View Full Version : What would you do if asked to show the photo you just took ?
We've had various discussions about our legal rights to take photos in public, so this isn't about what you have to do. This is a question about what you would do.
You're out in public, taking general people photos, and someone takes offence and demands to see the photos you just took. Would you show them? Would you delete them if asked? Would your response change if it was a Police officer asking you ?
Where do you draw the line between defending your rights and taking a more conciliatory approach? What would you do in a real life situation?
John King
28-11-2018, 6:37pm
Bob, like so many things in life, it depends on all sorts of things. All circumstances will be all but unique ...
Bob, like so many things in life, it depends on all sorts of things. All circumstances will be all but unique ...
I know .... but this is a general question. Clearly most hypotheticals depend on all sorts of things, and situations will usually be unique, so we have to ask broad questions.
Not keen on confrontation so I would show them and delete it if they asked. You never know, they might like what they see, ask you for a copy, and just like that you've got a new friend.
ameerat42
28-11-2018, 7:27pm
Depends...
Previous text deleted.
I missed the vote because there wasn't a suitable option:
"It depends/Gravy".
Geoff79
28-11-2018, 8:18pm
I’d never be in this situation as the only humans I take photographs of are related to me.
That said, hypothetically speaking, I would also show someone if they asked as the awkwardness would only intensify if not. If the person wanted a photo of them deleted, I guess I would. But then it depends... if you’re already really attached to the photo for whatever reason, could be a tad tricky.
Mark L
28-11-2018, 10:37pm
If the bloke could bash me up does that influences my vote here.:(
There was a recent not common bird seen in the grounds of a local primary school. My first reaction was to go and and try and get photos of this not common bird.
A fella hanging around a primary school with a 600mm lens? I didn't bother.
Hawthy
28-11-2018, 10:42pm
If the bloke could bash me up does that influences my vote here.:(
There was a recent not common bird seen in the grounds of a local primary school. My first reaction was to go and and try and get photos of this not common bird.
A fella hanging around a primary school with a 600mm lens? I didn't bother.
Good call.
aussirose
28-11-2018, 10:56pm
I would be happy to show the photo and explain that I am an amateur photographer and why I was taking the photo. If it was a good one I would hope that my smiley expression and enthusiasm would alleviate any concerns from the one asking
But then if they still wanted me to delete it then I would put on my sad pouty face and say ok.. but it is such a nice photo.. I feel sad about deleting it. Hopefully that would work. But if not, then I would respect their wishes and delete it.
J.davis
29-11-2018, 2:57am
I had that experience once. Took a pic of a guy net casting. He and his mate thought I was a council inspector.
Showed them the pics and they went on about their business.
I think it would depend a lot on their attitude when they asked. I wouldn't take a photo of somebody if they obviously don't want me to and even as a female I feel uncomfortable about taking photos of children without their parents' permission. However, if it was some overly self important security guy telling me I couldn't take a photo from a public place I wouldn't feel at all cooperative.
I think it would depend a lot on their attitude when they asked. I wouldn't take a photo of somebody if they obviously don't want me to and even as a female I feel uncomfortable about taking photos of children without their parents' permission. However, if it was some overly self important security guy telling me I couldn't take a photo from a public place I wouldn't feel at all cooperative.
It's a bit sad that we are all needing to be so careful around children. Kids make some of the best subjects, yet unless you have your own or some other relationship - it's just off limits as a subject! The best way to take photos of people IMHO is to choose a day like ANZAC day or some other parade type situation. Then people are more than happy to have you snapping away as much as you like. Every time there is a big union rally I'm in there like a shot!
Colin B
29-11-2018, 11:39am
Bob has nailed it: If here is a parade or festival of some sort, like the Chinese New Year, with people in traditional clothes no-one could reasonably object to a photogapher snapping away but at a beach or playground.....? definitely getting creepy here.
I would hope that for most of us common sense and social awareness would dictate where and when the lens cap came off. Sadly, yes, kids are fun subjects but shooting them can be a very touchy area and unless they are relatives it is safest to regard them as a protected species. We have a church near us frequented by Africans and their gorgeous kids take over the playground near our house after church. My grandkids sometimes play there with them but Ms Nikon stays at home.
If anyone approached me to see a shot I had taken I would definitely show them and if they weren't happy about it, for whatever reason, I would delete it.
ricktas
29-11-2018, 7:27pm
For me, it would depend on how offended, or offensive, the person is.
I have shown people before and I have told people that I will only show them once a police officer is present, and finally I have told people to F-off.
Mostly this varies on the attitude of the person asking. So in the Poll I chose when Authority figure was present, but that is not really entirely correct.
Shoot cars so I would show them and probably ask what they think of it........
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I agree with the many opinions on the fact that the whole taking photos thing has become rather fraught with danger. The potential issues when taking public images when children are present means I take the time to ensure I don't take any photos anyone under the age of 16.
I am aware of my legal position in terms of taking images in public spaces, so if asked by a stranger to show them what I'd just snapped I would initially refuse (or rather deny their request while inquiring why they wanted to see, depending on how they ask). If requested by a person of authority who had an ID card to prove it, I would still inquire what they thought I had snapped that warranted the request to view.
But then I'm just a bit bolshie at heart. If someone wandered up and engaged in general conversation on photography in general and what I was snapping, I would probably be more inclined to discuss the topic and show them. On the other hand if someone stormed up, accused me of taking images of something and demanding to see them, then a polite refusal followed by a flat refusal followed by stronger words would be the response.
I agree with the many opinions on the fact that the whole taking photos thing has become rather fraught with danger. The potential issues when taking public images when children are present means I take the time to ensure I don't take any photos anyone under the age of 16.
Interesting how many of us are conflicted about this issue. People are interesting subjects - at any age. Children under/over 16 .... how could you tell these days? I've seen 16 yo girls who look like kids, and 16 year olds who are far more physically developed than many adults. Older people are generally more receptive to being photographed, and younger people differentiate based more upon the age of the viewer - i.e. if you're over a certain age/aesthetic threshold then you are somehow supposed to self-censor and look the other way. It's a form of reverse ageism/sexism.
I guess I'll follow the principle I mentioned earlier, and stick to crowd scenes and festivals. It's a pity, because there are so many people out there I really want to photograph without any posing involved. Posed shots have their place, but it's real expressions and poses that I prefer!
Bring on the next Union march!!! 8*)
I picked show and delete if asked, funny though, people snap away with mobile phones all the time and no-one seems to care but photography with a DSLR often seems to envoke a reaction.
I picked show and delete if asked, funny though, people snap away with mobile phones all the time and no-one seems to care but photography with a DSLR often seems to envoke a reaction.
Good point - :nod:
I actually chose 'Walk away & ignore' because I'm big fat 'n' ugly and don't give a rats!
Bout time everyone got on with their lives and stop looking for ways to complicate my simple existence.
Signed...Grumpy Gaz :grinning01:
ameerat42
04-12-2018, 9:06am
:th3::lol: Well's head, Gazza [/still laughing]
I picked show and delete if asked, funny though, people snap away with mobile phones all the time and no-one seems to care but photography with a DSLR often seems to envoke a reaction.
Exactly. So often the objection arises not because of the photograph taken, but of the person taking it. Cameras are everywhere and so are photographers, but somehow a photograph taken by an old fart with a DSLR is more objectionable than one taken by a young mother using her iPhone. Discrimination works in many ways in our society.
I choose the same option but what you mention is important.
I actually chose 'Walk away & ignore' because I'm big fat 'n' ugly and don't give a rats!
If the bloke could bash me up does that influences my vote here.:(
I had this situation in Mt Isa.
I was there for work for a couple of days.
Took camera etc to try and get some photos of sunset over desert
Called a cab and said head west young man.
Pointed off to the left and said lets go down there. A guy in uniform steps out and says what's up
I say, I want to take some pics of the sunset, he says no worries and lets us go
Drive a few ks. climb a hill het some pics and head back
Met by a range rover with flashing lights
Two guards ask what we are doing.
Tell them
they demand camera
Tell them no
They say it is private property, give them the card
I explain my belief is that they can tell me stop taking pics, I already have.
They can tell me to leave, I am already attempting to leave
and that is it.
I also explain that we are in fact there with permission and my friendly taxi guy nods
He radios base and they are firm on they want the card
I say two options
1. call the police and then you will never see what is on there
2. ask politely and I will scroll through every pic on the card that I have taken today
back and forth with base and they look and enthuse about pics and we leave with an extra $10 on the fair.
They were reasonable and I was reasonable. And it is always my first approach.
and as I see stated here already. Common sense inn where you point your camera and how you deal with people is important for how the amateur tog is treated
Let's not be associated with paps and mobile pervs
My thoughts
Lance B
07-12-2018, 5:35pm
Unfortunately, we live in times of "everyone is a victim" and as such many feel the need to play the victim card and therefore believe they should be offended if someone took a photo of them with "that expensive camera that must take good pictures". Yet, we have people happily snapping away with their mobile phones at anyone and everything and yet no one gets upset. Go figure.
I remember taking photos in Brisbane at night a few years ago with camera on a tripod and remote in hand. As I didn't want people in the photo, I purposely waited until there were no people walking past before tripping the shutter. After I had taken a few photos, a few people walked past and a woman of about 35 years old in the group asked, "I hope you didn't take my photo", to which I replied, "If you don't want your photo taken, don't go out in public". She didn't have an answer and walked off. What amuses me is why they seem to feel as though they would be considered so special that anyone would want to take their photo! She is a Neville nobody as far as I am concerned. I mean, people are being photographed all the time in public and in private areas by security cameras as well as by phones and more discrete methods. The funny thing is, if people want to take your photo they will, and do it in more nefarious methods than out in the open so as to open themselves up to being confronted.
I just don't take photos of people unless they are family or friends and if it was someone in public it would only be if I has asked them first. So, if someone asked me to see a photo I had taken, it would depend on the context. If there were people in the photo, I may oblige but it would depend on the demeanour of the person asking and why as I actually avoid taking photos of people like the plague as I generally don't want people in my photos anyway.
bitsnpieces
13-12-2018, 7:21pm
Will just tell them I'll photoshop them out
Not my fault they walked into my photo
:p
ameerat42
13-12-2018, 8:03pm
...Not my fault they walked into my photo :p
OTOH, get mad at them for spoiling your shot :devil1:
Sorry to bring this thread up again, but I was reading an article which may have some relevance. The article was a short comment by a law student, who was at a lecture given by a professor of law and the subject of agreeing to a search by a police officer was raised. Now this was based in the US but the gist of the response from the professor was that regardless of whether you think you have nothing to hide, when questioned the professor replied that they would always deny the search request and insist the police officer obtained and served a warrant in order to conduct a search.
The fact that the police officer has asked to search you or your belongings, vehicle or premises (and I could suggest that this includes the images you have stored on your camera) implies that they suspect you of being in possession of something illegal but they have not stipulated what they are looking for. By forcing them to get a warrant they have to make it clear what they are looking for, and where they are going to look.
It seems counter intuitive but perhaps this is the way society has gone. An associated article also talked about not speaking with police, no matter hot innocent it seemed, without a lawyer being present. Is this an example of the writer being of the opinion that the police will manipulate evidence or statements any way that suits them? I don't know.
How do options 3 and 5 differ?
How do options 3 and 5 differ?
I guess one is standing your ground while the other is simply walking away to diffuse the situation. Walking away requires the other person to actively try to stop you, at which point he/she becomes the aggressor. It changes the balance somewhat. A subtle but important difference i think.
- - - Updated - - -
Is this an example of the writer being of the opinion that the police will manipulate evidence or statements any way that suits them? I don't know.
One likes to think the police would be objective and balanced, but by the same token they will not necessarily base their actions on the same laws that you are relying on.
A recent example was the people who videoed ethnic groups at St Kilda the other day. The photographers claimed their right to take photographs in a public place - a correct application of that law - but the police relied on laws pertaining to creating unrest, disturbing the peace etc etc. They are the one with the uniforms, and in practical terms that means they get to choose which particular law they'll rely upon in any given situation!
Being technically correct doesn't necessarily mean you win.
No, 3 and 5 in the original order of questions: "I would refuse to show them" and "I would refuse no matter who they were"
No, 3 and 5 in the original order of questions: "I would refuse to show them" and "I would refuse no matter who they were"
Oh yeah .... probably the same. My bad. :nod:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.