“Therefore, the ethical issue is not based in the photographer’s intent to do/not do harm, or belief that harm was/was not done, but in the subject’s perception of harm done.”

There is no “ethical issue” here, just ___your___ perception and ___your___ feelings which you have ___rebranded___ and “martyrfied” into an “ethical” issue! Also, perception of harm done is ___not___ harm done, its just (your) perception.

BIG SNIP

“However, if you assert your right to take the photograph despite the subject’s (possible) perception of harm, which is unknowable to you, your behavior indicates that you believe your rights are superior to the subject’s rights, and that is unethical.
Brian”

SO SAITH THE TEN COMMANDMENTS OF THE PERCEIVED ETHICAL (LIFE OF) BRIAN…

Your thinking is flawed, your feelings not gospel or even the law, Brian. No, it indicates that I believe my rights are ___equal___ to the subject’s rights and that I (as you) have the right to assert those rights and that the law (within the bounds of the constitution) determines what is permissable behaviour regardless of who does or doesn’t feel and/or perceive to be harmed. Feelings are not an issue nor are feelings an ethics issue in particular. They are simply (or complexly) feelings, nothing more, nothing less. Neither is perception of harm done actual harm done. Perceive away or go away – that’s your choice. You are free to perceive and/or to feel as you wish. Photographing is my (and others choice). Your label of “unethical” is just that, _____your_____ label and in my “perception” your thought process is misguided if not unethical itself. Get off the high horse of being in love with your/other’s feelings and look at the facts.

THE FACTS

What are the facts?

There is no right to privacy in public places, especially places as public as “the streets.” That’s a legal fact. That’s why they are called “public places.” Don’t cry foul or unethical if you go out in public and end up in a gallery or someone’s cell phone. If you don’t want to be photographed in public then don’t go out in public or cover your face, move to Mars (less street photographers per square mile there) etc. By all means stay away from Bruce Gilden and his Gildenettes (liitle copy cat clones) with their 21mm (24mm or 28mm? – does he switch off between these 3 lenses? I’ve heard all three mentioned by him or about his lensmanship (is that a word?)) M-6->9 film or digital Leicas and above all else stay away from the ghost of Sleepy Hollow (the headless ghost of Gary Winogrand sweeping down with his 28mm Canon (yes he really did use a Canon not a Leica lens, what was he thinking/perceiving – where is the brand snobbery in that!)lensed Leica dragging bags full of exposed yet undeveloped Tri-X from his film cabinets ready to sweep down on you like El Kabong (sp?) with his guitar club. When the Martians finally come down to take over the world, run away, because they are not carrying ray guns but cell phones on a 3G network. Beware of little green men running down the street with Leicas (or ask Scotty to beam you up into a star ship with a feelings force field and set your phasers on “imaginarily stunn(t)ed”) because one of them is not so little, it is Orson Welles and he will ‘eat no Leitz Wetzlar before its time.’

There is a right to freedom of speech – its in the first ammendment of the constitution. Look it up…

Don’t use feelings, ethics or perception of harm as “buzzword bludgeons”, though, to try to denounce if not take away the rights of others to express their first ammendment rights. They have just as much right to express their free speech photographically as you do through talking, drawing, writing poems or articles, or, gasp, photographing others.

FEELINGS ARE NOT ETHICS

Don’t mistake feelings or perception of harm for ethics. “Ethically” you have the right to feel whatever you want (and so does a photographer or anyone else with or without a camera) but don’t confuse feelings with ethics. Feelings and perceptions don’t determine rights or ethics, only laws do. Your “ethics” (really your hurt or otherwise ____feelings____ which you perceive to be your moral ethics) are your ethics alone, not mine, not others. You have the right to feel any way you want to but not at the expense of the rights of me or others – whether those others are photographers or not. Perception of harm done is not harm done. This is not a moral issue or a perception issue but a legal one. Feelings don’t trump rights, its the other way around, otherwise I, or anybody else for that matter would be able to take away your rights just because of my feelings/perception of you. They’ll pry away my camera and right to photograph in public from my cold dead hands. God bless Kodachrome and long live the first ammendment!! Damn it! Pardon me, I meant only double darn Don Johnson Pardo doo hickey red and yellow lollipops fudge sugar sugar honey honey may cotton candy clouds of pillows fall on your ethical parade (but only if the rain drops keep falling on my head just like a guy whose feet are too big for his head)and disappear with your perception before they harm the double pinky swear hopscotch ground with their perceived boo boo but only with His Majesty’s (a pretty nice girl but she doesn’t have a lotto to say)permission… “Oh…. Ricky… Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!

“I once shot an elephant with a Leica in my pajamas… how he could afford a Leica, I’ll never know”…

I believe taking a photograph in public of someone without the subject’s consent is unethical since it might be perceived as intrusive (harmful) by the subject.

Whether or not the photograph “feels” the same way about that intrusion is irrelevant since the photographer’s intent for taking, or distributing, the photograph is unknown and unknowable to the subject at the time of the behavior. Therefore, the ethical issue is not based in the photographer’s intent to do/not do harm, or belief that harm was/was not done, but in the subject’s perception of harm done.

If you accept that other people have rights equal to yours, and that the subject’s perception of harm to those rights is as valid as your (possible) perception that no harm is done, the only reasoned and reasonable course, as the person affirmatively taking the action, is to stop your behavior. However, if you assert your right to take the photograph despite the subject’s (possible) perception of harm, which is unknowable to you, your behavior indicates that you believe your rights are superior to the subject’s rights, and that is unethical.
Brian

In about 1991, in order to get more stuff into musuems, the IRS tried an experiment where you were allowed to use the current value rather than your purchase price as the basis for your deduction, as long as the museum was qualified and the donated item was “capital gain property” (would have resulted in long term cap gain if sold instead of donated). I recall they were happy with the results and intended to extend it for a while. In theory, if you were good at picking art that would appreciate quickly, you could effectively make money on dontating art at atime when its writeoff value exceeded your purchase price. I’m not sure of the status of donation rules now.

Yeah, that does seem a bit questionable. I imagine a lot of that probably goes on in the world of all sorts of collectibles though.

Steve’s comment about Garry (“He didn’t even aim the camera. He just picked a likely focus on his Leica and fired away without looking.”) is very different from what I observed when I studied with him in 1976, and surprising. He always looked through the viewfinder, even if it was just for a split second. Sometimes it looked like he wasn’t looking but I watched him very carefully! I had several conversations about this with him and he insisted emphasized the importance of framing carefully.

Finally, I couldn’t agree with Ulrich more: Let’s see the pictures!

Steve, this is interesting. I’ve never heard this before. I’m curious how that would work though. Let’s say someone bought a series of photographs from Winogrand for $10,000. And then he stated they were worth $100,000. Why would this result in a tax deduction? This would seem like a capital gain if anything.

Or are you saying the rich person wold then turn around and donate the images to a museum for the inflated value realizing a tax deduction larger than they’d paid for the images?

WOW, me too! What is it, people don’t know of any other street photographers? It’s the same as all the references to Adams and Weston. Boooring.

>>Actually, I think there’s little change at all over the years.

And I agree with this too. I’ve shot on the street for over 40 years. I have a problem about once a year, and it usually turns out to be someone with a variety of problems. If you’re out there and you seem to belong there, people don’t care. If you act like you just came in from the superior planet, it’s not going to work.

>>I’m not that comfortable on the street yet

It’s my fervent belief that you have to be comfortable on the street without a camera before you can be with a camera. Walk around for a few months, chat with people, hang on the street where other people are. Once you get the rhythm and the vibe, you can come back with the camera. People won’t even notice if you’ve really become a part of it.

Unfortunately, a few bad apples spoil the barrel. People like the guy who video taped Erin Andrews get negative headlines, so do misbehaving paparazzi and I think this sticks in the minds of most people.