Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/09/20
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]From: B. D. Colen <bdcolen@earthlink.net> Sent: Monday, September 20, 1999 14:30 Subject: RE: [Leica] What I did today > Fer God's sake, Anthony, how does a parent on a > playground know who's a child molester and who's > a member of the LUG? He doesn't have to know--after all, it's just taking a photograph. Taking photographs is not molestation. How do you know that someone you're watching on television doesn't have active tuberculosis? The answer is that you don't, but it really doesn't matter, since you cannot catch tuberculosis by watching someone with the disease on television. Do you see the analogy? > I can certainly understand how the average parent > would think that the only person who would want > photos of their children would either be them - the > parents - or some sort of pervert. I can't. A person would have to be extraordinarily narrow-minded to think that the only conceivable reason for photographing a child is perversion of some sort. One could easily extend that to all human beings, in which case anyone who takes a picture of anyone else who isn't a relative is some sort of pervert. It really doesn't make sense, and I wonder where people are picking up these strange ideas. > MOST people use cameras and photography to chronicle > their own lives and take pretty pictures of places they've > been, NOT to do street photography of strangers in > their own backyards. Most people are not serious amateurs or professionals. Serious amateurs and professionals take pictures of all sorts of things, including people, and including children. There is nothing perverted about that. > I'm not saying that this is a pleasant situation. It sounds like a serious distortion of reality. > I remember back to the early 70s when I in fact made some > nice extra money by going to a park in Georgetown, in D.C., > photographing children, and then approaching their parents, > nannies, etc., offering to call them when I got my contacts > back...But times have changed. The attitudes of people have become more warped over time--and I think news media have a lot to do with this. However, there are no more "perverts" today than there have ever been. And assuming that a photographer who is photographing a child is a pervert is equivalent to assuming that a photographer taking a picture of a building is planning to break in and burn it down during the night. > The point here is not why the cars can't stop, but that > the person crossing the street against the light KNOWS > that there is a physical risk involved in doing so. There is normally no physical risk in taking pictures of people, unless they are drug traffickers, or mentally ill, or something like that. Normal people are not violent. > You are absolutely correct. No law of physics requires it. > However, in this day and age there does appear to be a > twisted law of human behavior - perhaps testosterone induced > - that inspires, if not requires it. And ignoring this > "law" could well get one a busted nose and, far worse, busted > Leica. And people who suffer from an excess of testosterone can end up in prison. There are risks on both sides. I don't think that the law of the jungle is an appropriate one upon which to base the behavior of a nominally civilized society. > Yes, it is very unfortunate. But as to not understanding > why someone would behave that way, turn it around - why > would someone who is shooting for "pleasure," rather than > for news biz, completely ignore a perfectly reasonable > request to forgo taking a photo of a private citizen? I don't know, but I'm not going to hit someone just because he ignores the request. If he makes inappropriate use of my photograph (commercial use, defamatory use, etc.), I can sue him. If he doesn't, I don't really care. -- Anthony