Thanks useful information: 
What Rick said!
I understand that according to the law, I have a right to photograph a pile of rusting junk sitting in an empty paddock, but my morals in this instance take precedence over what is lawfully allowable.
I didn't take up photography for the purpose of making enemies and foes. This chap requested that I stop as he believed that I was on a recce mission for some apparent lowlifes to come back and pilfer his valuable piles of rust, and I tried my best to assure him that was not the case, and I just photograph things.. or stuff.. weird stuff.
The vast majority of people don't see photography the way we do. We as in us enthusiasts, or professionals if any frequent AP that is
They see photography as snaps of their friends/family/pets and or self from arms length. They find no interest in other people the way we may. They see it as perverted and invasive. They have no clue, obviously, and we should operate knowing of this general mindset.
We're already losing too many of our liberties photographically speaking, and there is nothing to say that more won't be lost if we don't act with a level of responsibility.
Sometimes we simply have to accept that we're going to be exposed to the public at some time in our lives, even tho we may not want to be.
Whether that's to go to the shops to get milk, or to the psyche to get treatment or to the chemist to get the prescription, the simple fact of life for 99% of the population is that we need to get out.
Others may not adhere to this principle and become introverted and reclusive.
The question is, of the two necessary evils, which one has a greater weight, or takes a higher priority in life.
This fear of Orwellian regulation, or the mental health of an individual?
I'm with Andrew on this one, I don't care if anyone takes my picture .. they're the one's risking cracking what would otherwise be a perfect piece of glass
Had that happen to me too one day.
I'm in the car in traffic in the heart of the CBD. I hear a voice saying hey smile, and I turned and within a second or so posed for a couple taking an image of me stuck in traffic at a tram stop in a beatup, filthy wagon with courier written down the door.
Couldn't care less. But I prefer for people(strange weird creepy people mainly) not to take images of my kids, even when out in public.
I know that there is nothing that can be done about it, and simply accept it, but I'll ask anyone that does so to remove/delete them.(even tho I've posted images of my kids on AP).
But there's no getting around it, I have to take my kids out every now and then, or should I batten down the hatches and barricade the entrances just for the sake of privacy!
The problem is that this is an ethical question on the part of the photographer, and we just have to accept that in life there are extremes to which people believe in.
Some will simply ignore the request of the subject and show a complete lack of respect and hence (what I believe to be a level of morals in respecting others wishes), and others do the opposite and realise that the wishes of the individual subject is greater than a right to practise some silly hobby!
FWIW, I'd loved to have snapped a shot of an extremely interesting(to any guy), attractive(to any guy) and scantily clad young lady, of all places at a petrol station yesterday as she was joyfully prancing toward her vehicle, for this most delightful but brief breezy instance, but ethics would have stopped me even if I had the camera at hand and ready to shoot
Besides... the fear of persecution as a pervert would also have played a major part in stopping me
My morals/ethics are that I respect the privacy of the individual more so than my legal right to press the shutter if the situation called for it.
If the subject was unaware of my photograph, then I'd assume that they consented.
Given the nature of the population's view on photography in public places, I think photographers need to tread carefully, lest the law changes against our current wishes.
It's simply a matter of responsibility. Abuse it, and over time the many complaints will turn to anger, and then to a law that may be lacking in some way.
This happens all the time in other aspects of life, and if you blinker yourself to this possibly happening to our avoured hobby, then you risk losing what you currently have.
All it requires is a sensitive judge, or politician, or whatever to begin the process of change, and the general public won't give damn about any change in the current law.
I reckon most people have some story of an ethical or moral level, even if it has nothing to do with the law(or photography).
As an example of what I'm referring too:
We both have a right to become paparazzi if we wish too, as this is apparently a legally allowable employment opportunity.
My ethics/morals or inner philosophical positions(call it what you will) precludes me from entering into such an employment situation. This is not about ability or opportunity(even if I was handed such an opportunity on a plate with acceptable renumeration, I couldn't do it. I'd be deleting more images than I capture, which would help me manage my terabyte of images actually! now that I think about it
The problem with morals and ethics is that there is no set boundary for everyone to adhere too. What's unethical to one person is perfectly acceptable to another.
The legality of it is not always a consideration to abide by.
I've also been in a situation where my ethics or morals have lead me to fabricate a more appropriate truth so as to not get a family member in trouble with the law.
I see the concepts of law and ethics as mutually exclusive if the situation calls for it.
Each to their own.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Scotty72
