Shealth Photography w/ Leica Versus Minox

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread
Hi everyone,

Well, strangely enough, I was at a photo exhibit of Weegee here in Philly (nice crime photographs there, reminding me of the Godfather series) and thought hard about shealth photography and the art of shooting in silence. I didn't include the Hexar Silver because I haven't experienced it personally.

I was shooting photographs in Barnes and Noble and geewhiz, people did notice my FED 2 with Leitz lens as I was moving around for shots. So much for silent work there. I didn't have much to comment about. I did manage to shoot without too much objection. Then I loaded up some hard to find batteries into my Kiev 35a which is a cheap Minox copy and then tried to shoot today with it on the streets of Philly. I got lots of good street shots without anyone really worrying about it. In fact, the cheap plastic construction masked a rather comfortable aperture-priority camera.

It made me realize that getting a Leica CL would be ideal with street work. It's a smaller version of the M series and although it isn't as rugged it's not like I would be in situations where such rigor would be necessary. So now the questions/thoughts:

1) The minox is rather ideal for shooting because the shutter is very very silent (I hardly notice) relative to a M6 or a FED camera (especially that one). In fact, the only problem shooting long exposure is its light weight which makes it difficult to handhold night shots on slow film.

2) Anyone else here favor Minox photography for more difficult situations? Such as very risky situations? What situations does one prefer a Minox over a Leica to shoot?

3) I found out that scale focusing is very difficult unless you're doing hyperfocals. The Minox will have a lot of bad shots relative to the Leica but you won't get too much flak for shooting in strangers' faces very much.

4) I get away with lots of Minox/Kiev shots since people don't notice that you're fiddling with the focusing ring without shooting using the viewfinder :) At least I shoot looking down sometimes...

5) What are the advantages/disadvantages of the Minox relative to the Leica? Apart from optical quality because we all know that Leitz has the trump card there.

sincerely, Alfie

-- Alfie Wang (leica_phile@hotmail.com), December 10, 2001

Answers

People are entitled to their personal privacy inside stores, restaurents, theaters, etc. You have no right to photograph them surreptitiously under these circumstances. It is irresponsible as well as illegal.

-- Wellihm (bmitch@home.com), December 10, 2001.
Actually that brings me to another question: What is considered a public place? Bookstore? I would never photograph in a theater where photography isn't permitted. Neither malls (don't care for shoppers although someone did that already). Buses are fine to me. Streets I know is supposed to be fair game. I don't think that the distinction between private and public places is evident. Except homes that is a different story.

Alfie

-- Alfie Wang (leica_phile@hotmail.com), December 10, 2001.

People are entitled to their personal privacy inside stores, restaurents, theaters, etc. You have no right to photograph them surreptitiously under these circumstances. It is irresponsible as well as illegal.

This depends on the country. In Australia this is not illegal. In France and the province of Quebec and Canada, arguably it is.

See the "privacy" portion of the essay which accompanies my Everyday Life project - which BTW comprises in-close, from-the-front candid photos of people in shops and malls and railway stations.

The images were taken with Leicas, a Rollei 35S and now a Konica Hexar Silver (silence modified). I've found over the 3 years I've been working on the project that although a quiet camera helps, camera technique and "attitude" when taking the shots is much more important. Hell, I've taken a few shots with a Nikon F2A without too much ruckus - and that baby must have the loudest shutter on earth!

-- Andrew Nemeth (azn@nemeng.com), December 10, 2001.

That's true. Each country has a different policy on what constitutes a private vs. public place. I just simply look around to see whether there is a sign prohibiting photography. If there is, I don't take out my camera. Simple as that.

Alfie

-- Alfie Wang (leica_phile@hotmail.com), December 10, 2001.

"Shealth" photography? I'm not sure I understand - do you mean "stealth"?

-- Margaret (fitz@neptune.fr), December 10, 2001.
A precision - here in France where photographers run into trouble is when they wish to publish their photographs. The question of the right to one's self image is at stake. That is one thing. What people outside of France are likely unaware of is a French particularity. There have been court cases recently of photographers being sued by architects, painters of fishing boats in picturesque villages, and so on, when the images of the works in question were published in works for sale - magazines and also post cards. The courts so far have given judgments in favour of the authors of the works, regarding them as "intellectual property" and condemming the photographers to heavy fines far outweighing whatever recompense their work brought. In the case of architectural works, for instance, these are "intellectual properties" that are in the public view. This is a complicated and thorny issue here - but what issue that goes before the law doesn't become that? - and photographers are protesting, but are limited in what they can do. The great Willy Ronis was condemned in court for publishing a photo he took of a woman several decades ago, with her permission, and which was published much later. What recourse would someone have for a photo published in a different country, at least outside the European Union? I do not know, but the point is, don't assume just anything goes. And don't shoot me, I'm just the piano player i.e. I have nothing to do with the French legal system.

-- Margaret (fitz@neptune.fr), December 10, 2001.
The whole point of photography for me is to record life and history. I intend to photograph as I want.I do not care if I am photographed. There are certain places one cannot take photos due to real privacy and personal safety concerns.France,Quebec and a number of Moslem countries can be a problem.I was snapped by a non nudist on a nudist beach, who crawled thru the undergrowth like "commando joe" with a huge tele lens.If he had asked me I would have given permission.I was'nt nude but definitely not wearing male swim attire of North America.I cannot swim wearing a circus tent. Regarding France, if you have a serious portfolio,you must declare it on entry....It will be considered a "work of art" if you are stopped when leaving.I notice that if I use my Canon Rebel people notice it more than my Leica...

-- jason gold (leeu72@hotmail.com), December 10, 2001.
Alfie,

You can basically shoot pictures anywhere where people are allowed to go as long as it isn't privatly owned if you aren't publishing it for and ad campaign, etc. In your case you are only publishing it on the web and in your photobooks (I assume) so I wouldn't have to worry about that aspect.

You can also shoot pictures of things that aren't on public property as long as you are standing on public property in a reasonable place. Ex - you can legally shoot pictures of people in their home through the window (no matter what they are doing)as long as you are standing on a reasonable public place (a sidewalk - not up in a tree).

As for the bookstore and malls, they are private property - if you have the managers permission, shoot all you want, but they do have a right to kick you out.

In the real world, it can be quite different. I've shot pictures in malls, private stores and museums all the time, and they usually don't care. One time it a mall I was told by a security officer to ask the permission of stores if I shot their storefront, but he didn't say anyting about the people in the Halls! Most of the time I walk around with a couple of cameras and they don't say anything. I someone says anything to you just tell them what you are doing - you're just taking pictures as a hobby and for fun.

On the flip side there are times when you are legally shooting pictures and told not to. I've been arrested taking pictures in a public street when I'd heard over the scanner that there were hundreds of college kids causing a ruckus and they called in all of the surrounding units because they were afraid they were going to riot. They later dropped the charges because they knew they were wrong and the Police had screwed up ( bit of an extreme exampe in your case, but just to help explain).

Anyway, I'd just keep on shooting pictures like you have, and If someone give you a wierd look - just talk to them and tell them you're just out having fun taking pictures of what's going on. If a store person tells you not to take pictures in the store even after you've told them what you are doing then don't. If some really big guy and 10 of his large friends tell you not to take their picture while on the public street, probably best to not do it :^)

good luck, john

-- john locher (locherjohn@hotmail.com), December 10, 2001.

The large, full-service photo stores all have books on photography and the law. After reading one, I >almost< sold my Leica! You can get into major league trouble witha camera! Or, a tape recorder, for that matter. People have rights to privacy in their image, including their voice. Do an imitation of someone and publish it and you can be sued! (Unless you have permish!) And there is a lot of latitude in what constitutes "publishing".>>>>> I saw a fantastic display of diamonds in a Chicago Wabash Avenue ("Jeweler's Row") window. I was focusing on this and the proprietor came out and asked me whay I was photographing the display. I said that it was quite beautiful and I was on the public sidewalk and it was my right to photograph it. He was obviously not happy. A couple days later, I was walking along the same sidewalk and noticed that NO diamonds were on display-- only mountings! Also, several other stores had removed their diamond displays in favor of mountings only! I haven't lived in Chicago for several years, so I do not know if they have restored diamond displays.>>>>>Why the paranoia? Was some of that stuff "hot"? (I mean displays in the front window, facing a public sidewalk.)

-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), December 10, 2001.
The point here is not whether it may be illegal, but that ordinary people have a reasonable expectation of personal privacy. To sneak pictures of them is reprehensible. Just because you CAN do something doesn't make it right.

-- Wilhelmn (bmitch@home.com), December 10, 2001.
Just because you CAN do something doesn't make it right. - --- Bill, I almost always agree with you (because I love your irony and/or sarcasm) but I'm afraid the big point here is that it often is illegal (as re privacy and sneaking: who cares?). Me not having been allowed e.g. to photograph during a concert in the Berliner Philharmonie or to record during a Frank Zappa (Domini Patri) concert (maybe) doesn't make it wrong. If it does make it wrong, then they're only interested in making sure they lose no dough.

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), December 10, 2001.
"People are entitled to their personal privacy inside stores, restaurents, theaters, etc. You have no right to photograph them surreptitiously under these circumstances. It is irresponsible as well as illegal."

"The point here is not whether it may be illegal, but that ordinary people have a reasonable expectation of personal privacy. To sneak pictures of them is reprehensible. Just because you CAN do something doesn't make it right."

"People have rights to privacy in their image, including their voice."

To which I can only respond with "HUH?" While out in public, including in stores, restaurants, and theaters, we cede many rights to privacy, and may be photographed, videotaped, and recorded by strangers at will, at least in the United States. If this were not so, how would news photo/videographers do their jobs, how would live concerts before noisy audiences be recorded, how would the ubiquitous surveillance cameras in stores, gas stations, ATMs, and in other places, even exist? How would we take innocent vacation snapshots at the Grand Canyon if we were not allowed to include the occasional bystander who happened to be at the same overlook? To assert a legal right to privacy while in public -- as is done in the first and third excerpts above -- is simply incorrect, at least in the U.S. I have every legal right to photograph people in public places, whether they object or not.

Suppose there were no legal right to photograph people against their wishes. Then we wouldn't know that some LAPD cops enjoy beating black guys (Rodney King) senseless. We wouldn't have the Zapruder film, the strongest piece of evidence in the JFK assassination. We wouldn't have investigative journalism, for the most part, and people in power would have even less reason to behave responsibly.

The broader question of whether a photographer SHOULD (rather than could) surreptitiously snatch images of people in public is a separate matter on which we may have different judgments. I will only state that, in my experience, some photographers seem much more troubled by this than have any of the hundreds of strangers I have photographed in public over the years, the vast majority of whom seemed to not care or to be enthused about being photographed.

-- Douglas Kinnear (douglas.kinnear@colostate.edu), December 10, 2001.

Jason, you said:

Regarding France, if you have a serious portfolio,you must declare it on entry....It will be considered a "work of art" if you are stopped when leaving.

Are you saying that if you bring your portfolio to France and don't declare it, they might not let you take it home? If not, just what are you saying?

(BTW, I've been to France once and the people were generally friendly and of what I know about the French they really seem to know how to live (good food, good wine & a short work week/day). But good God what's up with the legal system, if you can't take a picture of a building and sell it. Of course, I suppose it's not just France, people everywhere seem to be getting awefully prickly about everything.)

-- Ron Buchanan (ronb@fusive.com), December 10, 2001.

This French building thing just reminded me of something else: Eugene Atget (Frenchman that he was) made his career photographing buildings and selling them.

-- Ron Buchanan (ronb@fusive.com), December 10, 2001.
I can understand why the diamond guys were scared of you photographing their wares. Most of it is garnered illegally and that don't want those suckers traced back to the original source... after all it's a DeBeers monopoly :\... anyways, a lot of diamonds are the by-products of African genocide... slight guilt trip I guess.

I enjoy Atget. I think that he's very much underrated and people accuse him of being boring. No, I think that he's the forerunner to Picasso's early cubism to be honest. That's why I enjoy taking pictures of still lifes and objects just as much as people...

Privacy laws are sometimes good in one sense of the word but can be abused too to cover up actions such as murder and theft and bribery... it's a double edged sword to be honest :)

sincerely, Alfie

-- Alfie Wang (leica_phile@hotmail.com), December 10, 2001.

It seems that whenever someone goes to India they come back with the same pictures of poor people sitting in the streets. These people probably should have more access to privacy than the Parisian cafe goer simply because they have no choice but to be there. So if the privacy advocates are right then is street photography dead?

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), December 10, 2001.
"To sneak pictures of them is reprehensible."

Could you provide some justification for that statement? Something more substantive than "you don't like it." And please, don't base your argument on non-existent rights to public privacy or made-up laws.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), December 10, 2001.

The issue is - Is it OK to take pictures of perfect strangers sneakily with the hope of creating Great Street Photography.

Either you connect and then make pictures, or you become part of the community, street, block, village, or whatever and take pictures over time.

That is a reasonable starting point, I think.

But reasonableness does not create great art...

You may say, but what if your vision is an enormously talented one, as with Cartier-Bresson or Garry Winogrand? What then? Is the violation of privacy to be tolerated in the pursuit of some high artistic ideal?

Not an easy question to answer, if you value privacy and art equally. But then a solution might be that perhaps those of us with decidedly mediocre talents and eye should not assume that street pictures automatically have some great intrinsic value to us, to the subject, to society or to art or to whatever. Most of us should shun street photography of the sneaky sort.

But, you might interject again, what if you need the street photography practice to become one of the greats? Did not HC-B practice when he was learning?

Again, I don't know the answer to that...

Just the same, photo.net's archives have some really egregious examples of shameless theft of personal moments and total disregard of privacy in the guise of Street Photography (from India, where else?)

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), December 10, 2001.

Alfie, Minox GT-E and 35ML are my favourite 35mm pocket cameras. Minox 35 is light, and very quiet. I use them more than my Leica camera.

For more about the world of Minox see Minox Photography Forum" and Minox-FAQ

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), December 10, 2001.

Andy Warhol Mick Jagger and Minox 35

Andy Warhol, Mick Jagger

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), December 10, 2001.

Quotes from Andy Warhol: Exposures

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), December 10, 2001.
bold be gone.

-- Matthew Geddert (geddert@yahoo.com), December 10, 2001.
lets try this again: "Bold be gone!"

-- Matthew Geddert (geddert@yahoo.com), December 10, 2001.
Funny that Weegee prompted you to think about "stealth" photography--w/his big press cameras & flash bulbs, he was about the furthest thing you can get from that concept (unless you count the infrared shots he took inside movie theaters)!

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@cris.com), December 10, 2001.
The issue is not really "may we photograph people in public places without their agreement", though there are more or less strict cultural limitations to such an activity all over the world.

The fundamental issue is "may we make money selling photographs of identifiable people or artwork without returning a fair share of the profits to the models (yes that is the word!) or the creators?"

There is absolutely no moral and no legal ground to allow us taking advantage of individuals to make a living without paying legitimate fees (or explicitely offering to pay or, at the very least, securing explicit consent for free of charge exploitation of the image).

There is nothing more OBSCENE than professional photographers selling images of unaware individuals and making their living out of the representation of the individual features of others (such features may be physical, cosmetic, social, whatever), if they have not completed an explicit business negociation with each of those individuals.

Sleath commercial photography is one big step below pornography in my book when it comes to morality. Even if it hides behind the masks of "social photography", "documentary work", "photojournalism", "street photography", whatever...

The lowest of the lowest are those rich world photographers who exert their extortion in third world countries, where individuals are usually deprived from all basic human rights, and publish highly paid images of those individuals in magazines, books or exhibitions without a returning a fair share of the revenue to the photographed people. I'd be extremely surprised if those photographers would be "documenting" life on their street or in their neighbourhood with similar methods. My bet is that they do not, and if ever they would contemplate such a project, they would do so with a folder full of legal releases....

Only exceptions in my book are when such pictures consciously serve the activist purpose of limiting the risks of even worse human rights denial: documenting exploitation, arbitrary rule, war crimes, etc, are the pinacle of what social photography is really about. All is in the intent and in the purpose. The proof of that intent is in the photographer's bank statements and in the editorial work surrounding the pictures.

There are quite a few respectable activist photographers around, thank God.

PS Amateur behaviours are sometimes just as ugly. Some of us seem to forget the sensitivity and feelings of "subjects" when those "subjects" are far away from home... I've seen terrible behaviours at some "third world" tourist attractions, where misery is turned into a systematic photogenic landmark.

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), December 11, 2001.

"The issue is not really "may we photograph people in public places without their agreement" . . ."

Actually, that was the issue at hand. Appropriate/inappropriate usage is another (relevant) issue which involves another set of laws and standards.

"The lowest of the lowest are those rich world photographers who exert their extortion in third world countries, where individuals are usually deprived from all basic human rights, and publish highly paid images of those individuals in magazines, books or exhibitions without a returning a fair share of the revenue to the photographed people."

To whom are you refering? Who are these rich documentary photographers? By whom are they being highly paid? Do we have their financial records?

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), December 11, 2001.

Mike, looks like one of my responses to yours ended up vanishing...

Bill Mitchell is having us on, surely, to get this debate going...If I recall he is one of the few people around who have actually observed Cartier-Bresson at work and written an article about it :-)

I think it gets down to "surreptitious" and "consent"? What constitutes consent? A nod, a smile? Just being around, and in a few minutes getting overlooked and ignored, a photographer who melts into the scene? I would argue that all these are a form of implied consent to be photographed.

As for implied consent for use---well, with a verbal or written release, this simply does not happen. Most street photographers are ignoring their subjects privacy in this regard.

But it does not necessarily follow that the subjects would not be delighted rather than enraged to see themselves in a photography book- even if the pictures appear there without consent.

Its not so simple...

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), December 11, 2001.

Actually, I figured he was playing a part. Notice, I didn't preface my comment with, "Bill, you ignorant ass . . ." I've had these arguments before, the typical progressions is: a) it's wrong because people have such-and-such "rights;" when you point out that such "rights" don't actually exist, then b) it's wrong because of the harm and distress it causes to those being photographed; when you point out that people's actual reactions don't support that position, then c) it's wrong because it is rude and demonstrates a lack of respect for other people's wishes; by then, you usually don't have a good opportunity to point out some of the absurdities of behavior that would logically follow from that position because the "champions of civility" are so busy calling you untalented, immoral, mean, and stupid (unfortunately, I'm not exaggerating about this) that they're no longer paying attention to anything you say.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), December 11, 2001.
Martin,

Andy Warhol said: "I love the new, small, automatic-focus 35mm cameras like Minox and Konica. That's what I used for the photos in this book." What Minox camera was he using?

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), December 11, 2001.

Once I had to take pictures of a place where I should not be seen with a camera (it was a place in which local gangsters were known to operate). Took my Minox 35 GT along, opened the lens flap, put camera to ear and pretended to speak into it like a cellphone. To cut the story short, I got the pictures I needed. Can't do that with a Leica!

-- Hoyin Lee (leehoyin@hutchcity.com), December 11, 2001.
if you like the minox, try a olympus xa. but not the xa2-4.

the xa has a really good lens, has a rangefinder with manual focus, you can set the aperture and it has a basic +1,5 ev setting. opened the lens or the cover do not stick out a la monix but rather the case slides oben. and it is really silent. and it looks cool. does anyone remember the cool add from the early eighties? it was presented like a car, lit in backlight. very dramatic.

one drawback is the lack of a hotshoe and filterthread, but there are many pages on t´he web devoted to that camera with solutions to that. the original flash is not that bad though.

this is my eternal backup, no holidays without it

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), December 11, 2001.

I'm a Minox User and since long.

I see here contribution of Martin Tai and Ray Moth, both long Minox user pals.

Difficult situation? Well, for a while I had been in Pakistan where photography is highly disregarded but most people would not mind a "little photo" with a little camera.

Adjusting the distance is a matter of practice as some have a light meter in their head for the M6... Beside, you have to adjust in between 2 values, it's not that difficult.

For long exposure, leave the camera on a support (a minox tripod if you are posh) and use the self timer.

At least, the Minox can be in a pocket and goes un-noticed

Try the http://www.minoxography.org for more info. Xavier.

-- Xavier d'Alfort (hot_billexf@hotmail.com), December 11, 2001.

An example of street photography with Minox

http://xavierf.b.free.fr/Pakistan/roj01.jpg

or near to my own country, France:

http://xavierf.b.free.fr/Ete2001/Minox/Vosges02.jpg

-- Xavier d'Alfort (hot_billexf@hotmail.com), December 11, 2001.

Alfie, It's not just about the size of your equipment! In stealthy situations, intuition is more important than camera brand. And remember: Shoot first, question morality later.

-- Steve Wiley (wiley@accesshub.net), December 11, 2001.
Ray, Andy Warhol mentioned "autofocus camera ... like Minox..." in his preface to EXPOSURE. EXPOSURE was published in 1979, the only Minox 35mm camera in existance at that time was Minox EL and Minox GL. Minox AF appeared in 1988. The Minox camera Andy Warhol used was in fact a Minox EL.

In 1976, an art dealer in Zurich, Thomas Ammanne showed Andy Warhol the smallest full frame 35mm camera, new on the market for only a year---- Minox EL. Andy Warhol was so impressed with this 'James Bond " like camera, and said "are you going to give it to me ?". This Minox EL changed the way Andy Warhol treated photography. For the rest of his life, his pocket Minox became his image recorder.

There are over one hundred thousand photo images in Andy Warhol Museam, a great number of these images were taken with Minox 35mm camera.

The last photo of Andy Warhol, taken by his photographer friend shortly before Andy Warhol's death, shows Andy holding a Minox camera with a flash attached.

A few years ago, a silk screen Marilyn Monroe art work by Andy Warhol was auctioned off at $17 million, said to be the second highest price of American artist

-- martin tai (cg081@torfree.net), December 11, 2001.

Jacques' viewpoint seems to me to be hopelessly muddled, and absurdly idealistic and completely unworkable in any situation or country. We have rights that include taking photos of other people, as long as we do not use images of them to sell goods and services. For personal and fine art or news purposes we have that right in most Western countries and in many other countries. Often it is rude to do so and often people don't like it, but so what? I don't like people bumping in to me, or spitting on the sidewalk, or swearing at me, or asking me for money. We just have to live with it - it is a free country and, as others have said, ultimately in the public interest. There are laws such as "causing a public nuisance" etc. that cops can use to "move someone on", if they are causing irritation to people, but these are understandably used with care in civilised countries. People often have exaggerated perceptions of their "rights".

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), December 11, 2001.
Robin,

The image that is sold IS a good. Images sold as "fine art" ARE goods. Images freely circulated on the web ARE published. Images printed in a magazine ARE published.

In most civilised countries, any individual may sue publishers distributing images of that individual without prior and explicit consent. The publisher will in turn sue the photographer.

There are of course criteria that the judge will refer to when determining the intent of the parties and to what degree the said individual is center to the picture.

Typical debate is relative for example to the position of an individual as part of a crowd in public places and to the degree at which that individual is singled out as main item of the picture; or to the degree at which an individual may be considered as a public person worthy of news coverage; or to the degree at which the circumstances show that the individual was consenting at time of shooting to be photographed by a person working for publication....

In Western countries, where even the most immoral photographer is aware of the legal risks at stake, precautions will be taken to insure that the individual central to a picture will not sue after publication. Such precautions include the signing of standard release forms by the photographed individual, usually on the spot, as the picture is taken.

Most of you, in this discussion group, will think twice before selling a picture of a recognisable individual living in your country/state/city without prior consent. I bet that none of you would dare take pictures of your neighbours in your block, and even less sell such pictures, or even publish them on a web site, without making sure they agree.

For what ciconvolutated reason would you not behave with the same degree of civility when you step out of your minibus in Katmandou, Marrakesh or Jalalabad? Or when you step out of your taxi far from your own neighbourhood?

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), December 11, 2001.

Jaques- I know this is getting really off topic but ---

While it is true that anyone can sue anyone else for practically any reason, especially in the US, copyright laws make a distinction for photographs used for advertizing versus those used for editorial purposes and most "fine art" purposes. Model releases are necessary in almost all advertizing uses. They are almost never required for editorial uses. The use may not be "moral" in your view, but certainly not in the law's view.

With some exceptions, the distinction is whether or not there is an implied product endorsement. I could surreptitiously take a photo of someone famous, say Mike Dixon, drinking a Coke, and sell it as fine art without needing his consent. I would be able to sell it to a magazine doing an article on famous photographers out about town, again without his consent. However, he would be legally entitled to damages if I sold it to Coca Cola to use in an ad.

May not seem fair or moral, but it is legal and protected by copyright laws.

-- Hil (hegomez@aol.com), December 12, 2001.

Hil,

I am not a lawyer and certainly not in a position to discuss the current state of judicial matters regarding the rights of an individual to his/her image in the USA. I am (or would be) surprised to learn that the individual would not be protected from public usage of his/her image in the paradise of individualism.

I can certify that where I live, under Napoleonic Code tradition, the fact that an image is used for advertisement or not is not the central issue. It is the image itself, and its publication, that are central. An individual will obtain compensation (and/or prohibition of further circulation) when an image where he/she is recognisable is published without permission.

I feel that such a situation is completely justified, and I would certainly not remain passive if a picture of me was published anywhere without my prior consent. Even more so if that picture had been the object of a commercial transaction (someone making money on my back) or was damaging to my reputation.

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthzar@hotmail.com), December 12, 2001.

"I could surreptitiously take a photo of someone famous, say Mike Dixon, drinking a Coke, and sell it as fine art without needing his consent."

No, you couldn't. I don't drink Coke. I'm not famous. And I'm neither fine nor art (but don't tell the ladies). ; )

I'm still waiting for a list of rich documentary photographers and those who pay them a lot of money . . .

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), December 12, 2001.

Mike,

I was refering to "rich world" photographers as in "rich world" (as opposed to "third world"), not to rich photographers.

I do not entertain any illusion regarding the sums of money at stake, as photography is very seldom a trade that makes the photographer a rich man (by Western standards).

I do not manage databases of "suspects", so cannot provide you with any list. I nevertheless invite you to take a stroll to your local newspaper stand, and purchase a few picture intensive magazines (no not the girlies, nor the fashion, nor the sports, nor the cars). Depending on the country you live in, a selection of dailies will also provide you with the types of images I am refering to. And with the name of the photographers, or, more likely, the image bank agencies.

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), December 12, 2001.

Jacques,

You made specific reference to photographer who ". . . publish highly paid images of those individuals in magazines, books or exhibitions without a returning a fair share of the revenue to the photographed people." I don't think it was unreasonable for me to infer that you were implying the photographers were becoming wealthy.

I am still unclear about who these photographers are. Are you refering to news magazines? Pay for photojournalists is terrible. Are you refering to boutique or art magazines? Again, these pay next to nothing. Are you refering to prints in galleries? I don't recall ever seeing such material, and sale of photographic prints in galleries is generally not a highly profitable venture.

You apparently have a passionate contempt for a group of people who, as far as I can tell, don't even seem to exist. The market for images of people suffering isn't nearly as great or profitable as you seem to believe.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), December 12, 2001.

Back to Alfie's original question. I use a Minox 35ML mostly because it's light and small. I have definitely noticed that people typically aren't bothered by it. When I got used to the DOF/hyperfocus settings on the camera, out-of-focus was little problem. The camera is virtually silent.

By comparison, a full-size 35mm rangefinder is visually more noticable, and louder. It's technically more versatile than the Minox 35. However, discrete is as discrete does. The only time I actually might actually feel secure taking pictures of people who don't want their pictures taken, would be with either a Minox 8x11 and a nearby exit, or a nice heavy steel camera with a sturdy strap. Since I'm not being paid to do these things any more, I generally choose not to.

I also have begun to use my 8x11 Minox

-- Jeff Polaski (polaski@acm.org), December 12, 2001.

Mike,

You are right: photographers usually do not make a fortune, especially not for the type of pictures discussed here.

But money does change hands between publisher, agency and photographers for the purchase of pictures to be published. Individuals whose individuality is key to the commercial value of a picture should be treated as models, and not as still life objects.

I'm pretty sure the WASP looking individuals appearing in commercially available image banks have either been paid or have signed a release form. I'm also arguing that individuals from other ethnic origins, and more precisely those who are photographed on location in poorer countries, are usually not treated in the same way.

Some do it properly: as here (check release form for 2nd image top row)

Most do not....

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), December 12, 2001.

Jaques, I think you misunderstand the reason that the image you provided a link for is described as having a model release. Commercial, vs artistic or editorial, use of an image requires in most instances a model release.

This is the photographer indicating that his image, if desired for commercial use, is properly released. He is not bragging about how ethical he is. He will certainly charge a different rate for use of his image of the Arab woman, who is recognizable in the frame. The release does not make the image more valuable for non-commercial use. For example, if National Geographic wanted to use the image in a typical NG story, it would not require a model release. If the tourism board of the country the woman lives in wanted to use the picture in a travel brochure, the release would be required.

It seems that you regard any use of a photograph without permission of the subject as exploitation. This is a very narrow view. It would put most newspapers out of business. How do you feel about a writer describing something without permission? Or an artist's sketch? Or the lyrics in a song? The photograph belongs to it's creator, not the subject, and it is the creator, the photographer, who is entitled to fair use of the image, even for profit, under most circumstances. This is a broad and complex subject, but it seems that you would like to impose very narrow ethical boundaries on the photographer. To me this would lead to artistic repression. Note the rights of the artist under Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini or Castro, the Taliban, and about half the current world for that matter.

I disagree with your view, if I understand you right.

Mike, excuse me for implying you are merely famous. Indeed, you are by now a legend. What, Pepsi not Coke? Hil

-- Helio Gomez (hegomez@aol.com), December 12, 2001.

Helio,

We might have to agree to disagree. However, in the geography I live in, not ruled by Hitler or the Taliban, model releases are required for any publication of pictures of any individual. Or rather, publishers will protect themselves by imposing on the photographer a commercial clause stating that the photographer would be sole responsible for any lawsuit arrising from the lack of release. The photographer evaluates the risks. Same thing between published and agency and agency and photographer.

I find that this protection of my individual rights over the usage of images of myself by others is a human right to be extended to the rest of humanity.

The judge will be the instance defining the limits of that right, according to the circumstances and to the intent of the parties. If I take part today in a demonstration against globalisation, I will not have the right to sue the newspaper singling me out among protesters the following day. But digging out such a picture 5 years from now for other purposes might entail me to sue, and the circumstances might give me a good chance of gaining compensation. Circumstances, intent.

Sending a picture staging an individual, even free of charge, to a public photo contest or to a photomagazine would require same attention to the existence of a model release. And that also is right. Publication is the issue here. I am not fair game for voyeurs when I go through my daily life. Are you?

So, sleath photography (with a minox or anything else) might maybe be more or less an OK activity (depending on the cultural traditions of the people you are photographing and your ability to escape their potential anger), as long as the results remain private.

If the results are made public, then the rights of the individual must be protected.

If the results are object to commercial transactions, then the individual should be offered a chance to fair model compensation.

If the individual explicitely agrees that his/her image may be circulated and traded freely, then the problem is solved. Again, in order to do so, he/she must at least be consulted.

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), December 12, 2001.

Well, Jacques, while I do agree with you that street people in poorer countries, with traditions of politeness and non-confrontation, really shouldn't be pestered by photographic tourists looking for "soulful" or "gritty" travel pictures, I would not go so far as you in insisting that the legal provisions of the Code Napoleon from the country you live in (France, is it?) are good enough for universal application or extension to all societies.

To impose one's own system of law, morality, ethics on another people, without their participating or even being consulted in the process, is a far more egregious imposition, perhaps, than snapping away at homeless folks in a New Delhi street.

Besides, how do you know that the existing legal framework in India, or Gabon or Venezuela does not already provide those rights, implicitly or explicitly, both in terms of moral sentiment and legal fact?

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), December 13, 2001.

Mani,

I obviously agree with you that "imposing one's own system of law, morality, ethics on another people, without their participating or even being consulted in the process, is a far more egregious imposition than etc..."

I am speaking in this forum from a determined place at a determined time with people focused on a determined subject.

I have gripes with: 1. The denial by photographers (pros or amateurs) of the right of individuals to be party to the decisions relative to the usage of their image through the publication of pictures, including fair share of revenue for those pictures that are traded;

2. The uneven treatment of individuals in the photographic process depending on the social and geographical distance between those individuals and unethical photographers.

I am sure that very many countries, beyond the limits of the "rich world" benefit from legal provisions protecting their citizens against unilateral usage of their image for publication.

I am also sure that the citizens of those countries are usually considered by a large proportion of visiting photographers as not being potential actors in a law suit that could reach the photographer's shores. They are way too often considered as landscape features or still life compositions rather than as human beings with a full set of rights. Including the ones we are discussing here.

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), December 13, 2001.

What can you do, other than provide the legal framework? Can those poor people complain to their leaders (assuming they have democracy) and make it a crime for foreigners to take street pictures?

Presumably, their needs and requirements of their government are rather more urgent than staving off the occasional, rare, foreign photographer pest, if indeed such folks are felt to be pests (see Mike Dixon and me above)?

Or is the issue one of guilt, and sharing of "wealth", such as it is? But presumably the rich (from wherever they are) are making money of the poor (wherever they are) by a multiplicity of visible and invisible means, economic or otherwise, in both fair and unfair ways. Why tackle just this one activity, and why is it so important, relative to all the other things going on between rich and poor, if again, you can determine that something bad is happening?

My point is, one may indeed have these compulsions towards universal fairness, but there is no practical way in which you can implement such a state of affairs. That is if you can decide the order of priority of a myraid of injustices in this world before tackling the job!

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), December 13, 2001.

The advantage of Minox 35 over Leica M



-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), December 13, 2001.
Mari,

I certainly do not think this issue is crucial in the global frame of things. But it seems to be an issue for photographers enjoying Leica hardware and spending time discussing sleath photography in this web forum.

Photography is a wonderful activity, and people photography can be one of the most interesting ways of interacting in this world.

People photography, from my point of view, is essentially a multilateral process, involving the photographer, the subject(s), the viewer(s) and the publisher. All parties are crucial to the process, even if the viewer is one person and the publisher a free access consumer web site.

While nobody disagrees with the idea that the photographer has rights (copyrights) on his images, some of us (photographers) seem to think that the subjects of our photography have no rights on the same image.

That is the obscene part, as the subject, when a human being (not a monkey or a potatoe), is a key partner in the emergence of that image. Weither he is aware of the fact that his/her picture has been taken or not, he/she has every right to take a key part in the decision process regarding publication of that picture (even on a free web site), and every right to demand and obtain a share of the commercial value of that picture when that picture is traded.

Those photographers who simply shoot and hope to get away with any further dealing by avoiding interaction with the subject are, to my eyes, unethical. Those who then publish those images are thieves. Even more so when those images are traded.

Making people aware that the photographic process is going to take place, is taking place or has taken place is the first step towards recognition of the human rights of the individual being photographed. If the ulimate intent is publication and/or trade of the image, explicit interaction becomes a moral imperative.

That is the rule. Mine anyway. With a long series of potential exceptions, listed in posts above, and directly linked to the circumstances of the photographic process. The court of justice being the place where those exceptions are argued.

By default, do not hide: interact, smile, talk, negociate, and pay when you get paid.

So, you may call this "compulsions towards universal fairness" if you want. I call this one of the small contributions we can make, thanks to photography, to a slightly less inhuman world.

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), December 13, 2001.

"I have gripes with: 1. The denial by photographers (pros or amateurs) of the right of individuals to be party to the decisions relative to the usage of their image through the publication of pictures, including fair share of revenue for those pictures that are traded;"

Jacques, this is a cool theory, but consider the practical side.

I go to Pakistan or India to photograph people for an editorial feature. This costs me a load of money in travel, hotel, film, assistants/interpreters, time etc., and no guarantee that anything will sell. Then I have to take down the account details and so on of everyone who appears in the feature and return to the country after publication of the work in order to track them down and pay them a percentage of my earnings.

First of all, most people are glad to be photographed for editorial purposes because such work is highlighting their problems and the injustices suffered by them. They are usually intelligent enough to undestand that the photographer is not getting rich off their backs. Secondly, life is just too short to go tracking down all these people. Thirdly, the money you might make on this sort of project is so piffling that it doesn't make any sense even to consider such a distribution of earnings.

I think you're talking from your armchair, certainly a comfortable place to pontificate from, but just go and do some documentary photography in an out of the way place and see how practical your suggestions are.

Finally, without the photographers who do go and take these images and publish them without recompensing their hard-done-by subjects, the magazines and newspapers of the world would be devoid of anything but lifestyle and fashion features. If that's your idea of a good time, fair enough, it isn't mine.

This "right to the person's image" even in a public space is absurd and, furthermore, like all "rights", only exists in the context of an enforcing legal framework. Fortunately, most of the world does not enforce such illiberal legislation. If it ever does, then photojournalism will come to an end, and I don't think anyone in their right minds can celebrate such a prospect. If there's one thing we need, especially nowadays, it is sensitive, in-depth photojournalism which gives us a feel for how other people live and the problems they face. It is an important part of our _freedoms_ that such things be possible.

Jacques, with your high moral stance, I'm sure you don't look at photojournalism in magazines and books (no doubt you tear the pages out before you can violate anyone's privacy). Good for you, you have a belief and you enact it in your private life. But what you propose as universal standards and rights go directly against the entire ethos of the photographic project as part of our culture, which is to inform. It is significant to me that most repressive regimes and cultures ban photography outside of state or clerically controlled areas. Is this really what you want? I hope not.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), December 13, 2001.

Jacques,

I agree that some interaction with your subject is good - as it often times get you better pictures. In the USA you must get model releases if your pictures are to be used for non-editorial purposes. I agree with this becaues your pictures will be used for advertising. The subject can sign the model release or not. If they expect to get paid, then they don't need to sign the model release and the picture can't be used for non-editorial purposes. It is their choice.

On the other hand, for editorial purposes "sharing the wealth" with the subject is simply not practical (as stated above) and would be damaging to photojournalsim. In the real world of photography what consider ethical photography just wouldn't work. I'm a professionl photojournalist (I work for a newspaper and I ocassionally freelance for picture agencies) and I can tell you that 95 percent of the time photojournalists talk with their subjects to get their name, info, etc. In the 5 years I have been doing this, and with thousands of people I have photographed, I could count on one hand the people that were pissed I was taking their picture (okay, mabye two hands). In reality, most people don't mind having their pictue taken. When people ask me not to, I won't unless there is a very compelling reason.

There are also times when I don't really care if the person wants their photo taken or not. As an example, there have been many instances where police have overstepped their authority (The Rodney King example mentioned above is a good example). I'm sure they didn't want their picture taken, but I think most would agree that it should have been and are glad it was. The job of journalists is to record what is happening, and if it is wrong/illegle it should be documented for all to see and possibly change.

There are also times when interaction is impossible. When I was shooting the WTO riots in Seattle I couldn't just go up to a person that was being hauled away by police and talk to them. I think in situations like this pictures are important to let people know what is going on. The same with war photography - it is important and should be documented. Do you feel that is is wrong to take pictures in these situations when you don't talk to the subjects?

Anyway, I'm sure there are cultural differences between the US and where you live (in curious where it is if you wouldn't mind telling). But in any case I think it would be wrong to give a subject money for a journalistic photgraph. This would lead people to do things knowing they would be photographed and make money, and that is not journalism.

john locher

-- john locher (locherjohn@hotmail.com), December 14, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ