A Photographer Expressing His Rights Or A Bit Of A Wierdo

Well the cardinal rule is always to ask the subject if you mind them being photographed (if you're going to be up in their face, obviously).

Otherwise its simply invasive, and I personally would remonstrate strongly with someone behaving in this manner to either me or my wife.
 
CaptainPenguin said:
To my mind although legally within his rights I am with the coffee shop because this bloke would freak me out if I was a customer...
Click to expand...

That's the problem - you can't have it both ways...
Either he has the right to take photos in a Public Area, in which case you have the right to get up and walk away if he's 'creeping you out', or he doesn't, in which case we (photographers) all suffer...
 
Myky D said:
Well the cardinal rule is always to ask the subject if you mind them being photographed (if you're going to be up in their face, obviously).
Click to expand...

Shouldn't you ask them if they mind being photographed, rather than asking them if you mind them being photographed? The answer to the latter will invariably be "no". :D

Some quite nice shots in his Flickr stream, but I would side with the coffee shop in this instance. Sounds like he's being a bit of a public nuisance, whether what he's doing is legal or not. From a moral viewpoint I wouldn't "get up in people's grills" myself.
 
A photographer should not freak people out.


I think the the coffee shop are well within their rights to protect their business (loss of customers).

Even though the photographer is well within his rights (and getting some good street shots) they should be well aware that people with cameras are under a lot of scrutiny these days and shouldn't be antagonising people.
 
Manners seem a bit lacking, but other than that it's probably a mountain out of molehills kinda situation.
 
Im for the rights rule ! But I also understand that it creeps some people out. Tog in public all day long but if people are getting upset then common sense should tell you "Its time to move on". Shoot from afar, good excuss to get a long lens.

I love street togging but I would not want to cause anyone grief, in the long run it will only bring our hobby/interest into disrepute.
I want my right to tog as much as some people want some peace and quite. Its about keeping the status-quo and I dont mean the band :)
 
Legally he can do it, but there are also laws against harassment.
Probably, it wouldn't hold up in court concerning shop customers, since he didn't chase them around and he can legally take the photos he wants.
But to persistently do it in a certain area which drives people away might be harassment on the shop itself (not sure legally that holds).

Forget about the photos, if a guy stared at you while you are drinking coffee and he is usually around, it is natural to feel uncomfortable and avoid the place.

The ban doesn't make much sense, but they probably couldn't do more.

A photographers freedom to photograph does not imply other people's obligation to cooperate or approve of the actions. Its just something you have to accept.

This guy annoys me. Great photos, great eye for getting to heart of what is great about street photography, but what a ***, its like he owns the place.
 
The coffee shop owner holds all the cards. It's their property and if they instigate a no photography rule as a condition of entry then they are within their rights to do so. And another one bites the dust.

What is it with people that they freak out at someone having a camera, they don't steal souls, honest! :)
 
Just looked at the offending shot and it's underexposed :lol:

Modern day society has got a completely different idea about photographers and photography! Everyone is seen as either a pedophile, terrorist, stalker or just unsavoury character doing something wrong.

If this had been the case throughout history, where would the iconic images of the likes of Cartier-Bresson, Edward Stichen, Bert Hardy, Margret Bourke-White and the many others be, who have documented our history?

Storm in a teacup and another nail in the coffin of photographers, it's slowly getting finished!
 
BouncyMelons said:
The coffee shop owner holds all the cards. It's their property and if they instigate a no photography rule as a condition of entry then they are within their rights to do so. And another one bites the dust.

What is it with people that they freak out at someone having a camera, they don't steal souls, honest! :)
Click to expand...

But he wasn't in the coffee shop, he was many yards away outside, shooting street scenes!
 
The Guy does sound a little strange but if you are out to get candid shots, it kind of defeats the object if you ask their permission first!

As odd as he sounds i think he should be left alone. He's not harmed anyone and it's more likely people are over reacting to him.
 
EdBray said:
But he wasn't in the coffee shop, he was many yards away outside, shooting street scenes!
Click to expand...

Then really I don't see how the coffee shop can stop him - they can only ban him from their premises, not a public place, surely?
That said, if people are irritated or freaked out by him, that is their right and a business has to respond to that as much as they can

A
 
Also interesting that the tog has a 1 paragraph quote and the coffe shop manageress has 3 paragraphs, IMHO we do not have both sides of the storey, so I can not make my mind up, gut instinct is to side with the tog.
 
EdBray said:
But he wasn't in the coffee shop, he was many yards away outside, shooting street scenes!
Click to expand...

I didn't read the full article. :bonk: I assumed he was in the coffee shop, otherwise what's the point of banning him from these places? He can still carry on getting the shots as normal, as he never entered the shops in the first place. :shrug:

I'm siding with the tog now.
 
It's a whole decision for street photography though isn't it. I thought some of his shots were good, some not so. The girl smoking in the snow was quite good.
 
Sounds like "no publicity is bad publicity" to me. Good way to get peeps to look at photos by getting some controversy attached. How many clicked on the flickr link? Who would otherwise never heard of this tog?

:-)
 
This is a case of the shops reacting badly instead of having a polite chat with him. After all who of us would not help if asked to back off politely. However, is someone started getting stroppy.....

Chris
 
Headless Lois said:
Then really I don't see how the coffee shop can stop him - they can only ban him from their premises, not a public place, surely?
That said, if people are irritated or freaked out by him, that is their right and a business has to respond to that as much as they can

A
Click to expand...

As I said before, it is most likely a mountain out of molehills situation - as it always is when toggery is involved. I was stopped by the old Bill once for taking photos and told I was acting like a 'peeping Tom', for having a camera and using it in an area where there were houses! :bonk::clap::shrug:
 
Hammerhead64 said:
Sounds like "no publicity is bad publicity" to me. Good way to get peeps to look at photos by getting some controversy attached. How many clicked on the flickr link? Who would otherwise never heard of this tog?

:-)
Click to expand...

i clicked his flickr link not much to look at really, its not like he,s taking any GREAT shots.:shrug:
 
trencheel303 said:
As I said before, it is most likely a mountain out of molehills situation - as it always is when toggery is involved. I was stopped by the old Bill once for taking photos and told I was acting like a 'peeping Tom', for having a camera and using it in an area where there were houses! :bonk::clap::shrug:
Click to expand...

copper had you sussed then :lol:
 
this ones actually a bit different to the normal photo ones, as the issue is was the guy harrassing people (as it was a chain of events). If he was doing it outside my shop it would have been a quiet word after the first/second creeped out customer, ten a less quiet word, then maybe something official.

A quiet well reasoned word should be all we need as photographers to fid out we're doing something thats causing someone else a problem. Then deciding whether they're wrong or whether we should stop (where the reasoned bit comes in).

Guy sounds creepy.
 
I heard about this the other day. Sounds to me like the newspapers/media have over exaggerated it, like they usually do.
 
Merc said:
The Guy does sound a little strange but if you are out to get candid shots, it kind of defeats the object if you ask their permission first!

As odd as he sounds i think he should be left alone. He's not harmed anyone and it's more likely people are over reacting to him.
Click to expand...
I agree.:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top