<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.12-alpha" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: On Photography and Rights</title>
	<link>http://regex.info/blog/2008-02-19/744</link>
	<description>Not a photo blog, but sometimes I play one on TV</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 08 Aug 2008 21:03:12 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.12-alpha</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Jon Van Dalen</title>
		<link>http://regex.info/blog/2008-02-19/744#comment-14659</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Feb 2008 16:56:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://regex.info/blog/2008-02-19/744#comment-14659</guid>
					<description>I see both sides of this.  Of course we all have our own ethics about taking pictures.  That line is different for everyone.  For instance, I would gladly fire away at strangers walking around luxury shops, etc and publish them online with no consent; but I hate "artists" using the homeless to evoke sympathy and make "interesting" portraits, so I never shoot homeless or disadvantaged people.  And it's obvious to most people you shouldn't shoot women's dressing rooms or hide cameras in showers.

However, I do strongly support "militant" photographers when it comes to security guards and concerned soccer moms in the States enforcing laws that &lt;i&gt;do not exist&lt;/i&gt;.  For instance, I've been personally told that I can't take pictures inside DC's Metro rail system.  Not only is that not true, it's clearly stated in Metro's policy documents that photography is allowed.  I've gotten the same flak from security guards at the World Bank, who told me I can't shoot their building from the sidewalk, even from across the street, standing in a public park.  We all know there is no law against this.  I can't tell you how frustrated that makes me!  

On the other hand, some photographers do take it too far and attempt to resist or be rude to others in the process of defending their values.

It's important not to be too much on either side.  Both privacy and freedom are important.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I see both sides of this.  Of course we all have our own ethics about taking pictures.  That line is different for everyone.  For instance, I would gladly fire away at strangers walking around luxury shops, etc and publish them online with no consent; but I hate &#8220;artists&#8221; using the homeless to evoke sympathy and make &#8220;interesting&#8221; portraits, so I never shoot homeless or disadvantaged people.  And it&#8217;s obvious to most people you shouldn&#8217;t shoot women&#8217;s dressing rooms or hide cameras in showers.</p>
<p>However, I do strongly support &#8220;militant&#8221; photographers when it comes to security guards and concerned soccer moms in the States enforcing laws that <i>do not exist</i>.  For instance, I&#8217;ve been personally told that I can&#8217;t take pictures inside DC&#8217;s Metro rail system.  Not only is that not true, it&#8217;s clearly stated in Metro&#8217;s policy documents that photography is allowed.  I&#8217;ve gotten the same flak from security guards at the World Bank, who told me I can&#8217;t shoot their building from the sidewalk, even from across the street, standing in a public park.  We all know there is no law against this.  I can&#8217;t tell you how frustrated that makes me!  </p>
<p>On the other hand, some photographers do take it too far and attempt to resist or be rude to others in the process of defending their values.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s important not to be too much on either side.  Both privacy and freedom are important.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Ben Pharr</title>
		<link>http://regex.info/blog/2008-02-19/744#comment-14594</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2008 17:09:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://regex.info/blog/2008-02-19/744#comment-14594</guid>
					<description>I completely agree. Most people's "moral compass" will keep them within legal bounds. That's true for more than just photography.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I completely agree. Most people&#8217;s &#8220;moral compass&#8221; will keep them within legal bounds. That&#8217;s true for more than just photography.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Ben Pharr</title>
		<link>http://regex.info/blog/2008-02-19/744#comment-14591</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:41:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://regex.info/blog/2008-02-19/744#comment-14591</guid>
					<description>One interesting exception to the American "anything goes" policy is that you can't take a picture of someone through their house's window, even if you're on public property. Apparently courts have ruled people have an expectation of privacy while in their homes.

&lt;span class='jfriedl'&gt;I've heard various stories related to this, usually hinging on whether the view was clear from public or not. Jamming the lens up to a crack in the curtains, or holding the camera up over your head to get a view over a fence are different than taking a picture of a row of buildings that happens to include people visible behind wide-open windows. Google's "street view" map-related service had images of people in their homes, via windows that were left wide open, for example. I don't know the law that would be applied in each case, but for myself, hopefully my common sense (and common decency) happens to lie within those legal bounds. I'm no paparazzi, that's for sure. &#8212;Jeffrey&lt;/span&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One interesting exception to the American &#8220;anything goes&#8221; policy is that you can&#8217;t take a picture of someone through their house&#8217;s window, even if you&#8217;re on public property. Apparently courts have ruled people have an expectation of privacy while in their homes.</p>
<p><span class='jfriedl'>I&#8217;ve heard various stories related to this, usually hinging on whether the view was clear from public or not. Jamming the lens up to a crack in the curtains, or holding the camera up over your head to get a view over a fence are different than taking a picture of a row of buildings that happens to include people visible behind wide-open windows. Google&#8217;s &#8220;street view&#8221; map-related service had images of people in their homes, via windows that were left wide open, for example. I don&#8217;t know the law that would be applied in each case, but for myself, hopefully my common sense (and common decency) happens to lie within those legal bounds. I&#8217;m no paparazzi, that&#8217;s for sure. &mdash;Jeffrey</span>
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
