Problem with street shot

[karenoliver]

I was in my local town with my camera and saw some guy playing pan pipes. He had a stall in front of him with peru flags, cds he was selling and it was decorated to stand out. He was a performer so you'd imagine he wanted people to stop, listen to him and look at him. He threw a right fit at me for photographing him, demanded I stop, said he had not given me permission to photograph. I said I did not need his permission and surely as a performer with a colourful display what did he expect? Some passerby then got involved went on about even if it was legal I was disrespecting this guy by photographing.

So... what would anyone else have done? Kept on photographing or just walked away?
I just left because I couldnt do with the hassle but should I have stood my ground?

How do you deal with this kind of situation?

Karen

[chris-p]

Thats shocking. I'd probably have walked away as well. You've not done anything techincally wrong by taking is photograph but it doesn't matter whether or not he knows that.

If someone wants to be a pain in the ar*e then they'll be a pain in the ar*e!

You could have stood your ground, and you'd have been (legally) in the right, but I expect it would all end in tears. More passers by would get involved, then a PCSO or "proper copper" would probably get involved at some point and then massively over step their legal authority by asking you what your name is or why you're taking photos.

I think you took the sensible option - which is a very very sad reflection on our society.

[/rant]

[ap4a]

I'm stubborn, so would have stood my ground, but given the current perspective of photographers I can understand why others wouldn't. I would have asked whether or not he got a permit to perform in public as busking is prohibited by many local authorities' by-laws, and selling in the street usually requires a street trader's permit too.

[PolaroidSky]

I'd say you just got unlucky... its the downside of street shots... and more a reflection of peoples rudeness than anything else... and I agree with Chris, you did the right thing in walking away... why put yourself in undue danger... even though legally and I would say morally you did absolutely nothing wrong...

Most importantly... don't let one bad encounter (We all have them!) put you off making more... just chalk it up to experience : )

PS I hope you did not delete any shots... if you kept them... post them up! : )

[KeithT]

Take no notice of them. I had this very same problem in the Algarve with not only the Pan Pipes mexicans, but the living statue who was performing openly in the square. They all threw wobblies because I photographed them and demanded money. All they got was a very harsh look from me and a couple of spare cents to add insult to injury. Had they asked me in a more friendly tone I would have quite rightly obliged them.

[PolaroidSky]

If we did not make photography of life... there would be no visual document for future generations... if every shot was requested, we'd have no shots of life as it happens... everything would be staged and formal... its anyone's right to make an image and not for one second do I think street photography is a modern obsession... Bresson being one prime example of creative photography in a street environment... to compare a photographer shooting life, as it happens to invasions of personal data like number recognition or CCTV, which hold no historical or sociological merits I find a little out of context...

Of course if someone adamantly pursues you to request not taking an image, you refrain from doing so... that's good manners... but to imply any street photography and always requesting is discourteous or implies a lack of another individuals privacy... that's a little over the top... Martin Parr for example, never uses model release for his street work... I've always found a smile or a thumbs up does the trick if someone see's you taking an image... that and showing them the image and explaining what you're doing and why.

[ap4a]

I've only ever been asked not to take a pic once, and as it was done politely I complied. I've only ever had one run in with someone where they weren't happy about having had their picture taken and that was someone taking part in a public protest who was overly aggressive and was politely told to go away.

If someone chooses to perform in public then they are giving up their privacy in order to get attention. It's a bit hypocritical to then turn around and say they don't want that attention. And, as it currently stands there is a greater legal right to take photographs of street performers than there is for most street performers to perform.

[PolaroidSky]

For sure there is a big difference between serious photographers, serious minded and socially aware photographers and people that have no ethics or passion. Speaking for myself, I always treat my subjects with the greatest respect and they know it. As for street shots... its a public place, our own moral compass dictates what's right and not... following that rule I think its easy to stay with in a realm that's not an invasion of decency or privacy, especially when photographing in public places.

[ABERS]

Originally Posted by Forseti

Ah, now here lies the weak point in your argument in my opinion. Were it to be so, and one could by definition apply this across society in general, then we wouldn't need any laws whatsoever - society would govern itself. In reality though, many don't possess any moral compass at all - the word Paparazzi springs to mind here and let's be honest, what are they if not essentially street photographers?

Most, if not all of my photographic life has been spent 'on the street' and soon into that life I decided there were certain areas that I wouldn't enter. Not geographic areas but ethical areas.

London has more than its fair share of people that are down and out, homeless, drink addicted, victims of Maggies 'care in the community' undertaking or just plainly bewildered, these are the people that all need help, not exploitation, not by me anyway.

I therefore find it a bit strong to be linked to the Paparazzi!

[PolaroidSky]

Paparazzi, who mostly photograph outside clubs and of people in the public eye, 'celebrities', have nothing to do with photographers like Gary Winogrand, Joel Meyerowitz and other serious street photographers would be very out of context, so I am sure that's not what you mean...

Is it not the 'mass public' that idolize the idiots that get photographed by Pap's?... if not for the dumbed down culture of today buying Hello every week and the rags that used to be informed newspapers... there would be no need for Pap's... however, to compare them to people that just fancy taking a shot of a homeless person etc may be close to the truth... some have morals, some don't... that's the human race. Why should a photographer with a moral code and empathy for the society around them be punished or held in the same low esteem as an idiot with a 10 mega pixel camera phone snapping from a emotional distance and from the hip?

Personally, in a street context, if I make an individual the main focus of a shot, I've always entered in a dialogue with them, mostly because I am interested in them, as a human being... and I've gone on to become friendly with many, many people through photography... as I always let them know, I make shots to tell their story... and not tell mine. If ever anyone has said "No, I don't fancy that mate"... it goes with out saying that's been totally cool... though in that instance, I think those shots are no longer true street photography... as I have entered into a dialogue before the shot... sometimes *after* a shot has been taken I've been asked what I have been doing... and that's an easy explanation with a smile and a quick show of the shot if I have used a digital and not film camera...

Everyone that I have ever taken a photo of, apart from my partner, was a stranger to me until I approached them... so to me, street is just an extension of approaching an individual and asking to make some portraits... but I see street as much more informal and about moment and moment that's been seen and captured... not arranged by the photographer... street is something that can't be orchestrated or set-up... so for it to retain its essence, it has to have a space between the photographer and the moment and people in front of the lens.

Not to forget that a lot of street work has no people in it at all... a lot is abstract and found situations... taking street shots though, where people are not always the central focus or a body of people, a crowd, or a person walking past, the relationship between urban architecture and people, or something capturing the state of a city any where in the world to be some thing that's of low moral code... I don't follow that train of thought at all...