Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/08/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On 8/11/03 bdcolen@earthlink.net (bdcolen) thoughtfully wrote: >IF you believe that "street photography" exploits everyone who's a >subject, THEN you really have to believe that any photograph featuring a >subject who did not specifically ask to be photographed is exploitive - >including photographs of our friends, relatives, children, etc. - most >of whom put up with being photographed because they feel somehow >compelled to. (I'm not saying that I believe that all photography is >seriously exploitive, I'm just carrying this argument to what I believe >is a very logical conclusion.) Excuse me, but that's hog wash, BD. I don't have to believe that at all, nor is the situation remotely the same. You can't exploit someone who gives informed consent. Most family members fall into that category. I assume that if someone says "please, don't" then you wouldn't take the photograph, even if it's your daughter or grandson or what have you. You don't have to ask to be photographed - but by responding to the request to be photographed (affirmatively) then your family members can't be exploited. They can say "no." It works the same for street people. If you're willing to take the time to see them as people, as individuals, talk to then, explain what you're going to do, and make sure you understand that THEY understand what you're going to do, then you won't be exploiting them. Draw your lines fairly in this debate. Adam - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html