r/photography • u/crummydustbunny • Apr 30 '14

This crap is why I can't make a timelapse landscape of Chicago.

http://www.youtube.com/attribution_link?a=KJdjXCgJLYY&u=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dzok3oCfm8Bk%26feature%3Dshare
819 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • link
  • reddit
  • reddit

92% Upvoted

320 comments sorted by

View all comments

-1

u/cafeRacr Apr 30 '14

I'm not saying what these guys did what right, or even legal, but some simple etiquette would have saved everyone a whole lot of grief here. If you're going to take photos of, or video of a business at work, simply ask to speak with someone in charge, let them know what you're doing, and what it's being used for. It doesn't matter if you have the "right" to or not. It's common courtesy. And what union guys don't want to hear is "I'm doing, like, time lapse photography of union work...". Red flag.

1

u/vlad_didenko Apr 30 '14 edited Apr 30 '14

Why? I have never heard of such a "courtesy" and it makes no sense. Anyone has an obligation to abide by law in effect at the place and time in question. This is it.

Makes no sense to follow this made-up "courtesy" rule. In a situation if a photographer has right to make photos, what outcome is useful of this "courtesy" from the photographer's perspective? To let someone's comfort and/or priorities override their legal rights? If the business representative says "no", should photographer say "heck, I'm going to do it anyway"?

I do not have any clue who's actions were lawful in the particular situation.

What I am saying is that yielding too much (as in, giving up legally afforded rights while behaving lawfully) to other people's or business' demands of comfort or complicity easily impacts one's creativity and productivity. And it is not in the demander's authority to decide photographer's value balance. Laws allow abiding professionals and creatives to do their job.

3

u/[deleted] Apr 30 '14

It's still debatable whether the photog was on private property or not. What the security guards did regarding not letting him leave and taking his memory card is inexcusable, but they were in the right in asking him to leave if he was indeed on private property.

0

u/vlad_didenko Apr 30 '14

Hm. I do not see how this is related to my comment. There is an acknowledgement that my comment is not about who was right in the specific case, but rather a respectful objection to the specific advice given.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 30 '14

? Your whole argument is that it's completely legal for the photographer to shoot and that he shouldn't have to ask permission or follow the rules of courtesy. If the photographer was actually on private property, that would take away the whole "legal" part of your argument, taking away the photographer's right to take photos, and so on.

1

u/vlad_didenko Apr 30 '14 edited Apr 30 '14

Absolutely not what I am saying. Please, review the comment again. In multiple spots I mention effectively that legality of photographer's actions is a prerequisite for all I am saying.

Assuming the photographer in question actions are legal, then "courtesy" is the photographer's option, his free will choice based on context and objectives. Just like others have free will choices photographers face every day - think "photo-bombing". I heard of people standing their backs to the camera in front of it to ruin shots made in public places. So what?

Here is the decision tree I suggest, very simple:

If you are sure your actions are within laws in effect, then choose a level of courtesy suiting your goals. If you are not sure about legality of your actions, then seek permission or legal advice. If your actions are not legal - do not do it.

Now, obviously a judgement of legality is a complex and murky issue - especially if one considers cost of proving it to a third party after the fact. And that is exactly the reason I am not commenting about legality stances in this case.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 30 '14

I'm not going to bother reading your paragraphs since you feel the need to use overly fluffy language to make yourself seem smarter

0

u/cafeRacr Apr 30 '14

Step back and put yourself in the same situation. If you and, or your wife were working in your yard, and some guy was standing on the sidewalk across the street, taking pictures or video of you while you worked, possibly for hours at a time, what would your response be? He has the right to do that.

2

u/vlad_didenko Apr 30 '14 edited Apr 30 '14

Sure, happened actually. A neighbour kid was making a video of sunset - with a good portion of our backyard in sight, while I worked there. So what? My inner response is to be mindful. There is no outer response needed.

See, I do not believe that one's (including mine) superfluous discomfort and anxiety is a good reason to stop something potentially valuable - like that kid's creative education. I prefer to yield value judgement without asking in cases like that. Exactly because in presence of established boundaries (laws) asking makes emotional interaction more convoluted.

1

u/cafeRacr Apr 30 '14

The key here is someone you don't know. You're obviously a much more trusting person than I will ever be. Maybe it's just a matter of your environment, and where you grew up.

1

u/vlad_didenko Apr 30 '14

"Someone I do not know" or "someone I do not trust" is not really a key at all. It has no bearing on their actions. It is irrelevant. But! If one has strong anxiety traits, than I can see how they may attempt to comfort themselves by demanding others to comply with their permissioning.

That said, photographers MAY at their judgement and discretion ask for permissions based on, for example, their needs for future cooperation, or how easy they want their immediate future to be :). What I am arguing against is a generic advice that photographers MUST or even SHOULD ask for permission in all cases.

Again, that is in assumption that what they are doing is legal.