Is Martin Parr correct!? Should we fight back?

You get several dozen (or hundred) photographers out on the street taking photographs. When confronted by the police they say "OK, arrest me!" INSIST on being arrested. Photograph the cops making the arrests while you're at it. Some of you could record the arrests from a distance with long lenses. Here in the U.S. you'd be entitled to a court appointed attorney. Request one. Overwhelm the system.
 
We should have a campaign with famous shots and tape over them, saying 'Banned, illegal' Doisneau, Cartier Bresson, the shot of the Vietnamese napalm victim girl, she did not sign a release form either, did she? What about the Afghan Girl by Steve McCurry? 'BANNED, ILLEGAL' That should wake them up.

I shot street in Canterbury and London. Loved it, great cities and good shots. I will keep on shooting street (in England as well) for as long as I can. I might have a better time in Holland though, I think we are more liberal over here.

It's rediculous to value privacy of people in public over art. 'Granddad, what did the world look like when you were young?' 'Can't show you son, photography on the streets got banned around that time.'

If a government values personal privacy that much, they should allow burkhas to be worn werever people want to, it's the same argument: privacy.
 
CLE-RF said:
We should have a campaign with famous shots and tape over them, saying 'Banned, illegal' Doisneau, Cartier Bresson, the shot of the Vietnamese napalm victim girl, she did not sign a release form either, did she? What about the Afghan Girl by Steve McCurry? 'BANNED, ILLEGAL' That should wake them up.

I shot street in Canterbury and London. Loved it, great cities and good shots. I will keep on shooting street (in England as well) for as long as I can. I might have a better time in Holland though, I think we are more liberal over here.

It's rediculous to value privacy of people in public over art. 'Granddad, what did the world look like when you were young?' 'Can't show you son, photography on the streets got banned around that time.'

If a government values personal privacy that much, they should allow burkhas to be worn werever people want to, it's the same argument: privacy.
Click to expand...

Its perfectly legal in the USA to wear a burkha, lol. Not that you'd find any woman here who would actually WANT to. Thank God.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
Its perfectly legal in the USA to wear a burkha, lol. Not that you'd find any woman here who would actually WANT to. Thank God.
Click to expand...

Which God?
icon12.gif
 
Al Kaplan said:
You get several dozen (or hundred) photographers out on the street taking photographs. When confronted by the police they say "OK, arrest me!" INSIST on being arrested. Photograph the cops making the arrests while you're at it. Some of you could record the arrests from a distance with long lenses. Here in the U.S. you'd be entitled to a court appointed attorney. Request one. Overwhelm the system.
Click to expand...


Right on, or is that fight on.
 
Al's right. Tried and true methods exist to confront and publicize this kind of behavior, if you're willing to acquire an arrest record.

I'd be reluctant to tie it to street photography. Few people other than photographers know what it is. Not many people are going to go to the deck to support other people's rights to stick an unwanted camera in their face. (And that's how people would view street shooting.)

The best way to make this problem go away is for photographers to volunteer some time and effort to explain to the local police what their profession/hobby is all about. Explain why you use long lenses. Let them look through some lenses. Bring political pressure on management to train their personnel to be able to identify ordinary photographers and people who may not be so innocent.

However, that's not going to happen if you rely on people who work for free.
 
Fight it. But be nice about. Say "cheese" when shooting uncooperative authorities. Kill 'em with kindness. And, if that doesn't work, clog up the courts with silly cases of mass arrest. During the 2004 Republican National Convention (hiss!) in NYC, the cops rounded up all kinds of innocent folks. Years later, the courts through out most of the undeserving cases. The actual troublemakers (drunks, vandals and other criminals) probably got what they deserved and the innocent, law abiding folks got their records cleared. It took an awfully long time, but it got righted at the end.

If you give in, that slipperly slope just gets more slippery and steeper.
 
Interesting, '..Parr believes that within 5 years street photography may be baned' in the UK. Well maybe, but that;s actually going to be awfully difficult, as separating out the gazillion tourist snapping sites and each other around any city and the 'street' photographers is not always obvious. Perhaps they should just ban rf's as the tourists use P&S' or dslr's:)

I am more concerned about the increasing encroachment on all photography in public places and the inappropriate, assumptive and unjustified use of terror laws and the fear of peadophilia when anyone is seen taking a picture of a building/child leading to widespread public acceptance of the 'need' to prevent the 'woerdos' from taking pictures. Ironic really at a time when digital technology allows more pictures to be taken than ever before.

Mike
 
Right! Fight! NEVER give in! Never bend, rather break!

I like the 'Kill 'em with kindness' adagio, it's like a Ghandi principle, a man whom I greatly admire for his dedication to a good cause, come what may.
 
Uhmm street in Italy in fact is not allowed already: you can take pictures, but not publish them because of our privacy law..
 
CLE-RF said:
We should have a campaign with famous shots and tape over them, saying 'Banned, illegal' Doisneau, Cartier Bresson, the shot of the Vietnamese napalm victim girl, she did not sign a release form either, did she? What about the Afghan Girl by Steve McCurry? 'BANNED, ILLEGAL' That should wake them up.

I shot street in Canterbury and London. Loved it, great cities and good shots. I will keep on shooting street (in England as well) for as long as I can. I might have a better time in Holland though, I think we are more liberal over here.

It's rediculous to value privacy of people in public over art. 'Granddad, what did the world look like when you were young?' 'Can't show you son, photography on the streets got banned around that time.'

If a government values personal privacy that much, they should allow burkhas to be worn werever people want to, it's the same argument: privacy.
Click to expand...

AND it was child pornography (no clothes!)

But of course, as others have pointed out, foreign kids don't count.

Fight. An arrest record for this would be a badge of pride -- if they actually arrest you. Last time I was stopped by the police in the UK, in Clacton, with the line, "Excuse me sir, the manager of McDonalds thinks you may have been taking pictures," the policewoman was not unhappy with the immediate reply, "Tough. It is no concern of a vendor of alleged hamburgers if I take pictures in a public place." After two minutes' conversation I went and photographed the beastly place (which I had not done until then).

Google Mark Thomas My Life in Organized Crime.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
Maybe a part of the problem is education, ask 100 members of the public who Picasso or Van Gogh was and 99 would tell you they were great artists and painters, ask who Cartier Bresson was and maybe one out of one hundred will have heard of him, and that person would probably be a photographer. If people don't know why we do street photography perhaps they have no reason to perceive us as being any thing other than wierdos, perv's and terrorists.
 
Like most of us I deplore this slow accretion of power assumed by petty officials. For the most part here in Australia we are in a better position than in the US and UK from what I read on these forums. But perhaps only by a few years.

In Western Australia (one of our states) the state government is in the process of passing legislation to allow police to stop, search and question WITHOUT due cause or reasonable suspicion. The latter requirements have long been regarded as fundamental to the protection of civil liberties and while the reasons advanced for these changes always sound semi reasonable on the face of it - they always lead to arbitrary use and ultimately to abuse. (The culture in police forces is ultimately authoritarian and to this culture its quite reasonable to use any force that is allowed - unless the force is especially enlightend and train their people. Some states are notriously bad especially if you are black or indigent - or if you are doing somehting socially different which might include taking photos.)

Police in Australia have recently been issued with Tasers. While this sounds reasonable on the face of it and they are intended to be used as a last resort (instead of deadly force) there is clear evidence (most often in the form of photos or cell phone videos - thanks to us photographers and the like) that many are using them as a first resort - instead of physical restraint. With deadly results - several unnecessary deaths of citizens. Perhaps this is another reason for the war on photographers rights - we can record the truth.

I think we have to resist. I am used to living in a free society where "everything not illegal is allowed" But if more and more simple, ordinary everyday things become illegal, then this fundamentally changes the nature fo that society.

What is the old expression - that all it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing. Well in this case it may not be that kind of evil but the outcome is ultimately not good for society.
 
Last edited:
Roger Hicks said:
So they can sue you in Italy. And?

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

We are not allowed to publish pictures taken to other people, even if they were in a public area; this in order to protect people's privacy..
No cop will prevent you from taking pictures but you have to keep your pictures for you, otherwise you can be sued by the picture's subject..
 
peterm1 said:
I think we have to resist. I am used to living in a free society where "everything not illegal is allowed" But if more and more simple, ordinary everyday things become illegal, then this fundamentally changes the nature of that society.
.
Click to expand...

Or, of course, 'everything that is not illegal is compulsory' or 'everything that is not compulsory is illegal'.

Anyone who can think, must surely prize the illusion that he/she will fight when the time comes. When it comes to the crunch, we are not all brave enough to fight, at least not every time. But unless we cherish the idea that we will fight -- in other words, if we are prepared to knuckle under, every time, without demur -- then we won't even contemplate fighting when the need arises.

Cheers,

R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top