[Leica] Dan's rant WAS model releases etc.

[Johnny Deadman <john@pinkheadedbug.com>]

on 5/23/01 7:59 PM, Dan Cardish at dcardish@sympatico.ca wrote:
 
> There is something about what many people on the list refer to as "street
> photography" that I find disturbing.  In my view photojournalism is serious
> business, it should not be treated as a fun "hobby" to be practiced on
> Friday evenings or weekends by people to post the following week on web
> site for criticism.

Why you conflate photojournalism and SP is beyond me. And why you think your
opinion of what other people 'should' or 'should not' do in their spare time
matters is also beyond me.

> You wouldn't expect a print journalist to randomly
> pick someone such as myself and publish weekly articles about my life would
> you?  Why should photojournalism be any different?  If a photojournalist
> takes my photograph in a public street or park, he or she should have a
> very good reason.  If I'm involved in something newsworthy (I'm committing
> a crime or I'm a public figure, for example) then that is good enough
> reason to publish my photo.  The law in Quebec states this, I believe.
> 
> But if I'm just sitting on the side of the curb waiting for a friend or
> just killing time, then why should the photographer be allowed to publish
> my photograph?   Why should a serious photojournalist even want to take my
> photograph?

Perhaps he's documenting the area. Perhaps he's doing a photo-essay about
people killing time, or waiting. Perhaps he thinks you look wonderful
backlit like that, the way the sun glints on your hair.

>   If the photographer sees something very artistic about my
> pose in the scene, fine, that is a good reason (to take the photograph, not
> publish it).  But he is morally obliged (IMHO) to ask me first before
> publication.  

Why? You were sitting in plain view in a public place where anyone could see
you and probably more people DID see you than will ever see the damn
photograph, and the photograph shows you doing exactly what you were doing,
which is sitting. Maybe you were one of eighteen people in the frame, maybe
not. If you are so worried about all this, which frankly says more about you
than the poor misbegotten fool who tried to take your picture, just go up to
him and tell him not to use the damn picture. And if you're worried he'll
snap it without you noticing, well, all I can say is you better pay more
attention when you're sitting on the curb to shifty folks with leicas up
their jumper. 

Or maybe you should just get out more.

> The law may or may not state otherwise, that isn't the
> question.  If the law does say otherwise, then the law is wrong.  Simple as
> that.

Phew! I always love it when people set us right on stuff like that! What
were we all thinking... you know, that it was complicated, that there were
competing moral rights... but no, Dan just flat out nails it for us. We can
all stop thinking. Simple as that. Fantastic.
> 
> I realize that some of you will point out that I would probably condemn
> much of HCB's photography.  Most of his work is real photojournalism, in
> that he was in the midst of tremendously newsworthy events.  It is not
> simple "Street Photography".    But I also feel that much of his work does
> exploit the subjects, as I feel that it is very unlikely that he ever asked
> permission to publish (I may be wrong here, but my opinion is based on what
> I understand to be his less than noble character).

The vast majority of HCB's book pictures are not 'newsworthy'
photojournalism. They are precisely the SP that troubles you so much. You
have to live with the consequences of your position, which are simply that
given your personal Utopia HCB would not have taken the pictures he did. Nor
would Robert Frank, William Klein, Garry Winogrand, Berenice Abbot, Helen
Levitt, Kertesz, Riboud, Erwitt. What a tragic, massive loss to us all, just
so that you can sit on your kerb not worrying about the pathetically remote
possibility that some snapper thinks you're cute.
> 
> Simply stating something like, "If I don't want to have my photograph
> published, I should stay locked away in my home" is unacceptable.  I am a
> citizen of a democratic society and I have the most basic fundamental right
> to be able to enjoy the available freedoms of society, including taking
> walks in a local park.  The onus shouldn't be on me to avoid the
> possibility of my photograph being taken and published in the local paper
> by hiding myself away from society.  The onus should be on the photographer
> to justify why my photograph should be published.

Well, there are enough 'should's' in that little diatribe to last us for a
good long while. They just pile up, and pile up. A heap of 'should's' that
big should make anyone sit up and take notice, because it signals trouble.

First, it seems to me that your freedom is not being restricted in the
tiniest degree by the potential that someone might take your picture,
whereas you seek to place enormous restraints on *anyone* who wishes to take
and display pictures of people in public spaces. What can you not do that
you could do if no-one was taking your picture?

Second, in the last year I took approximately 10,000 pictures mostly of
people in public spaces. I did so openly. Had anyone asked me not to use
their photo, I would not have used their photo. Anyone who asked me not to
photograph them, I didn't photographed them. This arrangement works quite
well. Now for some statistics.

The number who asked me not to use their picture, whom I had actually
photographed: 0
The number who asked me not to photograph them: about 5

This tells me that people like you who strenuously object to the possibility
of being photographed in public are in a small minority, to say the least.
Should your views prevail, it would be a tragic loss of freedom of
expression. Thankfully, they won't, except in Quebec.

I suggest you stay there.

- -- 
John Brownlow

http://www.pinkheadedbug.com