What purpose did you have for photographing those children without their parent’s permission?

And we have to remember that just as it is our right to photograph whatever we want in public, it is others’ right to be dicks and stand in our way. Nothing we can do about that. It’s part of the game of photography. Another part of the game is the hunt for the right photo. So you get blocked on one side – what about the other?

We all have rights but we also have the responsibility to be nice to each other. But yeah – I’m going to get the photo I want, whether you like it or not, if I want it bad enough. I don’t care if you have a badge or little pointy elf ears because I know my rights. Approach me in a nice way and we can talk about it. Approach me like a dick and we won’t be doing much talking.

So to answer S. Simpson’s question, no, I would not like for you to stand on the sidewalk and photograph me in my house. However, when the rubber meets the road, there’s really nothing I can do about it. That’s the thing. The laws for society are above my personal preferences, as they should be. We don’t have to like all instances of the laws being upheld. That’s part of what makes them impartial.

But if you are in public, especially if you are acting like an ass, don’t be surprised or get pissed if someone takes your photo. it’s part of the game of living in the US, where we have the freedom to document what happens in public.

To those of you who DO get upset about such things, how do you feel about being under constant surveillance while in DC? Every step brings you into view of cameras. Is that at all different? Do you just avoid DC and the surrounding areas? Avoid banks, supermarkets, all stores, malls and many streets? What’s the difference?

My comment about people in tights was not “they shouldn’t bitch about getting their photo taken.” My comment was that, by telling people to keep moving, they were just doing their job. I think people on the “all photo all the time” bandwagon sometimes forget that, right or wrong, the people telling them “no” were told that by someone higher up the food chain. I’m just saying cut the person some slack. There’s no reason to berate them or get angry at them.

My refernce to using people as props had to do with the a long running discussion here and previously on DCMetblogs (if I recall correctly). Yes, you have a right to photograph who and what you want. But to be militant about it forgets that PEOPLE are involved. I guess I’m old fashioned in thinking having the courtesy to assume someone might not want to be in my photo is more important than having the perfect composition. Or if I really wnat that photo, I’ll ask. After all, you draw more flies with honey than vinegar.

And the elves were not only shooing away photographers, but anyone blocking the sign with the hours, etc. I’d guess (and I feel I have every right to guess as a commenter, and not a member of the press) that had to do with two things:
1) Traffic. Lots of people going in and out, and they kept that line moving quickly
2) The sponsor paid to have their name seen on the sign. I’m just sayin’…

I suggest you put on a silly costume and stand out in the cold for hours on end for what is probably little pay. After a few people make your job a little more difficult by mucking up the system, you might have a short answer vs. a more well thought out reply.

Lastly: just because you CAN take a photo of me doesn’t mean I have to like it. The photo brigade on here gets so wrapped up in “right to photograph” they often forget “right to treat people like, well, PEOPLE and not their personal props for a pretty photo-op.” No, it doesn’t make you a perv to take a photo, but you don’t have to be an asshole about it, either.

I’m the first one to take someone to task for using their 1st Amendment rights to be a dick, even while defending those rights, but for god’s sake… it’s a Christmas attraction in a public space. If you don’t want people taking pictures of it, maybe don’t make it a tourist attraction in the middle of public property.

You are not entitled to know the motives of every single person wishing to engage in legal behavior. You just aren’t. It’s none of your business.

Who cares why Paulo wants a picture? A lot of you have hobbies I find perfectly incomprehensible, do you have to justify them to me or give them up?

As far as this silly boogyman about a creep looking at pictures of kids and thinking icky thoughts, why allow any pictures of any children anywhere? No more kids on television – the tiny minority of creeps in the world might think bad thoughts, so the 99.999% of the population that are normal and law-abiding need to alter their behavior.

Because after all, if they look at pictures of THAT SPECIFIC KID and think bad thoughts then, then….. SOMETHING bad will happen!

Why does it matter if Paulo wants to take photos in public?

Sure, elves make really cool bicycles and robots and stuff, but what gives them the right to tell us when we can’t take photos in their place that they set up to take and sell photos. I mean that’s like McDonalds not letting me make hamburgers in their restaurant.

Who cares if the photos I take are for personal use and the photos they take and sell me are for my personal use, too. It doesn’t matter. I want to do what I want to do when I want to do it where I want to do it with no god danged lip from no elfsszzsszz!!

(Now where did I put Al Sharpton’s phone number…)

Back to Reality? Just because you don’t understand the motives of the photographer (which are completely irrelevant) with regard to taking lots of photographs, you immediately condemn them as pervs?

Why do we always assume that people with cameras are perverts?

I am so so tired of this thing about photographing people in public. To the letter of the law Mr. Weaver is correct. However, lets assume that one has no desire to fantasize about children in a bad way. What purpose do these photographs really serve. You cannot sell them (they hardly qualify as editorial content). I can’t understand what these so called new age photographers (and I use that term loosely) see if having all these images other than filling their hard drives.

So Mr. Weaver, if I sat in front of your residence snapping pictures hoping that I would catch a glimpse of something, you would have no problems. Of course everyone is so paranoid now it would probably be some sort of subversive government agenda doing this.

Out in public = fair game.

Also, even if that were a private residence, that would be fair game. Photographing something in plain view from a public place or from your own private property is allowed. So if you walk naked in front of the window each morning, it is within your neighbor’s rights to photograph you. If you sell opium in front of the plate glass window looking out to the street, the police will use that for surveillance and will photograph and bust you.

I am not saying this is what we should all do, but the burden should be on the public to not do things they don’t want forever recorded. We all are subject to appearing in camera memory when we are in public. If you are in DC at all, you are already recorded a hundred times before you ever see a camera. Get over it, folks.

This is one of those cases where our ethical obligations and legal rights are at odds. We have an ethical obligation not to go photograph your kids or else not to make money at your business, taking photos of your set-up. However, it’s all out in public and therefore legally fair game.

Carlton, it’s a public area. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy on the front steps of the White House. Is it possible you’re unfamiliar with the area?

It’s not about being media or not. The rules are pretty much the same for all of us, and brownpau is 100 percent in the right here.

I know kids are a sensitive issue when it comes to photography, but this is pretty silly.

And *Freedom* of the Press means that you are free to shoot what is newsworthy and interesting, Carleton, not what the parties involved in the story WANT you to shoot.

Also, people look to the press to be unbiased, even-handed, and well…not whiney. You aren’t whining are you?

And am I even allowed to take photos of people engaging in commerce in public places now, or does that constitute theft of the goods and services being marketed? Note that I’m not really trying to take photos of a posed Santa+kids scene to get around the in-house photog, just trying to get a framed shot of Santa in a nicely crafted workshop.

Plus I’m now a pervert, too. Better keep your kids at home and in private, folks. They might come out in photos.