@Bokusatsu_Tenshi: These are the resulting pics! Those guys never knew their tushes were being filmed with wide angle lenses as they photographed the landscape.
Once I was in the subway, and this girl walks in. Sweaty and all, was jogging I think.
She puts one hand on her hip and the other on the hand support, kind of tilting her hips, but in a completely not intentionally provocative way.
Suddenly I just hear a deafening loud "CLICK!". One bastard on my side was taking a picture of her butt and forgot to disable the analog camera mimicking sound.
What a huge idiot.
I hope these ads (which are quite nice) do not inspire such a stupid behavior.
@pressstart: You can take pictures without sound. I just took a few pictures with my Pre on silent. And the other day, I used it in the college's bookstore to remember what books to get on my next visit. (The were waiting for some more to come in)
Funny ad campaign, and obviously touched a public nerve, as this thread indicates. I think its not so much that we ladies dont like having them take our picture, its what they do to the picture LATER that creeps us out. To be safe, just ask if they mind if you take their pics, thats all. Common courtesy goes a long way.
@Curves: Agreed. Even though the public "may I take your photo?" questions are kind of odd at times, they definitely beat the not-so-subtle creepy photos.
And for the record, I would definitely know that the guy in the pigeon photo was photographing me and not the pigeon. Same with the crouching guy. The beach guy might be able to get away with it but it still feels like there's a safe zone of distance and once people cross it, you know they're up to no good.
As a lifeguard in Hawaii I took a lot of pic’s of the ladies coming out of the ocean after a big wave hit them and kindly removed there restrictive clothing, its why I love photography.
@so_gracefully: Seriously, thank you for wording this better than I would. Sometimes I get too angry and just end up writing something like, "Jerkface, MOTHER AssHOLES!!!" Yours is the far more convincing comment.
@Elliuotatar: So it's the women's fault that men stare at them? And since it's their fault they should be forced to wear restrictive, uncomfortable clothes?
I'm a straight man. I don't stand around checking out women. If a woman catches my eye I might glance for a split second before I realize it's impolite to sexualize a complete stranger who is just trying to live a normal life like the rest of us. A little internal censoring and self-control out of respect for others is, shockingly, not difficult. I don't like having people stare at me in public for any reason, and I'm not going to do it to them.
Yes, in public there's no absolute right to privacy, but most men don't have to worry about being stared at wherever they go, so it's not a feeling we often experience. When you are out, there's a certain anonymity, people don't really notice you and you're free to be comfortable with yourself without being scrutinized. Being a woman, especially one that is generally attractive, you can't step foot in public without being stared at and scrutinized. Being constantly scrutinized is NOT comfortable. Whatever slight amount of privacy in public that most men are afforded, most women are denied. I seriously doubt it's an entirely comfortable experience.
@reynwrap582: Actually, I was in a mall talking to some of my coworkers at a VZW kiosk, and a group of 3 girls walked by and one slapped my ass. I am married, but of course if I slapped them, my ass would be thrown in jail quicker than you can say "All laws were made by a feminist dike". At the same time, if I was a girl, and they were boys, I would have slapped them and had them thrown in jail instantly. STFU with this whole "women shouldn't have to wear restricting and uncomfortable clothing" BS. Most women walking through malls dress in the most minimal amount of clothing possible, AKA shorts that don't even completely cover the bottoms of their asses. So you're telling me that they're not looking for attention???
Now don't get me wrong, I am married, but I still look. I don't STARE, but I glance if it catches my eye. But if I was single, you're DAMN RIGHT I would stare. Sex is embedded in our DNA.
/soapbox rant
@LessthanZach: Hey, here's a surprising fact, the girl that slapped your ass committed a crime just as surely as you would have if the roles are reversed. It's the societal aspects of it that make one okay and not the other (although I personally think they're both wrong, I'd be pretty pissed off if I was touched inappropriately by any stranger). And you're right, many women (particularly young women) wear revealing clothing. Why is that, do you think? Why do they seek that sort of attention? Because this society sexualizes and objectifies women from the moment they're born all the way into adulthood, perhaps? Maybe the short shorts and low tops and bare midriffs are a response to the expectation that women are supposed to be attractive and available? If a girl was born and grown into adulthood in isolation from the way we socialize women and girls in this country, would she come out of that isolation at 18 years old with the overwhelming desire to wear tiny booty shorts revealing everything? Probably not.
You basically cite a phenomenan that is caused by the exact circumstances I was talking about earlier, and act like that somehow nullifies my argument. Women are expected to be sexually attractive and available for men's consumption. If they attempt to fulfill that role, voluntarily or involuntarily, they're given positive feedback by friends and strangers alike and become more ingrained in the behaviors that result in that positive feedback. The women who don't fulfill that role are still given attention, which they don't even want, and are scrutinized and judged...even if they're NOT dressed provacatively, in which case the question is "Why is she not dressed for our consumption?" The only option is to never go out in public. You think dressing in entirely unrevealing clothing is going to help? That just changes the context of the attention. It's still attention, it's still invasive, and it's still unwelcome.
Women are raised to be available sexual objects but are also punished for fulfilling that role. If they dress or act that certain way, they're sluts, whores, etc. If they don't, they're uptight, bitches, ice queens, dykes, etc. Lucky is the woman that is able to walk that very narrow tightrope we've erected for them.
You say "most women" walk around in revealing clothing to entice you to look. I suspect this may be because you spend a lot of time in a mall and that's more common there. But where is the cutoff? What do they have to wear to keep men from giving them attention they don't want? Do they have to roll out of bed in the morning with greasy hair and wear a dirty t-shirt and sweats recovered from their floor to keep from attracting our attention? What's so wrong with them simply existing in the public sphere without the extra attention and scrutinization tacked onto it?
What is so hard about just deciding not to give strangers undue attention? Why are women assumed just to exist in public for our consumption? If it's so incredibly hard not to look, then at least get up some courage and introduce yourself.
@thePrototype: If you are in public and the photograph is not of an explicitly private nature, e.g. "up skirt" or "down blouse", you are a potential photography target.
@anexanhume: that is my choice to put that picture up, and there are other avenues to see more pictures of me. If someone is taking pictures my picture without my permission, that is a whole other ball of wax.
@thePrototype: By "deleted his pictures", you mean "formatted his memory card", right? Or "Asked him to stop". Maybe "smashed his head against the wall"?
@leave_aMessage: He didn't format the card, he just walked up to him, asked him for his camera, went through the pictures and deleted the ones that were specifically of me. Once that was done, he told him to get out of the bar.
@thePrototype: You've got one hell of a well-behaved husband. Props.
Edit @switchblade saints: Strange, you see him as being posessive and overreacting, and I see his straying from violence as the epitome of gentlemanliness. Eh.
@Gordon_Shumway: There is a big difference, imo, in giving permission to take a picture and sharing (which as stated above I have no problem with and do) and someone taking a picture without permission and getting of on being on being sly.
@thePrototype: You do realize that is illegal, right? If the photographer had defended himself he would have been 100% in the right and legally protected. Your husband could have been arrested for theft, assault, and unlawful detention. If you are visible from anywhere in public without using a very large telephoto lens, you are fair game.
@Brad Dudenhoffer: I understand the law doesn't protect people in public places, but I would like to see this guy try. There was no theft (the camera was returned unless you consider his image his intellectual property, which is easily challengeable). He was not assaulted, and he was not detained.
@92BuickLeSabre: the difference is in choice, just like if I were to go out and buy something for person or they went into my purse and took the money to buy it. The end result is the same, but the way that it happened is very different.
@thePrototype: No, it's not easily debated. The law is VERY clear on this point. Unless he contracted the right to someone else as soon as he pressed the button the picture was his and legally copyrighted.
@Brad Dudenhoffer: depends on where you are located I suppose. But the fact of the matter is people break laws all the time, and I would really like to see this person approach the police and press charges.
@thePrototype: I'm aware that it is about choice, but that can't be the whole story. Of course if someone takes personal property or physically injures me, there is a discrete loss or harm that I did not choose.
On the other hand, I don't get to choose whether people look at me or say hello. I don't get to choose how close they stand to me on the subway. None of these create a discrete, recognizable harm, and while I may find some of them irritating at some level, I don't consider any of them a problem.
Plus, if I go around saying hello to people and looking at them or inviting strangers to talk to me or look at me, then it seems like it would be odd to take offense and turn around and say "Hey, hey, hey I can't believe you just tried to say hello to me when I didn't actively invite you to say hello to me."
I'm just having a hard time seeing the lines. But I figure they must be in there somewhere, because obviously you aren't the first person to feel that way.
@92BuickLeSabre: I agree 100% with you, where I draw the line is when a guy walks by and hides the camera and tries to take a picture on the sly. If someone were to say 'hey you're hot can I get a picture with you' then I would say okay.
For me it's about respect, I show it to others and ask they do the same for me
@thePrototype: Ahh, now that I get. It's not actually about the picture at all, it's about the implication of disrespect in the way the action was carried out. It could be any number of actions.
@thePrototype: Just to be clear so that no one else tries this--your husband taking the camera from the photographer was likely unlawful and I would not recommend this path to anyone else. Your husband is lucky he didn't end up in jail or the subject of a civil suit. If he walked over and took the camera physically, it is probably battery. If he walked over instilled fear in the photographer to get him to turn over the camera, its probably assault and theft. Doesn't matter if he gave it back.
I have sympathy for your position that you shouldn't be photographed without your consent. Unfortunately, the law says that in public, you can be. The appropriate recourse would have been asking the property owners to request that he desist, which he is then required to do.
It seems to me unless the property owner had some restrictions on photography, or the guy was trying to take an innappropriate photo of you, you were in the wrong legally.
@AmphetamineCrown: Her husband asked him for the camera. The creepy guy handed it over.
The husband did nothing illegal. As far as I know, it's not illegal to shame people into allowing you access to their property.
Now, if he'd punched the guy, or ripped the camera out of his hands, that might be a different matter. Maybe. I very much doubt that the cops would be sympathetic to the 'photographer'.
@all: you know what chaps my hiney? so many are quick to be an internet tough guy, but as soon as someone steps up for his lady he is a douche. now if any one of you guys took a picture of my girl she was uncomfortable with then we would have words. end of story. heck, even if it was just one of my girl friends.
@Candle Jack: Wrong. If he "asked for" the camera in a manner causing fear in the photographer of physical harm--tell me that isn't the implication--its battery. It is not lawful for a guy in a dark alley pointing a gun at you to "ask" for your wallet.
The cops may not be sympathetic to it, but if he knew his rights, he likely could have had the husband arrested. At a minimum, he would have a civil suit.
@AmphetamineCrown: You are making a lot of assumptions, there were no threats made. From what I understand mere presence is not enough to count as a threat (unless you are in BC, and wearing HA colors are enough to count as a threat).
Yes the guy was told to leave, but my husband is friends with the bouncers and he would have been kicked out anyways.
@thePrototype: Honestly, I sympathize with you. But I think in this case, you could have ended up with a really bad result and you got lucky. The fact that someone gave someone else their camera and watched them delete pictures off it is pretty much proof positive he felt threatened. Nobody does that unless they feel threatened. And, if he felt threatened, then it was assault.
If you knew the bouncer, why not just ask the bouncer to tell the guy to stop? The property owner has the right to revoke the consent that ordinarily applies to photographing public and semi-public places.
I'm a photographer, so I come at this from a different angle (er, not an ultra-wide angle like the picture, either). If someone took my camera and deleted anything from it, I would spend money to see them prosecuted to the fullest extent permitted by law. I don't go around shooting people for nefarious or kinky reasons, but I can easily see taking pictures in a of friends in a bar and not really giving much of a damn about who was in the background. If someone as a result of that demanded my camera, you bet they would have some consequences. You are lucky that this guy happened to be a slimebag and didn't stand his ground.
@thePrototype: You know, assuming you're hot, and very few girls are hot without any artificial add-ons, you probably put in some good money in that body. You might as well put it to good use. And hey, being in pics is probably the most "honorable" (if I can use that term) of uses for a hot body.
I'm just saying...
And to be fair, as a club photographer, if anyone asks me to delete a picture, I'll do it. Even if you're less than polite while asking me to delete the picture, there's no worries, I'll do it. And there's so many other people to photograph in the club anyways, I would have to be stupid to get into arguments with potential drunk/high/tripping people.... for a picture.
I also tend to remember who doesn't want pictures because I tend to cross path with them often. No point in having them all fired up again. The clubbing/pub world is a small world. It's just funny that after they see my work, they come to me and actually insist on me taking their picture. A request that I have the luxury of refusing. :)
@AmphetamineCrown: I understand exactly what you are saying, but like i said, I am not always worried about the law, just like most of us on here that have shared a movie or a song aren't. If it had been a picture of me in the background, I wouldn't care, they were of myself and my girlfriend sitting by ourselves and dancing by ourselves.
You're right, he should have asked one of our friends, but he didn't, hindsight is 20/20
@EyeScars: I like to think I'm doing alright for myself :) You make a good point about putting money into my body, but letting have some guy take my picture is not a good return on investment.
I don't have any issues with promotion photographers, you guys are polite and respectful and when you do post images they are very flattering (and done so with permission!)
@thePrototype: I love it when people say you should be flattered that someone wanted to take your picture without you knowing. Where is the logic in that? If you want to flatter someone then you talk to them, tell them how beautiful they are, then ask them to take their picture. Flattery is done face to face, not on the sly.
@thePrototype: even funnier is that last week i took my buddy's gf's camera and walked around the bar taking pictures of me and whoever i walked up to. she reminded me the next day and now i have 20+ pictures of me and other random folks. good times.
@AmphetamineCrown: Where I live (southeast U.S), the cops and court would laugh the photographer out on the street.
The fact is, the husband wasn't holding a gun, or a knife, or anything else. I suppose his hands are deadly weapons... but possessing hands doesn't seem like solid evidence of intent to do harm. Short of immediate means (like a gun), a history of violence, or unambiguous language (e.g."I'm going to slit your throat with a knife"), it's tough to prove an implied threat in a civil case, let alone in a criminal setting. At least in my county.
Besides, the fact that the husband is friends with the bouncer means we have reason to believe his 'threat' could simply be to have the photographer banned from the bar.
@thePrototype:
I work in television in the UK. If I wanted to use your image without your consent, I would have to make a very convincing argument about it being in the public interest.
So, I'm with you and your husband. There's a world of difference between you sharing your image, and some idiot taking it without your consent.
@AmphetamineCrown: Coercion is the use of pressure, threats, or intimidation to compel or force someone to do something, particularly against their will. It's against the law in most states.
@xThadd: Publishing or broadcasting an image is a lot different than merely taking a picture for your own non-commercial uses.
Ever heard of a private investigator? They take pictures of people without that person knowing. You can be on a trip and take a picture of an interesting looking shopkeeper. You can take a picture of some guy walking around in a funny hat. You can take a picture of a pretty girl in a bar.
Crazy thing these cameras. We are actually allowed to use them.
When you publish these images for profit (i.e. use them on your television station), you are stepping across a line.
@Brett Benedict: I would, but that's only because I'm a 6'5" wookie, and wookies aren't known to be complimented that often. By the way, I love self deprecating humor.
But for most people it would depend on the tone, and words being used. Like if a woman was walking by and I said to my friends "Hey look at sweet tits!" while I might think this is a flattering way to describe her (I'm not that stupid), I'm betting she most likely wouldn't. However, if you are just saying how beautiful said woman is, then yes, I imagine she would find it flattering.
But the problem is that our society has made it creepy for photographers to take pictures of unsuspecting people. What with the up skirt, topless sunbather, spring break photos. Taking photos from across the bar of unsuspecting women just seems creepy by default. Nobody's gonna think this guy is Ansel Adams anymore. And they're most likely not going to find it flattering.
But in the end this is all my opinion, and I could be completely wrong, which is what this all seems to boil down to. Now I'm off to imagine the day I hear women talking dirty about me.
I know it's not automatically true since it's in Wikipedia, but for kicks:
@Candle Jack: My point is that no one is likely to voluntarily surrender the camera to a stranger to have pictures deleted. You certainly aren't getting my camera without a fight, and I don't care what you think is on it. The case noted above by the club photographer is different--presumably he is paid by the club and the club desires him to maintain good relations with the patrons or he is a member of that community and wants to maintain good relations on his own.
Assault does not require a weapon, nor does it require a history of violence, nor does it require physical contact. Assault is creating apprehension of physical harm or unwanted physical contact in the victim. If you don't think the husband was implicitly threatening harm demanding the camera, you probably need a refresher course in the law.
Maybe he walked over to the guy and said "look, I'd really appreciate it if you deleted the creepy pictures of my wife that you took," he was smiling, and everyone would agree there were no hard feelings. That is not the sense of the story I got, and certainly not the philosophy espoused by the OP. Besides, if he actually touched the guy and took the camera, you are looking at battery--which you will find defined as unwanted contact, not physical harm.
It's a bad move. Let the property owner deal with it or go to a different bar. It's not worth even a small chance you are going to end up on the wrong side of the bars, even for a night, or the prospect you are going to have to shell out for an attorney to defend you. There are better ways to deal with it.
@AmphetamineCrown: No, he wasn't quite as polite as you said, and it could have been handled better. But it wasn't and it worked out just fine.
I think the large majority of people in this thread haven't been in many bars before. The ONLY time I have ever seen police show up for a bar fight are when someone is stabbed, or someone is shot.
It has been my personal experience that even when a fight breaks out in front of the police, the worse that happens is they spend the night in the drunk tank, or are driven around the block in the back of the squad car.
Most of the time the police have something better to do than arrest someone for deleting pictures off of another person's camera. I would like to the 911 call asking for help because someone's pictures were deleted.
@Brodka: I'm not sure, it didn't happen, but not many people tell him no. I presume if it happens again he would get his bouncer friends if the situation escalated.
@anexanhume: No, no they don't. And I'm pretty sure they don't even do 180. Maybe a super-wide fisheye. Maybe.
http://jenoptik-inc.com/joomla/images/stories/big_a03.jpg
Also is it really safe to slap a magnet on the back of my iPhone? I remember a friend being dared to drag a magnet over the screen of a loathed 8th grade teacher's computer on the last day of school and it wasn't pretty.
Finally - because when I ask myself 'What do I want to put as close as possible to my expensive electronics?' the answer is instinctively, emphatically...
@Mona N.: good photography /= good image quality. They obviously aren't mutually exclusive, but your shots aren't arguing the alternative very well. I'm not speaking against them artistically of course...
07/29/09
I mean, come the fuck on!
Where are the RESULTING PICS?
07/29/09
07/30/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
She puts one hand on her hip and the other on the hand support, kind of tilting her hips, but in a completely not intentionally provocative way.
Suddenly I just hear a deafening loud "CLICK!". One bastard on my side was taking a picture of her butt and forgot to disable the analog camera mimicking sound.
What a huge idiot.
I hope these ads (which are quite nice) do not inspire such a stupid behavior.
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
The guys taking pictures just have no imagination.
07/29/09
And for the record, I would definitely know that the guy in the pigeon photo was photographing me and not the pigeon. Same with the crouching guy. The beach guy might be able to get away with it but it still feels like there's a safe zone of distance and once people cross it, you know they're up to no good.
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
See?
07/29/09
07/29/09
I suppose you don't think guys should look at you either.
If you don't want men to see your body, I suggest a burka.
Ps:
99% of the time a guy is looking at you, it's with blatant sexual motivation.
Excuse me. 79%. 20% of men are gay.
07/29/09
07/29/09
I'm a straight man. I don't stand around checking out women. If a woman catches my eye I might glance for a split second before I realize it's impolite to sexualize a complete stranger who is just trying to live a normal life like the rest of us. A little internal censoring and self-control out of respect for others is, shockingly, not difficult. I don't like having people stare at me in public for any reason, and I'm not going to do it to them.
Yes, in public there's no absolute right to privacy, but most men don't have to worry about being stared at wherever they go, so it's not a feeling we often experience. When you are out, there's a certain anonymity, people don't really notice you and you're free to be comfortable with yourself without being scrutinized. Being a woman, especially one that is generally attractive, you can't step foot in public without being stared at and scrutinized. Being constantly scrutinized is NOT comfortable. Whatever slight amount of privacy in public that most men are afforded, most women are denied. I seriously doubt it's an entirely comfortable experience.
07/29/09
07/29/09
Now don't get me wrong, I am married, but I still look. I don't STARE, but I glance if it catches my eye. But if I was single, you're DAMN RIGHT I would stare. Sex is embedded in our DNA.
/soapbox rant
07/29/09
You basically cite a phenomenan that is caused by the exact circumstances I was talking about earlier, and act like that somehow nullifies my argument. Women are expected to be sexually attractive and available for men's consumption. If they attempt to fulfill that role, voluntarily or involuntarily, they're given positive feedback by friends and strangers alike and become more ingrained in the behaviors that result in that positive feedback. The women who don't fulfill that role are still given attention, which they don't even want, and are scrutinized and judged...even if they're NOT dressed provacatively, in which case the question is "Why is she not dressed for our consumption?" The only option is to never go out in public. You think dressing in entirely unrevealing clothing is going to help? That just changes the context of the attention. It's still attention, it's still invasive, and it's still unwelcome.
Women are raised to be available sexual objects but are also punished for fulfilling that role. If they dress or act that certain way, they're sluts, whores, etc. If they don't, they're uptight, bitches, ice queens, dykes, etc. Lucky is the woman that is able to walk that very narrow tightrope we've erected for them.
You say "most women" walk around in revealing clothing to entice you to look. I suspect this may be because you spend a lot of time in a mall and that's more common there. But where is the cutoff? What do they have to wear to keep men from giving them attention they don't want? Do they have to roll out of bed in the morning with greasy hair and wear a dirty t-shirt and sweats recovered from their floor to keep from attracting our attention? What's so wrong with them simply existing in the public sphere without the extra attention and scrutinization tacked onto it?
What is so hard about just deciding not to give strangers undue attention? Why are women assumed just to exist in public for our consumption? If it's so incredibly hard not to look, then at least get up some courage and introduce yourself.
07/29/09
No, it's the woman's fault for being a paranoid prude.
If you want to be a parnoid prude, wear less revaling clothing.
I shouldn't have to give up MY right to take photos in public because some crazy woman thinks I'm taking pictures of her.
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
looks like we'll need a fisheye to fit everything into that small avatar space of yours XD
07/29/09
07/29/09
It's just a timeless technique they use to keep men in line. Nothing new.
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
Edit @switchblade saints: Strange, you see him as being posessive and overreacting, and I see his straying from violence as the epitome of gentlemanliness. Eh.
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
Otherwise, you could essentially never take a photograph outside in a populated area. How often do random people end up our pictures?
This woman's husband sounds like an amazing douchebag.
Now publishing someone's image for profit is a different story.
07/29/09
I just made your avatar picture my desktop.
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
On the other hand, I don't get to choose whether people look at me or say hello. I don't get to choose how close they stand to me on the subway. None of these create a discrete, recognizable harm, and while I may find some of them irritating at some level, I don't consider any of them a problem.
Plus, if I go around saying hello to people and looking at them or inviting strangers to talk to me or look at me, then it seems like it would be odd to take offense and turn around and say "Hey, hey, hey I can't believe you just tried to say hello to me when I didn't actively invite you to say hello to me."
I'm just having a hard time seeing the lines. But I figure they must be in there somewhere, because obviously you aren't the first person to feel that way.
07/29/09
Oh and my husband isn't the douchebag, I am, I asked him to do it.
07/29/09
For me it's about respect, I show it to others and ask they do the same for me
07/29/09
07/29/09
Now we're on the same page.
07/29/09
I have sympathy for your position that you shouldn't be photographed without your consent. Unfortunately, the law says that in public, you can be. The appropriate recourse would have been asking the property owners to request that he desist, which he is then required to do.
07/29/09
07/29/09
http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf
It seems to me unless the property owner had some restrictions on photography, or the guy was trying to take an innappropriate photo of you, you were in the wrong legally.
07/29/09
The husband did nothing illegal. As far as I know, it's not illegal to shame people into allowing you access to their property.
Now, if he'd punched the guy, or ripped the camera out of his hands, that might be a different matter. Maybe. I very much doubt that the cops would be sympathetic to the 'photographer'.
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
The cops may not be sympathetic to it, but if he knew his rights, he likely could have had the husband arrested. At a minimum, he would have a civil suit.
07/29/09
Yes the guy was told to leave, but my husband is friends with the bouncers and he would have been kicked out anyways.
07/29/09
If you knew the bouncer, why not just ask the bouncer to tell the guy to stop? The property owner has the right to revoke the consent that ordinarily applies to photographing public and semi-public places.
I'm a photographer, so I come at this from a different angle (er, not an ultra-wide angle like the picture, either). If someone took my camera and deleted anything from it, I would spend money to see them prosecuted to the fullest extent permitted by law. I don't go around shooting people for nefarious or kinky reasons, but I can easily see taking pictures in a of friends in a bar and not really giving much of a damn about who was in the background. If someone as a result of that demanded my camera, you bet they would have some consequences. You are lucky that this guy happened to be a slimebag and didn't stand his ground.
07/29/09
I'm just saying...
And to be fair, as a club photographer, if anyone asks me to delete a picture, I'll do it. Even if you're less than polite while asking me to delete the picture, there's no worries, I'll do it. And there's so many other people to photograph in the club anyways, I would have to be stupid to get into arguments with potential drunk/high/tripping people.... for a picture.
I also tend to remember who doesn't want pictures because I tend to cross path with them often. No point in having them all fired up again. The clubbing/pub world is a small world. It's just funny that after they see my work, they come to me and actually insist on me taking their picture. A request that I have the luxury of refusing. :)
07/29/09
You're right, he should have asked one of our friends, but he didn't, hindsight is 20/20
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
I don't have any issues with promotion photographers, you guys are polite and respectful and when you do post images they are very flattering (and done so with permission!)
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
The fact is, the husband wasn't holding a gun, or a knife, or anything else. I suppose his hands are deadly weapons... but possessing hands doesn't seem like solid evidence of intent to do harm. Short of immediate means (like a gun), a history of violence, or unambiguous language (e.g."I'm going to slit your throat with a knife"), it's tough to prove an implied threat in a civil case, let alone in a criminal setting. At least in my county.
Besides, the fact that the husband is friends with the bouncer means we have reason to believe his 'threat' could simply be to have the photographer banned from the bar.
07/29/09
I work in television in the UK. If I wanted to use your image without your consent, I would have to make a very convincing argument about it being in the public interest.
So, I'm with you and your husband. There's a world of difference between you sharing your image, and some idiot taking it without your consent.
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
I'm married to one. Does that count as "having one?"
07/29/09
Ever heard of a private investigator? They take pictures of people without that person knowing. You can be on a trip and take a picture of an interesting looking shopkeeper. You can take a picture of some guy walking around in a funny hat. You can take a picture of a pretty girl in a bar.
Crazy thing these cameras. We are actually allowed to use them.
When you publish these images for profit (i.e. use them on your television station), you are stepping across a line.
07/29/09
07/29/09
But for most people it would depend on the tone, and words being used. Like if a woman was walking by and I said to my friends "Hey look at sweet tits!" while I might think this is a flattering way to describe her (I'm not that stupid), I'm betting she most likely wouldn't. However, if you are just saying how beautiful said woman is, then yes, I imagine she would find it flattering.
But the problem is that our society has made it creepy for photographers to take pictures of unsuspecting people. What with the up skirt, topless sunbather, spring break photos. Taking photos from across the bar of unsuspecting women just seems creepy by default. Nobody's gonna think this guy is Ansel Adams anymore. And they're most likely not going to find it flattering.
But in the end this is all my opinion, and I could be completely wrong, which is what this all seems to boil down to. Now I'm off to imagine the day I hear women talking dirty about me.
I know it's not automatically true since it's in Wikipedia, but for kicks:
Photography and the Law
07/29/09
07/29/09
Assault does not require a weapon, nor does it require a history of violence, nor does it require physical contact. Assault is creating apprehension of physical harm or unwanted physical contact in the victim. If you don't think the husband was implicitly threatening harm demanding the camera, you probably need a refresher course in the law.
Maybe he walked over to the guy and said "look, I'd really appreciate it if you deleted the creepy pictures of my wife that you took," he was smiling, and everyone would agree there were no hard feelings. That is not the sense of the story I got, and certainly not the philosophy espoused by the OP. Besides, if he actually touched the guy and took the camera, you are looking at battery--which you will find defined as unwanted contact, not physical harm.
It's a bad move. Let the property owner deal with it or go to a different bar. It's not worth even a small chance you are going to end up on the wrong side of the bars, even for a night, or the prospect you are going to have to shell out for an attorney to defend you. There are better ways to deal with it.
07/29/09
I think the large majority of people in this thread haven't been in many bars before. The ONLY time I have ever seen police show up for a bar fight are when someone is stabbed, or someone is shot.
It has been my personal experience that even when a fight breaks out in front of the police, the worse that happens is they spend the night in the drunk tank, or are driven around the block in the back of the squad car.
Most of the time the police have something better to do than arrest someone for deleting pictures off of another person's camera. I would like to the 911 call asking for help because someone's pictures were deleted.
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
http://jenoptik-inc.com/joomla/images/stories/big_a03.jpg
07/29/09
07/29/09
And, you can use Photoshop to remap them to get rid of fisheye distortion to a degree.
12/29/08
Also is it really safe to slap a magnet on the back of my iPhone? I remember a friend being dared to drag a magnet over the screen of a loathed 8th grade teacher's computer on the last day of school and it wasn't pretty.
12/29/08
12/29/08
A Magnet.
12/29/08
They really only ever affected magnetic storage, and platter style hard drives (the former is dead, and the latter is typically shielded now-a-days).
Doesn't bother SSDs in the least, unless you are talking about MRI magnitude forces...
12/29/08
12/29/08
haha
12/29/08
12/29/08
12/29/08
12/29/08