Prolouge: By no means do I call myself a “street photographer” in the vein of countless others who have sites far more popular than mine.
Nevertheless, one question I get from my friends and “followers” is whether I’ve actually been confronted when taking photographs on the street.
I often tell them that (a) I know my environment and (b) I know who to shoot. I find this to be essential when taking pictures of strangers who are in the midst of their daily activities. I don’t believe that “street” shooting should be compared to going on a safari. Instead, I find the ultimate goal should be to illuminate the mundane and express its hidden beauty – without surprise, scripting, or being intrusive.
To that extent, my experience this past Friday was a lesson in how people don’t understand the nature of street photography and how this misunderstanding can lead to a volatile moment.
Time and Setting: Late afternoon, perfect sunlight and shadows
The Scene: Jersey City, New Jersey. Off Bergen Avenue. McGinley Square Area.
The Actors: Me (as photography), two adult men, and three children
(Cue: “Bewitched”-esque opening sequence music)
Action.
Because I knew the shot would involved children, I automatically asked the permission of the two adults. Both gave their enthusiastic approval. Perfect. And the I proceeded to take approximately 20-40 shots of them enjoying the early Fall afternoon. Laughter was the order of the day with the children hamming it up for my Canon PowerShot SD780.
(Cue: The Angry Woman exiting the salon next door and threatening music.)
“The hell you’re doing taking my daughter’s picture?!”
From there insued a heated five minute discussion where I explained to her that I had no idea it was her daughter and that the store owner gave me permission to photograph the children. Little did I know that the children were only his daughter’s friend, not his children.
Fortuantely, the store own “protected” me – as best he could.
“Don’t you know you need the mother’s permission?!”
Again, I explained that it wasn’t apparent that this child was without a parent. I had permission from the apparent adult in charge.
(Cue: The On-Lookers who only hear the word “children” and “pictures” along with the soundtrack of confusion, like The Bomb Squad production or something from EPMD)
“What kind of pedophile are you?”
“Don’t you know the law that you need permission to take a picture of a private citizen?”
To the first, I responded that I had permission. And she promptly left.
To the second, I reminded the “Street Lawyer” that I can take pictures of anyone in public provided I’m not selling their likeness for profit.
“Oh, and so you’re a lawyer?”
I pulled out my business card. Checkmate. He leaves.
Still, the problem remained with the mother. As much as I tried to cool her down, she had this impression that I was doing something nefarious. Even the store manager said, “He’s a good man. I saw his site. He takes good pictures. Very respectful.”
“Well, he wasn’t respectful enough to ask me! Get rid of the pictures!”
And she proceeded to stand behind me while I erased twenty-five pictures. Photographs that were some of the best I’ve taken in a long time.
“Sorry,” stated the store owner as he tried his best to understand my position.
Epilouge: The lesson is that no matter how earnest photographers may be, there is always a person on the other side of the lens who may not “get it”. And when they refuse to understand, it places not only the shooter in a precarious situation, but has the chance to place all urban photographers in a bad light. Fortunately, for me, it didn’t get violent, but it did get a hairy for a moment.
There has been a lot of debate on a popular street photography site as to whether is it wrong to snap a picture without permission. To that, I say, like a typical attorney, “Well, it depends…”
And the ultimate variable deals with children and their parents.
(Cue curtains and “One to Grown On” chimes.)
