Photographing Homeless Banned

[tim atherton]

Another warning from Mke Johnstons blog/photo-legal watch...

"Various photography organizations have today announced a serious effort to stamp out gratuitous picturetaking of the homeless.

Germany's OOF, the French BLIC, English PBOG and America's SMAALP have joined similar Japanese organizations and the Chinese government in supporting the ban. Major universities have decided to follow suit. No longer will pictures of homeless people be considered appropriate for MFA programs or in many major fine art programs..." more at:

http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/03/photographing-homeless-banned.html

[BrianShaw]

I suppose the next thing to be banned is women in burkas????

[tim atherton]

"I suppose the next thing to be banned is women in burkas????"

actually slot canyons would be my choice... :-)

[Jack Flesher]

Let me get this straight...

Mapplethorpe's crap gets an NEA grant, yet a quality PJ piece showing one facet of urban blight gets banned?

I just can't seem to keep in step with the current PC paradigms...

[tim atherton]

have your read it Jack...?

[GPS]

Finally someone decided to help the homeless the real way!

[Ralph Barker]

Hmmmm. Sounds like another case-in-the-making for the Supreme Court - at least with respect to the ban in the U.S.

[Ian_5357]

To quote Mike Johnston: "Satire Alert"

[tim atherton]

Ian you spoilsport

But like all satire it has a good dose of truth in it.

As usual JB picked out the most pertinent quote:

"It's harder to take pictures of squirrels."

[paulr]

what if the photographer is homeless too? there will be more of us, so it's going to be an issue.

[Richard Schlesinger]

This was long overdue! While there are those who feel anything and everything is fair game for what they want to photograph, and while our wonderful court appears precariously close to determining we have no inherent right to privacy, it seems to me there should be some limits. And because there are unfortunately those who feel there are none, I suppose legal limitations are necessary.

[paulr]

i also have to see how this will impact a couple of my current projects. one of them is inspired by my hero sherry levine--i will be taking photographs of photographs of homeless people that were originally taken by college students, and putting them in larger and more expensive frames.

the other one i call "the homeless re-photographic survey." i'm going to the original scenes of the most famous photographs of homeless people, and i'm going to photograph whoever happens to be standing there now.

[Frank Petronio]

Actually I just bought a Burak from Pakistan off eBay for a little photo project. It is pretty wild to think that millions of women have to wear these things... still it is interesting to try it on. But my size 17 feet sticking out tend to give me away.

[Marko]

what if the photographer is homeless too? there will be more of us, so it's going to be an issue.

Uh-oh, I can already hear "hey, buddy, can you spare a roll of pan-f?"...

[Brian Sims]

I just feel terrible. After reading the piece, I realized that I've been holding in my guilt for over 20 years. No longer. I am admitting to all, in my youth I photographed (repeatedly) a homeless man named Frank. Frank hung out near the Pike Place Market (that was before all the Yuppies took over the street corners with their steaming $3.00 lattes). He was not a drunk. His addiction was off-track betting, and playing the horses took all social security check. I gave him stale donuts in exchange of taking (now I realize I was stealing) his images. Admitting this, I've been told, is the first step towards recovery....

[Ian Swarbrick]

I photographed some homeless people in Birmingham, England, for a short piece in a public slide show. But I asked first and offered a little cash as a thank you. With that in mind, most times they were happy to oblige. I thought - at least they could buy themselves a hamburger for it or something. In fact some were even glad to have a bit of attention, while everyone else walked past and ignored them.

[BrianShaw]

I photographed a town crier, during a public performance, in Knaresborough, England; he came over to me and demanded payment as a thanks. Later, I photographed an old gypsy woman in York, England; a tiny gypsy child reached into my pocket and took some money as a thanks.

[Marko]

Just in case someone gets outraged, that was a joke.

Now seriuosly:

matthew: the thing I find worrying about all of this , and the recent motion with regards to branded buildings with defamatory information within the same image. Is that they are all stopping your ability to question , it seems we are being led into a position where we can only show the world as a glamorous place.

There was a guy in the Soviet Union once upon a time who was charged with organizing siteseeing during Stalin's train trips through the country, or so the story goes. Now, tovarisch Stalin wanted to see only nice things, a living proof of Communism's superiority, but the problem was that most if not all of the villages along the route were in total disrepair. Seeing those villages like that would make the Leader very unhappy.

The real problem was that when Stalin was unhappy, those who made him feel like that ended up backing into the wall and posing for celebratory gunfire or, at the very least, won a retirement in Siberia.

So what was the unlucky fellow to do? Well, since the train would never really stop, he decided to erect nice, shiny fronts for all the shacks along the tracks, so looking from a moving train, everything would look like a fairytail. The project was a total success and provided tales of glorious supremacy of the dictatorship of the proletariat, led by the Communist Party with Comrade Stalin at the forefront and heading into the radiant future...

Or some rubbish like that, we all know how it ended. But that's not the point.

The point is that our fellow succeded (and survived in the process). His name was Potemkin and his problem solving method became known as "Potemkin Villages".

Now, I don't know how much of it is truth and how much a legend, but the expression, and the idea, persists. The solution to polution could be to a) reduce the polutants or b) relax the standards. Same with cholesterol, DUI or homelessness. It is only natural that science community always comes on the side of a) and the business tends to adopt b.

The real problem seems to be that the government is usually made of politicians, politicians love money and business by its nature always has more money than the scientists to throw at them.

So, in a nutshell, criminalizing taking pictures of homeless will only harm the homeless because it would put them out of sight and by extension out of mind. I would not be surprised to see a ban on articles about homeless to follow a ban on pictures. Now, that would really make the problem go away, wouldn't it?

[Eric_6227]

Hey Marco. Great story. Mosty true, except the Potemkin village was for Catherine the Great, not Stalin.

http://www.bartleby.com/61/0/P0480000.html

Cheers,

[Terence McDonagh]

Now if we could just hide them from sight . . .

Maybe we can ban photographing ugly people too . . . and hide them from sight too, even if it means never leaving my apartment.

In addition to the homeless and slot canyons, let's add calla lilies, the California coast from San Fran to 30 miles south of Big Sur, adobe churches . . .

[Scott Davis]

Actually, your russian history is a little off - Potemkin was the interior minister for Catherine the Great. But he did do essentially what you describe, to fool Catherine into thinking that life was beautiful for the Russian peasantry. For more information, see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potemkin_village

While I think an outright LEGAL ban on photographing the homeless is gratuitous and detrimental, if it is applied in an academic setting, as the original article suggests, I actually am at least ambivalent about it, if not in favor. Too many students in art schools or photography courses think "Hey, I'll go take some neat pictures of the bums in the park, and that will make me the angst-ridden, socially-conscious, cool photo guy/girl and I'll be 'in' with the professor/grad student grading my work, and even more, I'll get that cute art guy/chick to go out with me!". They have no connection to their subject and do it for the shallowest of motives, and it ends up exploiting their subjects.

I recall in one of my continuing studies photo classes at Maryland Institute, there was this guy who included some photos in his portfolio that he took of the homeless who lived in a particular neighborhood near Baltimore's Inner Harbor. He got taken to task by a majority of the class, and the instructor, because the photos were clearly exploitative. The photos were taken solely for the purpose of having material to fill his portfolio in class. Most were taken with some kind of tele lens. The homeless people in question in some kind of personally uncomfortable situation, and they were obviously unaware that they were being photographed. Looking at those photos felt VERY invasive of the privacy of the subjects. If someone photographed you through your living room window, wouldn't you feel terribly intruded upon? That's the same thing that people photographing the homeless in "documentary" style are doing.

If people are so concerned about the plight of the homeless, why not expend the money you spent on film, chemistry and paper "documenting" them by giving it to a soup kitchen, shelter, or even better, a homeless rights lobbying organization to help them get proper mental and phyiscal health services provided.

[Marko]

Eric: Hey Marco. Great story. Mosty true, except the Potemkin village was for Catherine the Great, not Stalin.

Thanks for clarification, Eric. I heard it a long time ago, must've confused the characters with those from some other stories...

Funny how autocracies build up on each other much more than democracies, isn't it?

What's even funnier is that neither Catherine nor Stalin were actually Russians - she was German and he was Georgian - nor did they belong to the same age or system, and yet they had some very simmilar proclivities.

When you think about it, every autocracy or dictatorship should have a very unique character, reflecting its, usually lifelong leader and every democracy should be very much like the next, since they are supposed to be the product of the average citizen and people are supposed to be the same everywhere. But it seems as if the opposite happens in practice - most of the democracies tend to be very individual and unique, while most dictatorships tend to be the same.

Regards,

[Pete Watkins]

It's the first time that I've heard of this type of photography being "banned" in the U.K. What "they" think and reality are two different things. As far as U.K. Gypsies go..................they have rights. They have the right to pay taxes, pay National Insurance contributions, pay water rates, to buy legal diesel to run their vehicles but these rights, and many of the other rights that make a country civilised, are ignored by that community. And the weather over here is too crappy to go out with a camera, I hate the winter.
PETE.

[Eric_6227]

Hi Marko. You're so right. Stalin saw himself as another Tsar, in particular the 2nd coming of Ivan the Terrible. So there wasn't much difference at all.

Bringing this back to photography, Catherine the Great may have had hidden those pesky poor people, but Stalin simply doctored photographs to make people disappear altogether. He got to decide what could be shown and what couldn't. He could even make people disappear from photographs altogether!

So I say let the silly art students continue to make shallow pictures of homeless people. It's cheap and easy. And the rest of the public can continue ignoring their work. One of the hallmarks of a free society is the ability of people to express ideas you opposse. AND to express ideas that are not even worth opposing, only ignoring. Governement should never be involved in dictating what can and cannot be expressed. It's a slippery slope to Stalin's world. Better to have a free market of ideas to let each democracy, as you said, find it's own way.

[Walt Calahan]

"Mapplethorpe's crap gets an NEA grant"

Wow, I thought the museum tour of Mapplethorpe's work got an NEA grant.

I know Mapplethorpe never got a grant for making his pictures.

But to learn Mapplethorpe's BM got a grant too!!

Where's my toilet? I'm a homeless photographer needing some money. Anyone can take my picture while I write my grant application as long as I can pick your pocket.

See why American LF photographers tower over Europe.

HA!

[Kirk Gittings]

Funny, out here the homeless, learning from the Native Americans, charge fees to be photographed. It is a regular income source.

Call your Senator's. This is just the tip of the iceberg. It is the beginning of an assault on all photographic cliches.

[Eric Rose]

Frank, I always thought you were a cross-dresser LOL.

[Marko]

Call your Senator's. This is just the tip of the iceberg. It is the beginning of an assault on all photographic cliches.

Better call him now, when they're taking away stuff you find objectionable, because when they come to take away the stuff you hold dear, or worse, you yourself, there's likely not going to be anybody to call.

Or something along those lines. There was another great little story that I heard long time ago, but which I don't remember well enough to tell here...

Cliches they may be, but the government should have no business regulating them. Nor any other view or opinion.

I'm curious though, if there were any money to be made by photographing homeless, will they make an exception for "corporate" photographers if there is such a thing?

[Joseph O'Neil]

Last time I was in Key West and photogrpahed a homeless man, it worked this way.

He came up to me, seeing my 4x5 camera,a nd said for $2.00 I could take his picture all day long. He said it was a hot day (and it was very hot), and he wanted to buy a beer. So, I was cool for that ( I was planning on having a cold suds myself later that day, so I couldn't complain) , and I gave him $2.00. He told me if i wanted to shoot him tommorrow however, it would be another $2.00, and i said I was cool with that. He also pointed out that anybody else of his local homelsss group, $2.00 each. I was good with that too.

So, for sake or arguement - and the above is a completely true story, not made up in any way at all - would this still be considered to be "banned" even though I had permission, paid money, and it was he - the homeless guy who approached me?

I guess the real answer is to have a pad of pre-printed model release forms in my camera bag at all times anymore.
:(
joe

[Marko]

Since when did we start agreeing with the Chinese?

Ever since there was more profit to be found in agreeing than in disagreeing. Evidently, a lot of "us" have been agreeing with "tbem" for quite some time. Microsoft, Google and Yahoo come to mind right off the bat, but I'm sure there are others as well.

Bad thing, that communism - never lets ideals get in the way of ideology.

Good thing, this capitalism - never lets ideology get in the way of profits.

Apparently, there are no profits to be found photographing the homeless, so the least we can do is protect the ideals...

[Randy_5116]

Couple of points made here and missed.
1) taking long-distance pics of the homeless without their prior knowledge
2) taking pics of any person without prior consent, and use of those pics for personal gain.

Yes, any photographer taking pics of any person, should carry a pad of pre-printed release forms just to cover their own ass. My daughter and I went picture-shooting homeless in *** as a minor part of a photo-essay. It was based on the homeless and the wanton waste of monies in other areas of that particular city. Permission was asked, release forms signed (usually by John Doe) and payment for use of pictures. Highest rate paid was two cigarettes each to a pair sitting on a park bench sharing a bottle of bargain-store mouthwash. And they approached us. Is that demeaning or de-moralizing? Not in my opinion. They were paid as "models" just as if they were in a studio. Would it be illegal to take their pictures in a studio setting? Don't reckon. And if it is, is there a definitive gross income level that a person must attain before they can have their portrait made?

[Frank Petronio]

Tim, thank you for another wonderful contribution to the forum. I wonder how many posters bothered to read the entire thread?

[Stan. Laurenson-Batten]

With with advent of the UK becomming a poor nation of Europe through political incompetence, there is a chance for all the dog wardens here to become tog wardens!

[Paul Kierstead]

"the homeless re-photographic survey.", Oh, that wins the prize for the best response.

On a slightly more serious note, I find it sad that so many think so poorly of society now that they were prepared to believe it.

[Richard Kelham]

"With with advent of the UK becomming a poor nation of Europe through political incompetence, there is a chance for all the dog wardens here to become tog wardens!"

Oh, you mean if the Tories win the next election?

[Alan Davenport]

If you can prevent something from being documented, then you can deny it ever happened...

[G Jones]

Is this a joke? Surely it is up to the individual homeless person to have a right to make the choice when asked? It's as if they are being ignored of their own rights. Homeless people are a human suffering, a reality that governments would rather sweep under the carpet and forget? Why do you think that this motion is backed by the Chinese government?
It is a photographer's duty to record human misery so the rest of the society can see that its real and happening now? or are we all going soft?

[Bob Salomon]

"So that's it then—no more pictures of the homeless. All are agreed.

Posted by: MIKE JOHNSTON

* Satire Alert

UPDATE: I've been forwarded at least one thread from a far-off forum (not dpreview) that discusses this post (at considerable length) as if it were for real. Really, it's satire. Would I joke about it being satire? —MJ"

You should read the entire post on Mike's site.

And what is "SMAALP" supposed to be?