a journeyman at the job. Hence four year terms. So most elected officials are pretty trained after four years. even though it seems easy to say just get rid of them all, that would be a naive belief. Not to many things in life do we want done by brand new neophytes. You would want your doctor, lawyer, carpenter, electrician and even the cop responding to your assault and battery call to not be their first day on the job.
Yet Concerning one of the most complex and far reaching jobs, you advocate that it be done by inexperienced, rank beginners.
Though that would not be a good practice, that is the people's right. And there are, as in anything, bad politicians. But the selection process is pretty thorough and transparent. Not so unlike picking a juror.
You have a right to change those that govern at every election. But is it a sound idea?
It's already by the people, for the people. What more do you want Joe?
SS

Reply
Nov 27, 2013 12:04:00   #
jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ
 
Pepper wrote:
I am an avid supporter of personal rights and it frustrates me when I think of all the rights and privileges we are losing in this nation. It seems you need a permit (all come with a charge of course) to do most anything. You can’t put up a simple fence in many parts of the country without a building permit all because folks kept putting up unsafe fences so the lawmakers decided to regulate them. Think about it, if we in photography don’t start using some common sense and extending some common courtesy the lawmakers will step in. Courts are beginning to rule against the more aggressive paparazzi even now. Maybe we should start giving some thought to how we approach our craft from a moral perspective instead of jumping on the “It’s my right” bandwagon. The liberals in this country swing a big stick and they are all about the good of the whole and have little respect or interest in individual rights. If we continue on the course we’re on and continue to support rude and invasive attitudes and constantly proclaim “It’s my right” I promise the lawmakers will change or at least modify how “your rights” are defined. You don’t think so? Try going fishing or hunting or even buying a gun without uncle Sam’s permission, those used to be common rights as well. Think about it next time you jump to support some obnoxious creep with a camera.
I am an avid supporter of personal rights and it f... (show quote)


I agree. It's getting to be ridiculous. Sometimes I do fashion photography free, I get models from modelmayhem.com , so that I can build a portfolio. I'm approached by the police in Newport Beach by the pier, Mile Square Park in Fountain Valley, and another park in LA County that I can't remember the name of, and asked for my permit. I say what permit! The police assume that I'm a professional photographer and that I'm doing a shoot for pay and they want their money. I've been able to talk my way out of it but not without having to explain myself for 30 minutes every time.

Reply
Nov 27, 2013 12:53:37   #
RRS Loc: Not sure
 
amyinsparta wrote:
On the contrary, the 'rant' as you call it, pertains to photography, because the issue is the same-shall we have a free-for-all society in which I take any picture I want, when I want, of whom I want, and if they don't like it, too bad; or shall we self-police?

We obviously have not self-policed, or entertainers would not be prohibiting any kind of photographic implement during their concerts because they feel it distracts them and prevents the audience from participating in the show because they are too busy photographing it and sending the photos to their friends who aren't there. In addition, many people video tape the concert with their phones, which in almost all cases, is not legal.

So the issue is the same, regardless of subject matter. We haven't self-policed ourselves, and so rules have to written. There are simply way too many people in the country wanting to do their own thing at the expense of those deemed irrelevant.
On the contrary, the 'rant' as you call it, pertai... (show quote)


I disagree with distracting them, what they don't like is too many photographers do not PS the pictures and they look bad. I have a sister who likes to do pictures of the family when we are eating but only uses pictures taken of her not eating. We are so deceived today, everything we see in books or magazines has been PSed. I've been to concerts where cameras are allowed for the first three songs only and still people continue with flash until either they are told to stop or their camera is taken away. There are laws that govern photographers rights as out in public but when we go into an arena or anyplace that sets rules we should abide or not pay to go in at all.

Reply
Nov 27, 2013 12:55:53   #
thephotoman Loc: Rochester, NY
 
Pepper wrote:
I am an avid supporter of personal rights and it frustrates me when I think of all the rights and privileges we are losing in this nation. It seems you need a permit (all come with a charge of course) to do most anything. You can’t put up a simple fence in many parts of the country without a building permit all because folks kept putting up unsafe fences so the lawmakers decided to regulate them. Think about it, if we in photography don’t start using some common sense and extending some common courtesy the lawmakers will step in. Courts are beginning to rule against the more aggressive paparazzi even now. Maybe we should start giving some thought to how we approach our craft from a moral perspective instead of jumping on the “It’s my right” bandwagon. The liberals in this country swing a big stick and they are all about the good of the whole and have little respect or interest in individual rights. If we continue on the course we’re on and continue to support rude and invasive attitudes and constantly proclaim “It’s my right” I promise the lawmakers will change or at least modify how “your rights” are defined. You don’t think so? Try going fishing or hunting or even buying a gun without uncle Sam’s permission, those used to be common rights as well. Think about it next time you jump to support some obnoxious creep with a camera.
I am an avid supporter of personal rights and it f... (show quote)

I agree with Pepper. In order to avoid more government regs on where we can shoot, photographers need to be more willing to loose a battle to win the war. In other words if the location is good but not great be polite and agree not to shoot. Maybe even ask how we can get permission to shoot there. I was told I cannot shoot from the roof of city owned garages. All it took to get written permission from the city parking beauru. Total cost- 1 stamp. I have found that after 9/11 many places have become more security conscious. By acting professional and courteous we photographers can head off government regulations.

Reply
 
 
Nov 27, 2013 13:28:15   #
CalJoe2013 Loc: Westminster, Ca
 
We here in the US have a "right to pursue happiness" but no promise was given that you are guaranteed attaining it, that depends on the individual.
Freedom and liberty guarantee this right. Now one can argue photography is a privilege and I'd agree so having said that, it becomes subject to limitations. How we as photographers handle this privilege will determine what those limitations will be. While I'm a "small government" guy and think photography leans more towards the free speech area, it also comes with responsibility; as does free speech. Now back to taking photos.......

Reply
Nov 27, 2013 13:48:28   #
SwedeUSA
 
Pepper wrote:
I am an avid supporter of personal rights and it frustrates me when I think of all the rights and privileges we are losing in this nation. It seems you need a permit (all come with a charge of course) to do most anything. You can’t put up a simple fence in many parts of the country without a building permit all because folks kept putting up unsafe fences so the lawmakers decided to regulate them. Think about it, if we in photography don’t start using some common sense and extending some common courtesy the lawmakers will step in. Courts are beginning to rule against the more aggressive paparazzi even now. Maybe we should start giving some thought to how we approach our craft from a moral perspective instead of jumping on the “It’s my right” bandwagon. The liberals in this country swing a big stick and they are all about the good of the whole and have little respect or interest in individual rights. If we continue on the course we’re on and continue to support rude and invasive attitudes and constantly proclaim “It’s my right” I promise the lawmakers will change or at least modify how “your rights” are defined. You don’t think so? Try going fishing or hunting or even buying a gun without uncle Sam’s permission, those used to be common rights as well. Think about it next time you jump to support some obnoxious creep with a camera.
I am an avid supporter of personal rights and it f... (show quote)


Admin, could you please move this discussion to where it belongs; if not the trash can at least to the chit-chat (shit-chat?) area? This is NOT a photography issue!

Reply
Nov 27, 2013 13:59:30   #
Pepper Loc: Planet Earth Country USA
 
SwedeUSA wrote:
Admin, could you please move this discussion to where it belongs; if not the trash can at least to the chit-chat (shit-chat?) area? This is NOT a photography issue!


I disagree what's being discussed is the freedom to enjoy our craft, hobby, profession with as little intrusion from the regulators as possible. It's about the photographers responsibilities to govern themselves to avert outsiders from doing it for us (or to us). Might I suggest that if you don't feel this thread is of interest you just ignore it.

Reply
Nov 27, 2013 15:08:46   #
FredB Loc: A little below the Mason-Dixon line.
 
BigDaddy wrote:
If you think Mussolini, Hitler and Pol Pot were not left wing dictators, then your position is fundamentally flawed. Total left is totalitarianism, total right is complete individual freedom, ie, anarchy.
Sorry, but that is not correct. Anybody who thinks Hitler and Mussolini were leftists is completely wrong. You are confusing behavior with ideology.

BigDaddy wrote:
Exercising control over anyone is towards the left. Not exercising control is to the right.
So who is it that is against women's right to choose? Who is it that is against decriminalization of recreational drugs? Who is it that is against sexual freedoms and the ability to marry whoever the hell you want? Not the "LEFT". The "RIGHT".

It's simple. The LEFT wants to control your economic freedom (the Boardroom), the RIGHT wants to control your social freedom (the Bedroom).

Believing that people on "the right" don't want to control you is idiotic. They just want to control other things.

And look at the voting on crap like the Patriot Act - it DID NOT follow party lines. Opponents of freedom voted for it, Proponents of freedom voted against it.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 4 of 9 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
General Chit-Chat (non-photography talk)
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.