Re: [Leica] sneak thief photographers!

[Francesco <fls@san.rr.com>]

IN THE END, if you ever want to use that stealth image of that
person you did not want to confront, for anything but editorial
work, you are screwed.

I have made many images, from Bali to Paris to California, 
of people on the street.  Most never knew I was there, and I was 
scared or nervous to ask them permission or for a release because 
of the neighborhood or situation.  Are these photos worthless now, 
in terms of using them for stock images or books or selling
prints at the swap meet?  Can I only display them in the privacy of
my own home without getting sued?  How do you all handle this?

Francesco






At 09:27 PM 12/1/98 , Alan Ball wrote:
>Ted,
>
>I fully understand your point of view. It could have something very pure
>to it, as it might impose to both parties, photographer and subject, a
>situation where both are aware of the dealings that are taking place.
>The photographer is "taking" the image of subject and the subject
>decides or refuses his/her image to be taken. 
>
>That is the theory anyway.
>
>The reality is quite different. The aware subject is left with little
>choice. Either he (or she) does not make a stink, and the image is in
>the box, or, to avoid this taking place, the subject must take the time,
>gather the necessary energy and agressivity and engage contradiction
>with the photographer. 
>
>Either preemptive contradiction by spoiling the shoot (hiding the face,
>closing the angle of view of the camera with a hand, etc) or reactive
>contradiction by going up to the photographer and require destruction of
>the picture or negociate potential income.
>
>That is if the subject notices what is going on. 
>
>If the subject does not notice the proceedings because of the sleathy
>attitude of the photographer, then the whole process becomes unilateral.
>The subject does not have the ability to protect his/her image. 
>
>I do not see ANY difference in this case between sleath system nr 1
>(camera at hip, wide angle, etc) and sleath system nr 2 (the 'chameleon'
>photographer you describe, blending in and taking the picture through
>the viewfinder).
>
>I feel that the only honest procedure is to make sure that the subject
>knows the image is in the process of being taken. This implies
>interaction, and during this interaction the photographer is asking
>permission. This can be done without words, through eye contact, a few
>gestures or a smile.
>
>So to me the difference between 'stealing' the image or 'making' an
>image is in the absence or the existence of conscious interaction
>between both parties.
>
>At the end of the day, most street photographers become thiefs, because
>it is more productive. In our attorney-rich countries, the professional
>street photographer might protect his ass by asking the subject to sign
>an agreement that the picture be published.
>
>Usually, when traveling in  poorer countries, the (richer) photographer
>does not even do that, and hopes to make a buck (or a nice web page) out
>of the 'stolen' image of 'photogenic' poverty. 
>
>Usually but not always: some are very sensitive photographers who treat
>all humans the same way, and who do make sure there is an exchange of
>good will in the process.
>
>But I've had nausea seeing herds of photographers unshamefuly shooting
>veiled women in Morocco for example. They were not sleathy, they were
>not hiding, they just did not care.
>
>I have personally stolen a few pictures from the hip. They could most
>probably not have been taken in the honest way I advocate, because of
>gigantic cultural barriers. I am not proud of that. But some of those
>pictures are really good and really tell a story.
>
>
>Alan
>Brussels-Belgium
>
>Ted Grant wrote:
>> If one doesn't have the guts to stand and be counted when they take their
>> pictures, then they shouldn't be taking pictures!  Certainly not calling
>> themselves "photojournalist nor photographer!"
>> 
>> I've read alot of this "street photographer/photography" thing over the
>> past couple years and I always thought these guys were "cool shooters" with
>> lots of guts. That was, until I discovered they walked around with their
>> cameras hanging by their ass with wide angle lens attached and clicking the
>> shutter hopefully at capturing something or other.
>> 
>> Or putting a wide angle lens on and walking about, sort of bodily aiming
>> the camera in a sneaky fashion towards unsuspecting subjects. Then some of
>> them having the audacity of raving about their "street pictures!"
>> 
>> Hell that's not being a photographer, that's just being an out and out
>> iamge thief by gutless wonders!
>> 
>> I know I've made this point before, but if you are taking pictures on the
>> street of people doing things, there are all kinds of ways to "making
>> oneself invisble" and still capturing satisfying photographs of huamn
>> nature at play or work.
>> 
>> But to go around and jury rig Leica's to expose film, please note I said
>> "expose film," I didn't say "take photographs," Photographers take
>> photographs. These others are merely manipulators of a box with light
>> sensitive material!
>> 
>> It doesn't take any talent to walk about clicking in the general direction
>> of a subject on the premise they'll have a great "street photograph" due to
>> their talent as a photographer.  Heck we can train monkeys to walk about
>> doing that!
>