I have always thought people had the right to be left alone if they want, but the idea that someone taking a picture of you in a public place is an invasion of privacy makes no sense. Imagine all the class action lawsuits from people attending sporting events.

One thing that perhaps might make this particular photo a bit different is that the woman is a performer. Presumably, she knows people will be taking photos of her. All tourists take photos of street performers. Now, if she was sitting on a bench minding her own business, it makes it a harder issue.

"Imagine all the class action lawsuits from people attending sporting events." Actually things change completely at sporting events. For one thing it's no longer public since the venue is privately owned (let's not split hairs about public funding for stadiums - it's considered a private venue) and under the control of some organization that spends most of it's time worrying about copyright and branding issues. Traditionally they won't stop you from bringing in your camera. But that's *your* camera. If I try bringing in my camera with the lens I used for the park picture there is zero chance they'd let me in. Really. The difference is that your pictures are assumed to be for purely personal use and mine are assumed to be for publication. So far so good. But if you take you game pictures and put them on your website, them suddenly (and legally this is still a grey area) you are also publishing and need to be held to the same standards the stadium would hold a magazine to. In other words - You could get sued for it.

"One thing that perhaps might make this particular photo a bit different is that the woman is a performer." Hmmmmmm....... That gets me thinking....... Keep in mind that you're a lawyer and I'm just a yahoo, so can you please not get mad at me this time for telling you your business. Since she's a performer she may be able to claim copyright protection. For example - I've taken pictures of dancers and posted them here. On the license detail for those pictures I always (or should always at least) point out that these pictures aren't public domain because they contain material copyrighted by someone else. The law is clear that a choreographed performance (even a public performance) can claim copyright protection. I didn't put this particular picture in the public domain, but that was just me being generous. It could be that this picture contains copyrighted material and I have no right to put it in the public domain. And if a website is legally considered a publication (I tend to think it's not) I could be in serious violation of the law. Isn't that fun? To have a website where I share my pictures with family and friends I'm going to have to retain a lawyer to help me avoid litigation.

I know photo addicts like to take pics of the moment, but photos of people maybe theft ! Some of the most famous photos of the 20th cent. are of dead, or dying people. The moment is captured. The horror is considered art. The photographer is considered great. What has humanity gained ? Balance beauty with theft, and the moral questions may absolve the trespasser.

"...if a website is legally considered a publication (I tend to think it's not) I could be in serious violation of the law." I think that is a big part of the debate. Is a website a publication or is it a "personal journal" that just happens to be publically accessible. What makes a site a publication? A subscription? Publically promoting it? I have never considered my site, or any blog type website, a publication. I have never promoted it and I dont require a subscription. I dont even require registration. If a site is like CNN, MSNBC or Salon I can understand the problem with posting pictures like that one. They are making a profit from the photo of another person without their consent. I feel I should be allowed to post a photo of someone at a park on my personal website without their consent, but I cant use it commercially.

"Balance beauty with theft, and the moral questions may absolve the trespasser." Good point. I tend to do an end-run around that point by rejecting the idea that (copyright considerations aside) taking a person's picture while on a public sidewalk could be theft. I'm not "taking" anything that they haven't already given freely. Beyond that I would argue that humanity has gained immensely from the sorts of pictures you're describing here. I'll leave it to the journalism and art history majors to handle that debate. It's just my opinion. "I have never considered my site, or any blog type website, a publication." You may not have a choice about that. I think journalists will want you to be held to the same laws that restrict what they can do. You *do* have a daily editorial column which distributed to anyone in the world with an Internet connection. And copyright holders already take severe action against delusion on "personal" websites. Fan sites have been under heavy attack for years. "They are making a profit from the photo of another person without their consent." Not necessarily. I think the law makes a distinction between commercial use and publication. Using a picture to illustrate a story is legally different than printing the same picture as a poster and selling it at Wall-Mart. The newspaper may, or may not, need a model release to print that park picture. Someone who publishes it as a poster absolutely needs one.

Ok, were I in professor mode I might actually have an intelligent answer for this - but I'm still on summer break so I'll just be irresponcible. Never ask first. Asking lets them know you're photographing them and they will always be in some way aware of the camera - people get all stiff. Ask afterwards. But since you're not broadcasting it or putting it in a print publication you can always say that this is the equivalent of a photo album seen by friends. And it's all nebulous enough to get away with for now, though who knows how things may change in the coming years - I'm sure it'll be more of an issue. And I know editorial sections in newspapers are treated differently in terms of content than the other "straight news" sections. Much can be debated and theorized here. I can come back and give my "consent form" lecture - but I think Skarlet's is probably more fun. But we're missing a key and crucial point. Which is - where are the cave photos???? Hmmmm? I'm looooking, I don't seeee any...

Keep in mind that you're a lawyer and I'm just a yahoo, so can you please not get mad at me this time for telling you your business. What do you mean this time?? I rather like the thought of Jon the Yahoo.

" I rather like the thought of Jon the Yahoo." As an interesting aside here - One of the most frequent objections I hear to this type street photography is, "How would you like it if people did embarrassing things to your picture and then splashed it up on the Internet without asking?" Oh..... Yes...... That would be just awful. I don't think I could live with the shame.

"I think journalists will want you to be held to the same laws that restrict what they can do." And I think that is wrong. There needs to be a better distinction between personal and publication. I do not consider my site anything more than a scrapbook or journal. I see very little difference between my website and putting together a bound hard cover scrapbook and leaving it on my desk at work letting whomever wants to look at it look at it. Either way they are publically available. If I turn around and publish my journal and make a profit, then we would have some legal issues.

*wink*

"There needs to be a better distinction between personal and publication." Personally, I agree that my site isn't a "publication" in the legal sense. But having spent some time researching (IANAL) the issue it's becoming clear that the courts think it is. They aren't subtle about this. In the eyes of the law your website is a publication. This is very scary. I strongly suggest that you support the EFF (as I do). I think I'll go send them some money right now.

"Hmmmm? I'm looooking, I don't seeee any..." Hmmmm...... What's that??? [blink blink]

Jesus. I really think this discussion makes people with OCD (like myself) seem sane. Jon, you took a picture of a violinist performing at Balboa Park. If she happens to not be flattered by the beautiful picture of her performance, then she'll shoot you over an email to the effect of a lawyer's cease and desist order. If you refused to take the picture down (like that would happen), then she *might* go get legal representation and they would send you a much more formal cease and desist letter. If you refused to remove the picture yet again, then you might have something to worry about. In other words, you would not get your ass sued right off the bat for damages. Thankfully, this fear didn't stop you from posting the picture, which I think is great. Along the same lines, I'm also thankful that Dumas and Carpeaux didn't fear the legal retribution of the Princes of Mongolia when they published the photos of the infamous death of Fou-Tchou-Li by Leng Tch'e (literally "cutting into pieces" or "death by a thousand cuts"), or else there wouldn't have such intriguing imagery to conceptualize. (And this goes for every photo of an unsuspecting human subject ever published, obviously.)

"I do not consider my site anything more than a scrapbook or journal." I want to elaborate on this a bit more because I am deeply bothered by the direction I see things going. The fact that you (and I) don't think our websites are publications doesn't matter much. Copyright law makes little rational sense. Laws relating to journalism are hard to understand. And I've read several legal texts which say "fair use" can only be determined on a case by case basis. Fan sites are routinely sued out of existence by copyright holders. Personal journals have already gotten threatening cease and desist orders for posting computer code, posting pictures, and even linking. This isn't a hypothetical, it's actually happening. Personal websites are under attack. The fact that it makes no logical sense is not a consideration. And who is your advocate? Who will be protecting your interests and personal liberties? Your elected officials? Obviously not. Congress thinks the DMCA is the greatest thing since sliced bread. And they're currently trying as hard as they can to outlaw digital fair use. Groups like EFF are the only ones actually working to protect you. Please support them and take this threat seriously. Once the laws are enacted it will be too late. Are you going to hire a lawyer to try and get the law throw out? Or will you roll over like the fans sites did and just shut down? EFF is fighting for you. Learn the issues and help them out.

"In other words, you would not get your ass sued right off the bat for damages." This is true. And of course I'd take the picture down immediately if asked. But the issue I was originally worried about was the ethical question. I seem to have made up my mind, but it's nice to hear what others think. I'm actually on very solid legal ground here. I would laugh at a threat to sue. I wouldn't even need a lawyer to beat that one. The law specifically states people in parks have zero expectation of privacy. Even if she's traumatized by the photo, that's just tough from a legal perspective. And a performance isn't copyrightable until it's "rendered in tangible form". The music she's playing might be copyrighted, but that's her problem.

"EFF is fighting for you. Learn the issues and help them out." I have been supporting them for quite some time now.

"I have been supporting them for quite some time now." Yep yep. It may have been your site that turned me on to them actually (or scarlet's, I can't remember). I didn't mean to imply anything. Just speaking to the general audience. Love yer site. Keep rockin' in the free world.

"Or will you roll over like the fans sites did and just shut down? " I resent this. It isn't "rolling over" when you have the best intellectual property firm in the country breathing down your neck and trying to undermine your position at work all because you have a website devoted to the joy of Q-tips. I've walked that road Jon, in 1997 when it was quite cutting edge stuff. It would have been marvelously wonderful for me both as a publisher of web content and an attorney to have taken on Chesebrough-Ponds on what was then a very novel issue of law. Fact is, it reached a point that it was consuming my entire life and there was no way in hell I could continue -- particularly with very little support from what community there was on the web (other than a passing reference at Prehensile Tales, no one really gave a shit). I don't call that rolling over, I call it being practical.

"I don't call that rolling over, I call it being practical. " You sat tomato. I say tomoto. The fact that it was highly stressful, and perhaps traumatizing, to the site owners who had to delete their labor of love doesn't change the fact the in the end they gave in without a serious legal fight. Of course it was being practical. That's my point. We need a more powerful advocate who can take on Chesebrough-Ponds so that our default course isn't to cave in.

"I didn't mean to imply anything. " I didnt mean to imply that you implied that I implied.... err... whatever. The EFF is one of the few organizations that I do support financially. It's difficult to get myself to support an organization until I have followed what they have done for quite some time. "...it reached a point that it was consuming my entire life and there was no way in hell I could continue " It's sad that people are forced to "give in" because of mob like strongarm tactics. They either run you out of money or they flood you with paper so that you cant take it anymore. BTW, I have never purchased Q-Tip branded ear cleaning thingy's since I heard about that whole fiasco.

"We need a more powerful advocate who can take on Chesebrough-Ponds so that our default course isn't to cave in." "And of course I'd take the picture down immediately if asked. " What's the difference? Because the photo is of an individual who may or may not have copyrights, you'd "cave in" immediately, and that would be OK? Look, I was an inch from being sued by them and the only reason I backed down was when they threatened to contact partners where I worked to strong arm me, and potentially cost me my job and/or the hope of ever being employed at a NYC law firm again. A little overly dramatic perhaps, but that's what I was facing. What will you do when the Coke folks come knocking at your virtual door? "BTW, I have never purchased Q-Tip branded ear cleaning thingy's since I heard about that whole fiasco." Thank you! Nor have I. Not that it makes a whole lot of difference to them.

What's the difference? Coercion vs. courtesy, perhaps?

"What's the difference? [...] you'd "cave in" immediately, and that would be OK?" The difference is that I think people should have the right to ask for that sort of thing on my website. So I explicitly give them that right. "Look, I was an inch from being sued by them and the only reason......" Look, I'm not saying you shouldn't have taken the material down. I suspect you fought them longer than I would have. My point is that you had little recourse. The system was stacked in the favor of the corporation, allowing them to steam roll you. My point is that we need to support groups who are trying to head off future injustices of this type. And of course I know I'm being baited here. Just playing along. "What will you do when the Coke folks come knocking at your virtual door?" Until we have a more powerful lobby that can make legislators understand that free speech and fair use are more important to our nation than corporate branding, we as webloggers will be under the constant threat of being fired for things we say on our blog.

"Until we have a more powerful lobby that can make legislators understand that free speech and fair use are more important to our nation than corporate branding, we as webloggers will be under the constant threat of being fired for things we say on our blog." -- amen. and the DMCA isn't just the tool of corporate branding and greed. it's also really useful to those who wish, as individuals, to harass other individuals, by writing their hosting provider (without bothering to try and contact the individual first, to ask the content be removed). the way the damn law's written, any claim, no matter how spurious, must be dealt with by (a) removing the content first and (b) asking questions later. the claim can be patently false or occupy a legal gray area (content being posted on a message board and being met with unanimous ridicule, person who posted content gets board shut down, etc etc). you flash the DMCA at an ISP or hosting provider, they cave in. they pretty much have to. huge free speech issues at hand here. huge. which is (one of the many reasons) why skarlet and batty and i stayed up till we were mostly insane last weekend, to support the folks at the EFF.

Going back to the photo of the street performer and the ethics of placing it on the web, I'd agree that one tacitly recognizes that he/she is fair game for public viewing in any venue by doing so(suppose a local TV station with videocam wandered by looking for stock footage of Sunday in Balboa Park?). But what if it were a photo of a staff member of the San Diego Zoo feeding the penguins? There, he/she is just performing his job; does he/she or his employer have an argument that it shouldn't be placed on the web? Or a UPS delivery person, or a pizza delivery person? Or, or, or...

"But what if it were a photo of a staff member of the San Diego Zoo feeding the penguins?" I wouldn't have clear ownership of that photo. That's confusing, but it has to be, because of the "fair use" grey area. Clearly I can have the picture for private use. But I wouldn't be able to publish the photo without the zoo's permission. So if my website isn't a publication in the legal sense (I contend it's not) I can post the picture. But I couldn't make it public domain since I don't have clear ownership to start with. "does his employer have an argument that it shouldn't be placed on the web?" Can we just pretend that question does not exist and we never said it? Good. Thank you. "Or a UPS delivery person, or a pizza delivery person?" If the company logo, uniform, or other copyrighted items appear in the photo I wouldn't be able to claim copyright ownership.

why don't you all go take an ativan, a nap, or a soothing walk on the beach! seems to me alot of time wasted on Fear of the Unknown....take it a little easier, your'e going to wear yourself out!

Oh, joy. Has John's "don't worry, be happy" pen-pal joined us on the site?

yah, Brennan, I think Jon could use some TLC, and yes, "don't worry , be happy" isn't a bad idea for any of us....

"why don't you all go take an ativan, a nap, or a soothing walk on the beach! seems to me alot of time wasted on Fear of the Unknown....take it a little easier, your'e going to wear yourself out" I completely disagree. Things change because of open debate. I think Jon clearly posted this to his website to start a debate of sorts. Its not like a tangent on a completely different topic than the original post.

i don't see any benefit in basking in the bliss of ignorance. this is an important issue. and speaking of the important issue, here's one of the wonderfully informative links skarlet shared during the blogathon: chilling effects clearinghouse

"seems to me alot of time wasted on Fear of the Unknown" Again with the baiting....... What the hell is it today? As has been expressed from several perspectives, these are things that are currently happening. And I, at least, have no trouble understanding why webloggers would be very concerned. In addition, perhaps you've failed to notice that lots of people seem very interested in discussing the topic. That's what we do here. We discuss things. This obviously is in contrast to your world where people hide there heads in the sand, accept whatever comes along, and generally make every effort to never rock the boat. So we're debating issues that concern us, but you're free to label us all reactionary alarmists. But if you do, don't be surprised if we point out how silly you are. And welcome to the party little camper. Maybe you can join us after your nap. If your sedatives have worn off by then.

"lots of people seem very interested in discussing the topic" Hear, hear. Intellectually and philosophically interesting, with (perhaps) direct implications for all of us who put up (note deliberate avoidance of the word "publish") content. And dammit, I'm a revolutionary alarmist, not a reactionary one.

Its not like a tangent on a completely different topic than the original post. And what's wrong with tangents??? ;) Tangents are fun. Like me hurling Mr. Potato Head so hard that he lands on Jon's desk and slaps him upside the head.

Faith, two things. First, is the hurling of Mr. Potato Head a declaration of intent? Second, regarding my question about an employer's rights up there that Jon would have us forget, whaddya think?

First, is the hurling of Mr. Potato Head a declaration of intent? Yes, Mr. Potato Head has the hots for Jon. Second, regarding my question about an employer's rights up there that Jon would have us forget, whaddya think? Unlike other people here (ahem) I try not to opine on matters with which I am not familiar. That said, I suppose I have to wonder about this now, given that during blogathon I posted pictures of 3 delivery boys and three employees of this building. Of the delivery boys, only one was wearing a uniform with the employer's logo -- D'Agostino's supermarket. So the D'Ag guy comes in unform with D'Ag bags (yes, that's what they call them) of groceries. I don't see any argument to say I can't take a photo of the grocery bags which have the same logo on them as the delivery guy's shirt. I'm not sure, from a perspective of an employer's right to this stuff, that it makes a difference that the logo was on his shirt rather than on a bag. Getting to one of Jon's points though, he was in my apartment, not on the employer's premises. I can see how that might change one's line of thinking on the subject. I do think there's a distinction to be made between the Zoo in Jon's example, where there are policies about picture taking (or so he says) and where the employer has an interest in making people go to the place to see the sights, and arguably their business is harmed if people look at pictures instead of visiting. If I walk into the supermarket and take a picture of the cashier, I don't see what harm the employer suffers by it. Now stop poking me!

Grins...I admit I had your blogathon photos peripherally in mind when I wrote the original post about the San Diego zookeeper.

"Hmmmm...... What's that??? [blink blink]" The CAVES! As cited in yesterday's post: "But I was off to see the fabled Keshcorran caves." and in the comments "For the Keshcorran caves I have by far the best photos I've seen on-line. One of the pictures I printed and brought to the office made everyone say, "Wow"." There are indeed no decent photos of these things online. Or that I was able to find. And today - no cave photos. Jon is being a tease. I am shocked to my very core. Or his dad was right and Jon has been showing us photos out of Irish, and California calenders. "Copyright law makes little rational sense. Laws relating to journalism are hard to understand. And I've read several legal texts which say "fair use" can only be determined on a case by case basis." Yes, there is much in there that's murky. That's why it's such fun! And much of the fun can be blamed on the new technology that makes everyone scurry to redefine the law, to figure out what applies to the new media. I'm always in a state of trying to learn and sift through the chaos of differing viewpoints. When I have to actually teach the stuff it comes down to "how do you, the photographer/videographer cover your ass." Thankfully they don't have me teaching media law yet, so I get to deal with real world "we need to get this image by 5pm" kinda stuff. Here's a fun example that actually I should use in class. A documentary video on the radio industry was shown to a class last fall - one that I didn't teach. And suddenly everyone says ""there's prof. batgrl" - and yes, there I was in a generic crowd shot, walking along the sidewalk to get to a communication conference. They'd zoomed in to a pretty close medium shot and everyone else is walking away from the camera, mine is the only face on camera. It's a matter of seconds, but long enough so you can recognize me. (and have a good laugh) Now, what can I do about this? Nothing really - I was a part of a crowd in a public place. It's an educational video (they do charge a chunk of money for them though). I'm not in an embarrassing situation, the narrator is not singling me out to mock me, nothing is being sold by using my image. It's your basic cutaway "we have nothing else to show, so use the video of random people" type of shot. This is just fine. However, if I had been the producer, I would have had the editor use a wider shot, including more people, just in case. Because no one told me I was being filmed, and I didn't sign a release form. And it's always bettter to cover your butt if you're using images for something serious that you plan on selling. Sorry, I just realized that this isn't exactly on topic, but it's where my brain wandered... "But what if it were a photo of a staff member of the San Diego Zoo feeding the penguins?" Next on Zoo Police: jonsullivan.com busted in Peruvian Grey Bear photo sting "seems to me alot of time wasted on Fear of the Unknown....take it a little easier, your'e going to wear yourself out!" Seems to me some people have no concept of fun. Or the definition of an interesting discussion. And Faith, I have a confession - I buy Q-tips! I'm sorry! I can't help myself! But I feel very evil for having done so and I'm very remorseful! Also - can Mr. Potato Head get workers comp for that?

I have more to say about this than I will. I'll just say the following: A) Jon, you aren't saving the world of ideas here. You're talking about a photo you took. Try and get some perspective. Furthermore, in ignoring the idea that you might have a responsibility to inform a child's parents that you are taking her picture with the intention to post it to a website, you may well be on sound legal ground, but it is both immoral and unethical of you to do so. You should have asked, whether or not you were forced to do so. B) I have been wondering for a while if you're really interested in any sort of actual discussion. Lately, it seems to me that you're more interested in proclaiming yourself right in every discussion and attacking people who disagree with you. Furthermore, your disingenuous attempt to shield yourself by arguing that just because you post something to a public forum it need not be discussed is moral cowardice. If you don't want to talk about it, just don't answer the email. It's borderline malicious to spread it out all over your webpage like you do and then act as if you are somehow aggreived because someone read your page and sent you an email. People have received emails threatening their lives, insulting their supposed racial heritage, and so on...the fact that someone sent you one saying that you have talent as a writer but are a bit depressive is not the huge scandal you seem to think it is. Believe it or not, people are allowed to have opinions about things they read. If those things are such personal statements that they must not be questioned, please keep them to yourself. I once respected you. You seemed willing to exchange ideas. Now, however, I get the sensation that you seek mainly to humiliate and degrade people, and that you deliberately create situations where they will extend themselves so that you may. Furthermore, I don't see any effort on your part to explain your viewpoints...merely to insult anyone who you don't agree with. I refuse to applaud this. I debated emailing you with my concerns, but since you would probably post them to your front page complete with sarcastic commentary, I figured I might as well comment here and let you attack me in one easy step. Go ahead and insult my intelligence and grip on reality now, since this is your typical mode of debate.

"Go ahead and insult my intelligence and grip on reality now" Actually, in essence, I agree with everything you said. We could quibble over the details, but I think you have it down accurately.

Sheesh. Here I was thinking about how much I miss Jon, and then I read Ezrael's post. Jon, I don't care what the detractors say, because I know you and I know how great it is to work with you. I think that maybe some folks don't appreciate you because it's hard to be around someone who truly does love his life if one doesn't feel the same about one's own existence. You're amazingly engaging to talk to, you're quite a smart guy, and you've a wonderful eye. Plus, you make me laugh until I vomit, and this is a very good thing. Miss ya, Aaron.

"I don't care what the detractors say" Personally I respect Ezrael's opinion 100%. Others will draw their own conclusions. "Plus, you make me laugh until I vomit" You didn't vomit. You almost choked to death. Totally different. And thanks.

"I have been wondering for a while if you're really interested in any sort of actual discussion." Well, then I'll answer that directly. 1) Yes, I'm always interested in hearing the opinions of others. Especially if it comes from people I already have respect for. And most of the people who post here (especially including Ezrael) have my undying respect. 2) That's just the way I discuss things. I appreciate that most people find it annoying and/or offensive. I really don't do it on purpose, it just comes out of my brain like that. Sometimes people call me on it, and I always feel bad. But of course I never change do I? 3) I'm just one voice here. It may seem like I'm trying to dominate the discussion, but I'm really not. People disagree with me all the time and things continue. Lot's of people are talking. I hope I'm not the only one enjoying it. 4) This website isn't for everyone. I make little effort to moderate my behavior. I suppose to me it's more an extension of my personal space than it is a comfortable environment for debate.

I just vomited. I think I was thinking of you just before it happened. When you were a child I always wondered what weapon you would use in later life. Your sharp pointed site brings pin-pricks of blood to the very serious. The pussycat may have very sharp claws, but Jon can't fool old dad. Peace comes in many a guise.

See, I'm not offended, exactly. I would be, though, if I sent you an email and you shit all over it on your webpage. Especially considering how amazingly mild that email was. Sure, you're a good person to talk to. I had fun at Santa Monica. But that doesn't require me to fall to my knees (and I know you didn't say that it does) every time you decide to verbally cut someone at the knees for no real reason. Yes, it's your page. But that doesn't mean I need to clap when you decide you're feeling cranky and want to shred someone. Especially bothersome to me is this tendency I've seen on several websites, not just yours, of posting someone's email and deriding it. Yes, once it's sent to you, you can do that. Nothing can stop you. You can also send spam email urging people to get their penises enlarged, if you so choose. Remember a few months ago, when you decried that and I defended it? There's no law preventing you from behaving in a manner that's at the least lacking in class and maturity, simply the expectation that as an adult you won't. It's an extension of the whole issue of taking pictures of strangers in public places. You can do it. They don't legally have a way to stop you. That doesn't imply a moral or ethical justification.

And now to the quibbles. "arguing that just because you post something to a public forum it need not be discussed is moral cowardice" It wasn't the discussion that set me off. It was her telling me how to fix my life after reading a five year old rant I wrote right after my wife left me. I'm happy to discuss it. I just expect people to pay more attention if they're going to offer life advice. It was the laziness that bothered me, not the discussion. A minor quibble, I admit. And I'm not sure how it's cowardice when I post her response unedited, and suggest that if she cares enough to give advice she spend time on the homepage rather than on something which is old news. She didn't slink away in humiliation, she continued to email me. I think we came to an understanding of sorts. "you seek mainly to humiliate and degrade people, and that you deliberately create situations where they will extend themselves so that you may." I don't see that. A couple people suggested that if this really bugged me that much I should add something to head off misunderstandings. So I did. I frequently make things up, but it's certainly not to degrade people. When I tear into people I tend to be particularly vicious about it. I realize many people will despise me for it. I've tried to change. But that never seems to work. "since this is your typical mode of debate." I would say, "frequent" rather than "typical". Again, a minor quibble.

Ezrael On the morality of pointing a camera at someones face, I agree. That was my point back at the start. The feeling that the photographer has this right is immoral. Not good to think that all people are nothing more than a subject.

Ezrael, as an aside, I would like to point out that at times Jon needs others to tell him when he's going too far. It was my belief that he did so with the paleo-lady. I pointed it out, and the behavior changed. When Jon says he respects your view, trust me when I tell you that what he asks in return is your aid in making that view active in his life. I think you did that today, and I offer you great kudos. I could say a great deal more about this topic, (friendship seems all the battle and the rave in certain online circles lately), but I'll save it for a more opportune time. Dad, I have to disagree. Relation is built on presentation intent, and thereby completely subjective. Dealing with others as object (for ridicule, censure, self-pleasure, what have you) is morally questionable. But dealing with another human as an object of interest or beauty suggests that subjective relationship of artist to canvas. The artist has no more or less right than the person watching. It's "impolite" (immoral) to stare. But is it thereby immoral to capture what one has in one's vision? Cameras just make it easy to do so. I argue that there was nothing immoral in Jon having taken that picture. If he chooses to share that with us, then what he's sharing isn't the object of a person, but his intent behind the image. I find that picture to be beautific, as I think the presenter did as well. I don't find any immoral intent, and hence I don't agree that the photographer's right to present contains anything immoral. The legality is another matter entirely.

I was just cutting the boxes open on a new purchase when it occurred to me that since I did photoshop several pictures of you last week, I am on weird ground here. However, I will point out that you yourself have repeatedly posted that you don't hold any rights to the use of those pictures, and then move on. It wasn't the discussion that set me off. It was her telling me how to fix my life after reading a five year old rant I wrote right after my wife left me. I'm happy to discuss it. I just expect people to pay more attention if they're going to offer life advice. It was the laziness that bothered me, not the discussion. You. Left. It. There. Sure, it's five years old. Did you change it in all that time? Seems fair to me to assume that if you left it up, it's still current. I realize you have hundreds of pages on this site...but all you had to do was say "Hey, that's my old about page, it's out of date" in response. Again, yes, you have the legal right to post her email here. Legal and moral are not the same thing, and using her email to lighten the ennui of your day or amuse your readership is, quite frankly, stultifying. It makes me never want to email you again, since you can't be trusted not to share my email with the whole world. If she'd wanted the people who read your site to know what she thought, she had the ability to let them know. She chose not to take it. You chose to make it public anyway. I have a couple of emails you sent me last year...should I put them up on my website? No, because they were sent to me as emails. I have the right to do so, I just choose not to. This is what's really bothering me, and it doesn't just bother me when you do it. It bothers me a lot. I get emails from assholes who tell me I'm a race traitor or taking part in government conspiracies...I had one guy send me an email and then post in my comments that I was a FILTHY HEBE, and I responded to the comment, but left the email alone. I realize that's simply a choice I made, but I'm not going to sit back and tell you how great I think it is that you took private correspondence (even unsolicted same) and made an entry out of it. Again, there's no legal reason you shouldn't. She shouldn't be emailing people and offering advice. But you're the one who made it an issue. What she said and how you publicly responded to it are two seperate issues. Jon, you can do what you like. Insult who you like. Attack who you like. I neither want nor need to stop you. But again, I won't applaud, either. We can dicker all day about the specifics, but you've already said you won't change on this, and I've already said that I don't agree. What else is there? You left the rant up. All you had to do was ignore her, or if that was impossible, post a sentence. "My about page is five years out of date, don't assume it is still valid." You chose not to. When people take email intended as a private exchange of ideas and use it as rhetorical ammo, I find it as sickening as when Alexander Hamilton's letters were used to crush his political career. If you wouldn't want it done to you, you shouldn't do it...and you shouldn't support it when someone else does it.

Wulfgar - you were not there when I started writing that last comment, I swear. I would have commented on what you said if I'd seen it. Let's just say I don't disagree with the first part (although I do think Jon's an adult, and capable of thinking these things through for himself without making me get my ancient ass all up in a stir) although I'm closer to dad' s position than yours on the issue of taking pictures of strangers. I know I'm not in step with the majority on it, but I find the erosion of our expectation of privacy pretty damned alarming, be it in our daily lives in public or our correspondence.

"But that doesn't mean I need to clap when you decide you're feeling cranky and want to shred someone." I wasn't expecting applause. I was expecting that people would roll their eyes and wonder at what an ass I am. I frequently do things here with the full understanding that maybe I shouldn't. (let me take a time out and say that I'm not claiming any moral or artistic high ground here - this is just honestly how I approach things) As a Discordian I frequently do things just to annoy people. I frequently do things I shouldn't, and frequently just *because* I shouldn't. So years ago when Matt L. got sued by Mattel over his ownership of the domain "mattl.com", I *immediately* went to Network Solutions and purchased "mattl.org". When Reuters (I think it was Reuters) sued somebody over posting an animation that used photos originating on it's news wire, I *immediately* mirrored the piece here (still one of the most viewed pages ever). When I found out that the courts had outlawed a snippet of code called DeCSS...... You get the idea. And when I spent a long time wondering about the ethicality of posting pictures like the park pic, I went out and got a potentially unethical picture to post on my homepage. While this may fall into your "trolling for humiliation" accusation, I see it more as putting an important issue in people's faces. I still go back and forth on the issue. When I took the picture I felt like it was unethical. By the time I posted it I'd decided it wasn't. And now, reading what people have to say, I'm back to thinking it is. When I posted my bitchy response to a private email I knew I shouldn't. But posting private emails, poking into a blogger's private life, and bitchiness in general are hot topics in Blogland right now. So I asked myself, "Do I really want to throw gas on the fire?", and I responded, "Why yes. I do." And I guess I did.

Dealing with others as object (for ridicule, censure, self-pleasure, what have you) is morally questionable. Ooops, I'm in big trouble. The photoshopping Jon Sullivan for ridicule is a bad thing. Bad Faith. Bad.

Ezrael, i'd have to disagree, at least in part, with the criticism of the email-posting. Jon has not, in the time i've read him, posted the mail of a friend or confidant in this space. he has posted emails from complete strangers that wrote without doing a whole lot of looking around, and who came off as judgemental. it's fairly widely acceptable, netiquette-wise, to post one's hate mail. that last did not qualify as hate mail but it was a complete stranger taking one page out of context and using it as the basis for preaching in a condescending way. it may not be the most polite thing to do this. but when you email a perfect stranger about one page of his site, it's a completely different situation than emailing a friend. so i'd disagree with stating that now you are concerned about emails you sent Jon, because there are really no similarities between the two types of correspondence.

"Dealing with others as object (for ridicule, censure, self-pleasure, what have you) is morally questionable. Ooops, I'm in big trouble. The photoshopping Jon Sullivan for ridicule is a bad thing. Bad Faith. Bad". Questionable, Faith. Not evil. My suggestion ... Try harder for pure evil. (Your pics so rock!)

"Jon has not, in the time i've read him, posted the mail of a friend or confidant in this space." This isn't true. I've done it many times over the years. "It makes me never want to email you again, since you can't be trusted not to share my email with the whole world." Okay then. Here are the rules: 1) If I feel like an email was sent to me in confidence I won't share it under any circumstances. 2) I'm frequently too lazy to write a post, so I'll use an interesting email instead. In this case I'll ask. 3) If you are a stranger and send me something witty or stupid, I reserve the right to make fun of it on the homepage. If I do, I'll try to preserve your anonymity. Every time I've used the email of someone I "know" on the homepage I've asked first. (I think)

"Every time I've used the email of someone I "know" on the homepage I've asked first. (I think)" i knew that thing had semantic holes all over the place when i clicked post, but ... well anyway. what i *meant* was -- it's a different situation, emails between friends, and emails of strangers who email total strangers making all sorts of assumptions. also i said 'during the time i've been reading'. which isn't that very long.

"There are indeed no decent photos of these things online." Mine are very nice. In fact the descriptions that I've read don't really seem to match up with what's there. The pictures I have will be like a revelation to people who've wondered what the caves are really like. Not what I was expecting at all.

"Not good to think that all people are nothing more than a subject." Not touching that one. No. Not a chance. La la la..... Jon can not hear you.....

Just for the record I did it here, here, and here.

"Not touching that one. No. Not a chance. La la la..... Jon can not hear you....." I'll be damned. There's a commercial for the local branch of a major insurance company picturing a kid in a car accident trying to ignore the other party to the accident by saying just that, with his hands over his ears. I thought that was purely local. Huh.

"here, here, and here." and two of those are random strangers who surfed in, and one is referred to only vaguely, and used to poke more fun at yourself, than the email-er.

"When Jon says he respects your view, trust me when I tell you that what he asks in return is your aid in making that view active in his life." After some consideration I have to disagree with this. Ezrael and I have some very fundamental differences of opinion about how things are. If you mean that I want us to come to an agreement on those things, then no, I certainly don't want to make his view active in my life. If you mean that I'm interested in his opinion, then certainly, I am.

You've known me how long? The latter, Jon. Sometimes you really do need to have someone say "Hey, asshole, crank it back it a noch". You don't need to agree, but you need the input to keep deciding what's what. That's the point of respecting another opinion, yes? We plow our own road; its just a little harder for some of us to see where the rocks are jutting out, ;-). Come on, Jon, tell me I'm wrong. *giggle*

No no, you're right.

I found myself acting like an ass recently. The strange part for me was that there was no reason for it. I'm talking about online behavior. I've actually been acting like less of an ass in real life. Maybe there is some sort of osmosis thing going on and eventually I will been evenly asinie for all.

I guess I'm going to have to politely disagree with Ez, who I respect greatly on this one. "It's an extension of the whole issue of taking pictures of strangers in public places. You can do it. They don't legally have a way to stop you. That doesn't imply a moral or ethical justification." I don't see that I can learn to take good photos of people without taking many shots to practice. Street performers are usually fair game - tourists are always taking photos of them. If they have a problem with being photographed, in my experience, there are many that are damn loud about letting you know. But as performers they are usually pleased with the attention, though politeness usually requires that you toss a bill into their pot in gratitiude. In London if you tried to take a photo of the punks they will come up and demand some cash for the privilage. I take photos of strangers. I study people. I do it because I consider it practice, and because I enjoy it. I haven't posted or shown my work - I don't consider much of it very good. I send my students out to get generic crowd footage and we discuss when and when not to get release forms. If you're a person amonst many at a street fair, no release form is needed. If a closeup shot is taken of you, I'd prefer that my students get a release form - but if you weren't interviewed and were in the public place eating ice cream and we're doing a story on ice cream, it's not necessary. I encourage my students to do it anyway. Local news usually won't because the majority of people either do not mind being on tv, do not notice that they've been filmed, and/or never see themselves for the few seconds they're on screen. Also, unfortunately, local newsfolk usually aren't paid much, and really only care about getting the shot and getting out of there to have the story edited in time for the newscast because the minutes are ticking away. Not that this is a good thing, it's just the norm. I don't go taking photos that make people look foolish. I've had people I've taken photos of ask for prints (which sucked so I just sent them a nice note) or pose for me. I've had others not notice I was there. The best shots I've taken are the ones that didn't come out well but that the thought pleased me - the man explaining to his daughter the significance of the Woolsworth counter in the Smithsonian - even though the photo sucked I loved the moment. I would have had no problem approaching them afterwards for a consent signiture - because the look on his face showed how important he thought this was to share with his child. I should add that I would have to spend at least 15 minutes talking with them to get this form signed - minimum. That's generally how long it takes to explain 1) why the image was important, 2) my plans for it, 3) and answer questions and generally chitchat with people*. The photo didn't come out. Wish it had. But even if I didn't photograph it - I was next to them in a public place with hundreds of other people all talking about various exhibits. And I shared that moment with that father and his daughter. It's not just about running around and stealing photos in this. I have fun with what I'm doing - but I'm serious, and I take ethics extremely seriously. If I had to ask for consent for all of the photos I've taken I'm actually quite certain the majority of people wouldn't have a problem with it. Sadly I think that this is because I can tell them I'm a mass comm prof, like that means I'm a professional or something. I'm just learning. I need practice. My whole graduate studies has to do with documenting reality on video. People are not my subjects - their stories are the focus of everything I do. I want to transfer their stories and share them on video. I'm extremely ethical about this. But a sideline of mine is trying to take still photos of people, and try and somehow capture a story in that. Personally I find this kind of photography much more difficult than video - you only have one shot to tell that story instead of minutes worth of footage. I'm not very good at it, in my opinion. But I need more practice. If there were any shots that I planned on using in an exhibit or whatever - I would ask and get a release form. But I would approach the person after I had taken the photos and respected their wishes. If you ask beforehand - usally the moment you're wanting to photograph disappears, and people become stiff and awkward. When I interview people for a documentary - that they've agreed to and sign a consent form on (and I always show them the edited cuts so they can ask for changes) - I have to spend at least an hour on each person to get them comfortable with me and the camera. I've wanted to post a series of my photos of people in New Orleans, the majority of which are of people who are street performers, though I have some homeless people in some of them I think. I've not gotten around to scanning them, so it's been on the back burner for awhile. I consider nothing unethical or immoral about any of my photography. The majority of the images are in photo albums (the old fashioned booklike kind), seen only by friends. As to the email thing, I'm gonna have to excuse myself from this instance because my profound bias is making it impossible for me to have sympathy for the anonymous email chick. Besides the fact that I don't know this person. But I've had too many people "for my own good" trying to fix me, without really being privy to my problems, and only wanting to play amateur therapist as a good headgame to amuse themselves. So I can't be fair on this one. *This is a great way to meet people. I have to be in a very social mood to do this, and it's often work for me to walk up to strangers like this. But you can hear a lot of stories. Many people like to share information, and I've met many lovely people doing this. No one has ever been rude to me, even when they've said no.

Yeek. Way too long. Sorry bout that.

I would have to diagree with you batgrl. Jon hasn't given enough information here. Is the girl *actually* a street performing, or is she practicing in the park? Here intent in being there is different. Yes, she's in a public place but she is still, presumably, a minor being photographed without her permission in the park. And while Jon's intent may be to practice with his camera, he posted the picture on the web. Without asking permission. It's very easy, after you take the picture, to ask permission. And with a digital camera that enables you to view the picture there are no excuses not to. As for crowd shots for news or documentaries...it's really pushing the boundaries of ethics to show a close-up of someone without their permission. The example you gave of your own image, for example, I found questionable. People have no expectation of privacy in public, but that does not mean that because they have given up their expectation of privacy they can allow others to take advantage of their presence in public, as it were. Does your legal right, real or perceived, to post someone's image outweigh their right to go out in public without having their image and location placed on the web or in a video? Just because you can doesn't mean you should. You're right. On the news they frequently show b-roll or people milling about behind a reporter doing a stand-up or a subject being interviewed. At least once a day there's someone outside at work doing that. But unless it's a live shot, if you're too close, they ask permission. If you're easily recognizable and not in a crowd, they ask. And all of this is beside the point, I don't think the question here is practicing photography, I think the issue is posting a picture without permission of someone who may well be a minor. Incidentally, when you shoot an interview you get a release to use someone's permission to use their image and words, I'm not sure how that factors in here - but I'm also half awake.

Yes, she was perfoming and soliciting donations. Yes, it would have been easy to ask. But that would have invalidated the exercise. And it would have been easiest to just not put the picture up at all. I took it. I put it up. We all talked about it. Which makes me happy, even if it's made everyone else pissed off.

My news example was a poor one, as it's hard to miss the cameras and pretty obvious you're being filmed unless you're utterly oblivious. And if you notice it too late a small outburst like "Godamn it, why can't I get a cup of coffee without being on TV" with appropriate gestures will ensure that the footage of you is less than optimal.

My father liked to do what tourists did with their cameras. Poke it in their face, take as many pictures that he wanted, give them money if he had some. I was always embarrassed for the Indian, Black, Mexican, or any other that was his subject. He thought he deserved the right. If we think of ourselves as artist we can claim extraordinary rights.

Ok, I'm going on too long here, but I can't blog about some of this, so here I go... "My news example was a poor one, as it's hard to miss the cameras and pretty obvious you're being filmed unless you're utterly oblivious." Not poor, just different and news is a tricky beast. I can't blog about this one - but recently a local news goofy morning show invaded our offices. They had asked for a tour - but did't tell us they were coming in cameras rolling. All the staff/faculty there chickened out for any on camera confrontation and so they forced our receptionist to do the tour. During that tour these assholes broke a tripod in the studio. No one confronted these people about this issue - I was just told that "oh they were very apologetic." I'm still livid about this - and the fact that no one was going to mention to me that this happened. "or is she practicing in the park?" See, depending on how private the area the person is practicing in is how I would gague this. I'm still kicking myself for not getting a photo of the guy who used to practice his violin in a cemetery. I guess my problem with photograpy is that when I shoot people I'm practicing. It's only in recent years that I've thought about doing anything more with my photos. So I have all these shots of people that I don't know and don't know what to do with. But every time I take a photo of people in a crowd - well, the likelihood of my photos being good is always a crap shoot. But I *must* approach them all? Even if the use will only be to post the photo on my wall? Or put it in a album? I understand the ethical issues but I know that all photographers don't do this in every instance that they take photos of people in public places. As for crowd shots for news or documentaries...it's really pushing the boundaries of ethics to show a close-up of someone without their permission. The example you gave of your own image, for example, I found questionable. I agree. But I really don't see any recourse to it, I understand why they did it in the context of the documentary, and while it really freaked me out at first, I'm ok with it now. "Incidentally, when you shoot an interview you get a release to use someone's permission to use their image and words, I'm not sure how that factors in here" I was figuring for the photography I'd just edit out the video related hooha and use the same form. My form has the addition that I will allow people to see the final product before it's broadcast or shown, and discuss with me any editing and its future use. I was discouraged from doing this but I felt it was ethical, and put the people I interviewed at ease. So now, I have to strike up a conversation with total strangers, some of whom may be kinda dangerous (am thinking of some of the guys I took photos of in New Orleans) - and as a chick wandering about taking photos by herself I have to think of stuff like this - and I'm going to get to get their name, address, etc. and then stay in contact with them to let them know if I use their image or not. Even if I just save the photo on my computer or put a print on the wall, or show it in one of the faculty exhibits. I think I'm not going to post any photos of people. Or show them. But I'm going to keep taking them. "Poke it in their face, take as many pictures that he wanted, give them money if he had some. ...He thought he deserved the right. If we think of ourselves as artist we can claim extraordinary rights." I can totally understand the embarrassment of this. I still see tourists doing this. I have a very long zoom lens on my film camera and I tend to sit far away when I do this. Which makes me sound creepy. And I feel wrong about telling people "well, I'm a mass comm professor" - because then it's suddenly ok with them, I'm reputable - but really I'm just another random person taking photos. I could still be a crazy wacko who would do evil things with their image. My problem is, to convince them and really do this release form/consent form properly - I have to spend 30 minutes per person. There is NO quick signing of this form. EVERY time I have done this - with video - I have spent at least that long explaining the form - and then people want to know about me, my work, where I live, my life story. And then, I feel I owe it to them because I take their photo. So I will tell them anything they ask. It's safer just not to show any of my photos. But I'm not going to stop taking them. Maybe in enough time, when I and everyone else is dead, some of my relatives can show them somewhere! Actually I rather like that idea...

I think you're missing my point Batty. Or maybe I'm missing the point of Jon's post. As I understand it, Jon took pictures in the park with the intention of posting them online and knowing full well that after he was done he was going to walk away without asking permission to use the pictures. And as he acknowledges right in the post the thought crossed his mind that she and her parents might not approve. I still think this is significantly different than documentary work. It still resolves back to just because you physically can do something, should you, and my opinion is still no. Jon will do what he wants to do, but he asked for opinions on the ethics of it and there you go. It's basic courtesy if nothing else. You make the effort. If you can't find them again or can't go looking for them then you're in a grey area that's different. But it's all grey and you have to decide based on how you're going to use it. My news example was not about tours or interviews. Your receptionist could have declined that I would think. I'm talking about when you're walking by and they're shooting a story and you happen into the frame. or they're shooting "look how hot it is b-roll." etc not when some producer calls and says "professor skarlet we'd like you to give us a 30 second stand up on the new blahblahblah" and I hide under my desk.

I'm not bothering with what Jon did - I'm focusing on taking photos of strangers in public places, and not whether it's legally ok, but whether it's unethical or immoral to do so. I know what I can do legally, but that's not the issue here. Or for me anyhow. I'm letting everyone else lecture Jon (He Who Proclaims Himself Ass) - I'm more interested in the concepts tossed around, and about my own future actions. I can understand the protectiveness towards images of children because there are a lot of freaks out there - but I'm thinking more in terms of me, sitting in the park, taking a photo of mothers talking animatedly while their children play in the foreground. I'm getting the sense that, even if I didn't post this on the net, it's somehow unethical for me to even take the photo. It's ok to watch them and somehow evesdrop on people if I'm just looking or listening to their conversation, but taking a photo of them is wrong and is violating their privacy. That's what I'm kind of getting from this. Which I'm having problems with because I observe people all the time. People will stand right next to me and have personal conversations on their cell phone that tell me much more about them than a photo. I can blog about their exact conversation, and I can be snarky about the details and their physical appearance. (Note: I have not done this, this is a what if scenario, go with me on this.) But if I were to take a photo of them, there's going to be something involved with ethics in that, even if I don't post it. What if I posted it, but cropped out all their heads? (Photo ruined, privacy saved?) What if I shot everyone in sillouette? What if a guy sees me taking photos and is overtly showing off for me so that I will take his photo - do I then have to go ask? Much of this is me trying to sort this out. I have a book on ethics in journalism with a section on photography - guess I need to go reread it. *sigh* I'm never caught up on my reading! An aside to everyone (because I know this is old news to skarlet, heh) - yes there are ethical standards in journalism and photojournalism. Written up and mostly agreed on by people in the business. They're not always followed but all legit people in the business are aware of them. "My news example was not about tours or interviews. Your receptionist could have declined that I would think." It wasn't meant as an answer or as a response to that - it was just an example of cameras suddenly in your face, without permission. The receptionist could have declined - but she would have had to decline while they filmed her. The assholes were totally intimidating and our receptionist is a nice person. And polite. Plus like I said, everyone else got all camera shy, including my boss, and hid. Can you tell I'm still furious about this? And the fact that no one was going to tell me that any of it happened. I've really been wanting to post about it but feel ify about ragging on a work event over there. Probably shouldn't here either. We didn't even charge the assholes for breaking our new studio tripod either - can you believe that? And they won't let me do anything. Because we have to play nice with our two local tv stations because of internships. Oh and no release forms were signed, ever. And on camera interviews were done. Another reason I'm livid I wasn't there - I would have pointed this out. " I'm talking about when you're walking by and they're shooting a story and you happen into the frame." I knew that. I just was reminded of a different incident. I'm not doing nice transitions, I'm ranbling all over the place. Free forming hooha and all. Not being extremely clear. Trying to not get into a rant over that broken tripod incident. Ok, so I've decided to give myself an ethical pass for all the people I've photographed in the past. In the future I will have to consider this issue for each circumstance. I still think I may post some of my New Orleans shots someday, but I'll only leave them up for a week or so. Except the street performers - I've seen shots of some of the more famous all over the web and in documentaries, and I made sure to pitch some money into their tip jar. And they knew I was photographing them. I would like to note that digital photography has totally changed this - at least for me. Because you can show people the image but you also have a better idea if the image sucks or not - before, for me anyhow, it was always a matter of "I think that might be a good photo - if it's not too fuzzy and that person didn't blink - man, I hope this comes out." Now you can know instantly.

"During that tour these assholes broke a tripod in the studio." Could set you up with a Minijon. ;-)

John, you're really putting really twisted ideas in my head. Stop that. There are too many there already. ...I'm not going to ask how it is that you somehow have a supply of Minijon tripods...

Oh yes, batty I was speaking ethically not legally although I've never worked with anyone on a doc (Discovery, National Geo, Indie, etc) who ever used consent forms, which used to freak me out. Once you agree to talk on camera you've agreed to talk on camera. I do have them for interviews but most people treat you like you're an amateur here for using an actual form. I do like to cover my ass though.