Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/05/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I was going to post this in reply to a private email sent to me, but I decided to make this my final public comment on this topic. I hope it clarifies my position without angering too many people. I am simply expressing my point of view. 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. 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? 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. 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. 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). 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. Dan C. At 12:08 PM 23-05-01 -0400, Michael Gardner wrote: >Hi Dan, >This has all the earmarks of the beginning of a contentious thread on >the LUG. :-) >So, off-list, I'll just say I agree with you 100%! >Regards, >Mike Gardner > >Dan Cardish wrote: >> >> A picture of me minding my own business in a Montreal park has nothing to >> do with photojournalism. You want to publish it? Unless I'm carrying a >> bomb or standing next to a WMO (sp?) demonstration or running for Mayor, >> ask me first. >> >> dan c. >> >> At 02:38 PM 23-05-01 +0100, Steve Unsworth wrote: >> >Oh well, that's almost a hundred years of photojournalism consigned to the >> >waste bin. >> > >