I have known Simon for YEARS and he has always been a wonderful person and I have no doubt that he wouldn’t be so pathetic as to spend precious time and effort in slandering a complete strangers name.

You’re as determined and unrelenting as I am.

And Simon is a complete idiot.

I have stood in that very spot within SFMOMA and taken similar photos. With both a long lens and a short, wide lens. With my big old 1D Mk2N. I probably spent 15 minutes and no one said anything. And I too become somewhat emotional when told I can’t shoot someplace so I’m familiar with the surge of feelings that accompany such a confrontation.

SFMOMA is not public space so if I’m asked not to shoot I don’t. Now, if some sort of beating or illegal activity was going on I might choose to disobey understanding that decision subjects me to a higher level of disobedience – namely trespassing. But if I’m shooting for my portfolio I say, “OK” and move on or, as others have pointed out, ask to talk with a supervisor if it was that important to me. FYI I’ve been asked to stop shooting and to leave a number of places.

Another issue is taking photos of an employee without asking. TH asserts there was nothing revealing about her dress and implies that made it OK to shoot her. Not the point. An employee may not be able to simply move, turn away or otherwise remove herself from the shot because of her work rules. This is what makes something like this shade into “abuse”. That may seem extreme until you have it happen to you but the thing is it’s about how the employee feels not how you feel about it. SFMOMA’s photo policy, as I read it, doesn’t extend to permission to photograph employees so you’d want to at least extend the courtesy of asking not to mention the whole issue of releasing the person’s image.

If you’re not willing to ask a subject to take their photo, and willing to accept the answer, perhaps you want to re-think what you are doing. Voyeurism is observing people without their knowledge or consent. Street photography shades into voyeurism after about 2 frames in my opinion. In the workplace it’s the responsibility of management to be aware and protective of the rights of employees. So, if Mr. Blint was the manager on duty or simply a senior management member on the premises it would be appropriate to intervene if he saw a situation that appeared inappropriate. Consider how different this may have played out if TH had talked with the employee first, perhaps offering a print or at least a jpeg as consideration, and she had informed Mr. Blint, “It’s OK. He asked me first.”

These appear to be the principles of this interaction and they seem pretty clear. What’s creating the shit storm is the personalities involved on both sides are fragile and insecure. Thus the sound and the fury and all the misplaced emotionality, hyperbole, righteous indignation and thrashing about for justification. That Mr. Blint may or may not be a pleasant fellow doesn’t change the fact Mr. Hawk was responsible for the first actions in this progression and by his own admission didn’t comply with a request not to continue. You can’t blame Blint for that.

It’s unfortunate this escalated as it has. Nothing having to do with photography is being helped or furthered here. Threats of a backlash by the blogosphere won’t result in more trust or openness nor change a stupid interaction into an intelligent one. We can’t yell our way to civility. Such rantings only serve to deepen divisions, increase polarization and encourage egregious acts such as publicizing the personal information of Mr. Blint, most likely by “anonymous.” This is completely wrong and I’m underwhelmed at Mr. Hawk’s response of, “I took it down here and on another blog I saw – where else is it?” I notice Mr. Hawk doesn’t publish his actual contact data and no one seems to be outing him. Where is the fairness in that?

Finally, there are lots of comments on both sides of this issue posted by ‘anonymous’. I don’t think this is a discussion well served by anonymous voices hurling incendiary opinions or impassioned moralizing from the shadows. Leadership is not anonymous.

But the reality is that, as someone else stated, he is the one in a position of customer “service” and had he shown initial respect and calmly asked TH to come to the office to discuss this – especially when it was getting out of hand – I am sure there would not be all this commotion now.

Thomas has all the right to share this with his readers on his blog. Of course it has now turned into a huge fiasco…but I am sorry…Mr. Blint had all the chances (even now) to stop the escalation. I don’t wish him any harm, but it looks like it was his time to learn a HUGE lesson.

(and I have been reading Thomas’ blog for a long time now – I find no arrogance in his posts)

Well they had to stick up for hm didnt they. If you ask me, he is just one of those guys who was bullied in school, now he is getting his revenge (kind of).

Dont worry about him. Everyday he feels insecure. Imagine being like that!?