It means you can take a picture that shows an accident victim, the scene
and those working and respecting the victim's privacy. I should have probably
added that those treating shouldn't be concerned about their pictures
being taken.
Ian
So how do you take a picture of an accident victim and simultaneously respect their privacy?
Have you stopped to consider the First Amendment implications of your position?
But the First Amendment is not a blanket that you can hide under. As one obvious example, you can't slander someone and claim First Amendment as a defense, or yell Fire! in a public place. Its not black and white.
But the First Amendment is not a blanket that you can hide under. As one obvious example, you can't slander someone and claim First Amendment as a defense, or yell Fire! in a public place. Its not black and white.
But it is black and white legally. A person in public has no reasonable expectation of privacy. In this situation Angelo took a shot on a public street of public employees doing their job. He did not interfere with them or make a nuisance of himself.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Few things are black and white. Its my main gripe with funadmentalists on both the Right and the Left sides of the aisle. For example, how do you balance the photographer's right to photograph versus's everyone's right to privacy? Or, for that matter, the mere subject of respect which I brought up? Remember, I'm the guy that said that just because something is legal doesn't necessarily mean it should be done. The law cannot encompass everything.
Few things are black and white. Its my main gripe with funadmentalists on both the Right and the Left sides of the aisle. For example, how do you balance the photographer's right to photograph versus's everyone's right to privacy? Or, for that matter, the mere subject of respect which I brought up? Remember, I'm the guy that said that just because something is legal doesn't necessarily mean it should be done. The law cannot encompass everything.
In Angelo's situation the law does encompass everything. He was within his rights. There were no privacy rights involved in that situation. The only disrespect that arose was directed towards Angelo.
When one is shooting in public places there are many possible scenarios. Different photographers will take different approaches in similar situations. Which approach is better or more correct? I'm not smart enough to come up with a code of conduct for others. I try to do what seems right to me and I'll let others do the same. The law can't encompass that but in Angelo's situation the law did encompass what his legal rights were and he was within those rights to take the picture.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
In Angelo's situation the law does encompass everything. He was within his rights. There were no privacy rights involved in that situation. The only disrespect that arose was directed towards Angelo.
To me, taking pictures of an accident is disrepectful to those in the accident, so I don't agree that the only disrespect was towards Angelo. Besides, you keep missing my point. I don't care if the law encompassed everything in this situation. Just because something is legal does not mean it should be done.
When Enron scandal first broke, the prevailing opinion at the time was that, while what they did was wrong and harmful, it was questionable as to whether they actually broke any laws. I haven't kept up with the scandal, and I don't know what, if any, illegal activity was found. But it brings up the point: **if** Enron actually had broken no laws with their activities, I expect few people would say "oh, well in that case...". What I would expect would happen is people would say "we need to change the laws then". That is what is happening in Canada here.
To me, taking pictures of an accident is disrepectful to those in the accident, so I don't agree that the only disrespect was towards Angelo. Besides, you keep missing my point. I don't care if the law encompassed everything in this situation. Just because something is legal does not mean it should be done.
When Enron scandal first broke, the prevailing opinion at the time was that, while what they did was wrong and harmful, it was questionable as to whether they actually broke any laws. I haven't kept up with the scandal, and I don't know what, if any, illegal activity was found. But it brings up the point: **if** Enron actually had broken no laws with their activities, I expect few people would say "oh, well in that case...". What I would expect would happen is people would say "we need to change the laws then". That is what is happening in Canada here.
Bill,
You have your view on it and thats fine. Don't take photos of accidents. I, on the other hand, don't share your opinion and I will take pics of accidents. I don't expect you to follow my standards and I hope you don't expect me to follow yours.
Enron was a scandal because laws were broken and a number of Enron officials have been prosecuted. If new laws are needed they will be written and debated and then passed or not passed. When the debate occurs we will all weigh in with our opinions and when the dust settles we will all have to live with the results of the debate.
We are all obligated to follow the laws of our countries. We are not obligated to follow the our differing personal value systems. I just try to the best I can and thats enough for me.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Why does common sense respectful behavior need to be regulated by law?
It's just that in two posts, now, you've sort of said: "If you don't do it, you might someday be required to do it." That's coercive, and if that attitude became widespread, it would become a de facto law.
From my point of view, it's better to defend the rights you have lest you lose them. And taking photographs of someone in a public place is a right that's well worth defending.
Enron was a scandal because laws were broken and a number of Enron officials have been prosecuted.
You skirted my point. I said **if** no laws had been broken, would you say "oh well, poor employees, but management didn't do anything illegal." There are lots of ways that companies can do things that are still perfectly legal, and yet are harmful to shareholders, employees, creditors, etc. Is that ok, as long as they are working in a legal manner? This is why I say nothing is black and white. Including this photo session.
You skirted my point. I said **if** no laws had been broken, would you say "oh well, poor employees, but management didn't do anything illegal." There are lots of ways that companies can do things that are still perfectly legal, and yet are harmful to shareholders, employees, creditors, etc. Is that ok, as long as they are working in a legal manner? This is why I say nothing is black and white. Including this photo session.
Bill,
Enron has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The first issue here was Angelo within his legal rights to take the shot and that is absolutely yes.
The second issue is was Angelo morally right to take the shot? My position is that's up to Angelo. I would have taken the pic , you wouldn't. We all are going to have our varying opinions on it. We just can't impose how we view the situation on each other. We won't agree. Hopefuly we can disagree respectfully and not impose our respctive value judgements on one another.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
It's just that in two posts, now, you've sort of said: "If you don't do it, you might someday be required to do it." That's coercive, and if that attitude became widespread, it would become a de facto law.
You can either call it coercive, or you can call it having common sense to not abuse the law.
Why do we have unions? Because at one point companies abused their power over workers. Why did union busting come into game in the 80s? Because unions started abusing their power over companies.
Why are people starting to backlash against photographers? Start and think about why these laws are coming into being in the first place and address that.
If you want to defend rights I'm all for that. But pick your battles carefully. This is not a good battle to pick for photographer's rights. I can just as easily claim that if I'm on the ground, bleeding with my life vanishing away, I want the privacy to not have a loon with a camera snapping pics of me to post on the 'net. So who's rights prevail here?
If you want to defend the rights of photography, start talking about the ability to take commisioned portraits in public settings, like public parks. Something you can't do in Kalifornia without permits, for example. Or the rights to take speculative photography in parks, on the streets. Or the rights to photograph public events like races, competitions, parades. You don't get very far by defending what many people call vulchers of society.
Actually it does. I suspect you just don't want to answer. Its a direct analogy to the point I was making. If Enron had done nothing illegal whatsosever, would you be sticking up for Enron, saying "some would say it was morally wrong, but it was legal"? That is exactly the defense you are making for Angelo, that some feel it is wrong, but it is legal.
I'm not going to debate the points with you. I do object to the term "loon" in your post. Now I know you weren't referring to any forum members with that term but some could view that otherwsie. Please be careful.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
You can either call it coercive, or you can call it having common sense to not abuse the law.
Why do we have unions? Because at one point companies abused their power over workers. Why did union busting come into game in the 80s? Because unions started abusing their power over companies.
Why are people starting to backlash against photographers? Start and think about why these laws are coming into being in the first place and address that.
If you want to defend rights I'm all for that. But pick your battles carefully. This is not a good battle to pick for photographer's rights. I can just as easily claim that if I'm on the ground, bleeding with my life vanishing away, I want the privacy to not have a loon with a camera snapping pics of me to post on the 'net. So who's rights prevail here?
If you want to defend the rights of photography, start talking about the ability to take commisioned portraits in public settings, like public parks. Something you can't do in Kalifornia without permits, for example. Or the rights to take speculative photography in parks, on the streets. Or the rights to photograph public events like races, competitions, parades. You don't get very far by defending what many people call vulchers of society.
My friend, you have effectively muzzled your own right to be informed visually about the world around you. We're not talking about a fringe right - we're talking about a fundamental element of the First Amendment.
I'm going to break this site's rules to show you a couple of images that are key pieces of this nation's history, images that your philosophy would have prevented from being taken.
I would be astonished if you didn't recognize the shots and their significance.
Photo Credit: John Filo
Photo Credit: Eddie Adams
Would this nation be a better place without these images? I don't think so.
"The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicates a message."
I'm not going to debate the points with you. I do object to the term "loon" in your post. Now I know you weren't referring to any forum members with that term but some could view that otherwsie. Please be careful.
If the point you are trying to make is that even thought it is my First Amendment right to call people loon's, that it is nonetheless disrepectful and wrong to do so, you are 100% correct.
If the point you are trying to make is that even thought it is my First Amendment right to call people loon's, that it is nonetheless disrepectful and wrong to do so, you are 100% correct.
Harry I need a nice photo of a loon as my new avatar!
Hey Angelo,
I'm out of loons but I have a good collection of egrets to choose from.
I'm reserving the pelicans for my personal use.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I just got back to my office to view an incredible volley of posts on this subject. I'm impressed by the attention this issue has generated and pleased (relieved?) it has reached an amicable end.
Merc - I would only point out as I think others tried in my "defense" (?) that what happened here was not an issue of moral or legal correctness as much as it was a government official attempting to exert undue control over a citizen "under color of authority". I for one will never stand for that.
Its not a convincing argument to me. If I was an EMT I wouldn't want my picture taken. And if I was the victim, I sure as hell wouldn't want my picture taken. Justifying it by saying "the news would be boring" doesn't cut it.
"What you want" and "what is legal to shoot" are different. I guess if you have a heart attack on the street you better dive into a store.
Comments
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
But the First Amendment is not a blanket that you can hide under. As one obvious example, you can't slander someone and claim First Amendment as a defense, or yell Fire! in a public place. Its not black and white.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Few things are black and white. Its my main gripe with funadmentalists on both the Right and the Left sides of the aisle. For example, how do you balance the photographer's right to photograph versus's everyone's right to privacy? Or, for that matter, the mere subject of respect which I brought up? Remember, I'm the guy that said that just because something is legal doesn't necessarily mean it should be done. The law cannot encompass everything.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
When one is shooting in public places there are many possible scenarios. Different photographers will take different approaches in similar situations. Which approach is better or more correct? I'm not smart enough to come up with a code of conduct for others. I try to do what seems right to me and I'll let others do the same. The law can't encompass that but in Angelo's situation the law did encompass what his legal rights were and he was within those rights to take the picture.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
To me, taking pictures of an accident is disrepectful to those in the accident, so I don't agree that the only disrespect was towards Angelo. Besides, you keep missing my point. I don't care if the law encompassed everything in this situation. Just because something is legal does not mean it should be done.
When Enron scandal first broke, the prevailing opinion at the time was that, while what they did was wrong and harmful, it was questionable as to whether they actually broke any laws. I haven't kept up with the scandal, and I don't know what, if any, illegal activity was found. But it brings up the point: **if** Enron actually had broken no laws with their activities, I expect few people would say "oh, well in that case...". What I would expect would happen is people would say "we need to change the laws then". That is what is happening in Canada here.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
Why does common sense respectful behavior need to be regulated by law?
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
You have your view on it and thats fine. Don't take photos of accidents. I, on the other hand, don't share your opinion and I will take pics of accidents. I don't expect you to follow my standards and I hope you don't expect me to follow yours.
Enron was a scandal because laws were broken and a number of Enron officials have been prosecuted. If new laws are needed they will be written and debated and then passed or not passed. When the debate occurs we will all weigh in with our opinions and when the dust settles we will all have to live with the results of the debate.
We are all obligated to follow the laws of our countries. We are not obligated to follow the our differing personal value systems. I just try to the best I can and thats enough for me.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
From my point of view, it's better to defend the rights you have lest you lose them. And taking photographs of someone in a public place is a right that's well worth defending.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
You skirted my point. I said **if** no laws had been broken, would you say "oh well, poor employees, but management didn't do anything illegal." There are lots of ways that companies can do things that are still perfectly legal, and yet are harmful to shareholders, employees, creditors, etc. Is that ok, as long as they are working in a legal manner? This is why I say nothing is black and white. Including this photo session.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
Enron has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The first issue here was Angelo within his legal rights to take the shot and that is absolutely yes.
The second issue is was Angelo morally right to take the shot? My position is that's up to Angelo. I would have taken the pic , you wouldn't. We all are going to have our varying opinions on it. We just can't impose how we view the situation on each other. We won't agree. Hopefuly we can disagree respectfully and not impose our respctive value judgements on one another.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
You can either call it coercive, or you can call it having common sense to not abuse the law.
Why do we have unions? Because at one point companies abused their power over workers. Why did union busting come into game in the 80s? Because unions started abusing their power over companies.
Why are people starting to backlash against photographers? Start and think about why these laws are coming into being in the first place and address that.
If you want to defend rights I'm all for that. But pick your battles carefully. This is not a good battle to pick for photographer's rights. I can just as easily claim that if I'm on the ground, bleeding with my life vanishing away, I want the privacy to not have a loon with a camera snapping pics of me to post on the 'net. So who's rights prevail here?
If you want to defend the rights of photography, start talking about the ability to take commisioned portraits in public settings, like public parks. Something you can't do in Kalifornia without permits, for example. Or the rights to take speculative photography in parks, on the streets. Or the rights to photograph public events like races, competitions, parades. You don't get very far by defending what many people call vulchers of society.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
Actually it does. I suspect you just don't want to answer. Its a direct analogy to the point I was making. If Enron had done nothing illegal whatsosever, would you be sticking up for Enron, saying "some would say it was morally wrong, but it was legal"? That is exactly the defense you are making for Angelo, that some feel it is wrong, but it is legal.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
I'm not going to debate the points with you. I do object to the term "loon" in your post. Now I know you weren't referring to any forum members with that term but some could view that otherwsie. Please be careful.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
My friend, you have effectively muzzled your own right to be informed visually about the world around you. We're not talking about a fringe right - we're talking about a fundamental element of the First Amendment.
I'm going to break this site's rules to show you a couple of images that are key pieces of this nation's history, images that your philosophy would have prevented from being taken.
I would be astonished if you didn't recognize the shots and their significance.
Photo Credit: John Filo
Photo Credit: Eddie Adams
Would this nation be a better place without these images? I don't think so.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Source
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
If the point you are trying to make is that even thought it is my First Amendment right to call people loon's, that it is nonetheless disrepectful and wrong to do so, you are 100% correct.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
Finally, an explanation as to why I'm wrong that isn't the simple "because its my right to do so."
Thank you.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Thank you for seeing the point of my "loon" statement, and for showing me the value of what might appear to be valueless otherwise. I stand corrected.
Now, to go enjoy some food and wine with the GF.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
I'm out of loons but I have a good collection of egrets to choose from.
I'm reserving the pelicans for my personal use.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Merc - I would only point out as I think others tried in my "defense" (?) that what happened here was not an issue of moral or legal correctness as much as it was a government official attempting to exert undue control over a citizen "under color of authority". I for one will never stand for that.
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots