TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... e/2439811/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This tragedy is being described as being killed over street photography, but I say it was more a matter of the criminals seizing the opportunity to launch an "interview"

Those who think all would have been well if the victim had given them $1 are naive in my opinion.

Armed robbery is armed robbery.

rp_photo wrote:http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... e/2439811/

This tragedy is being described as being killed over street photography, but I say it was more a matter of the criminals seizing the opportunity to launch an "interview"

Those who think all would have been well if the victim had given them $1 are naive in my opinion.

I don't know. I worked in center city Philadelphia for a number of years. I was part of a group that fixed computer equipment. Part of the job was to go to 12th and Market to pick up parts. Several of us had "encounters" with locals there wanting $1. I personally forked over the $1 when asked by someone who appeared to be able to harm me. I walked away. So did one of my team members. He and I both joked for years afterward that we had determined what our lives were worth and paid the price.

My point is that some panhandlers appear to live by a completely different set of values that the rest of us. I stopped to listen to more than one street musician in NYC and never failed to make a "donation" before I left. I saw one of the street musicians in New Orleans really get into it with a woman who stood nearby, listened to the music and then didn't give any money. He verbally tore into her and she finally decided that she could contribute. I won't even think of taking a picture of one without giving them something. On the other hand, I don't go around shooting pictures of people that I don't know, even in a tourist area like Venice, Italy. The locals that I was working with there always suggested saying "Posso fare una foto?" if you wanted to take a picture and someone was in the way. They would either move or smile for you and I never had a problem. If you wanted to take close up pictures of the gondoliers, you were expected to give them money.

Even panhandlers don't want people standing there taking their photo....

Here is a better reported story from the UK (go figure).

Homicide detectives said Calderon was walking along Hollywood Boulevard with a male co-worker when she stopped to take a picture of a cardboard sign one of the men was holding, according to the Los Angeles Times. She had been amused by the rude words and smiley face on the sign.

The men wanted Calderon to pay $1 for the picture, but she refused, igniting a dispute that ended in Miss Calderon's life.

One of the men jumped on Calderon, pushing her to the ground, as her co-worker was pinned against a wall, according to the Times. Miss Calderon was bleeding as she ran away.

The suspects were identified at the scene around midnight using photographs Calderon and her friend took.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -1-it.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


I was there 18 months ago, it was craptacular. Bums and homeless everywhere, jerks in superhero costumes that did not look as good as my kids costumes when they were five demanding people pay them for having their photos taken. Apparently the bums have taken a page from the so called superheros and now demand money for photos. Hawkers trying to get you to take their "star tours" every 15 feet. I couldn't get out of there fast enough.

Jaguar wrote:Here is a better reported story from the UK (go figure).

Homicide detectives said Calderon was walking along Hollywood Boulevard with a male co-worker when she stopped to take a picture of a cardboard sign one of the men was holding, according to the Los Angeles Times. She had been amused by the rude words and smiley face on the sign.

The men wanted Calderon to pay $1 for the picture, but she refused, igniting a dispute that ended in Miss Calderon's life.

One of the men jumped on Calderon, pushing her to the ground, as her co-worker was pinned against a wall, according to the Times. Miss Calderon was bleeding as she ran away.

The suspects were identified at the scene around midnight using photographs Calderon and her friend took.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -1-it.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


I was there 18 months ago, it was craptacular. Bums and homeless everywhere, jerks in superhero costumes that did not look as good as my kids costumes when they were five demanding people pay them for having their photos taken. Apparently the bums have taken a page from the so called superheros and now demand money for photos. Hawkers trying to get you to take their "star tours" every 15 feet. I couldn't get out of there fast enough.

I was there just last month. It felt like I had flown into a third world country. I moved out of there for Texas 2006 because I knew (as did anybody who had their eyes open) that this is where the state was headed. Liberal policies made it that way, and it is only going to get worse as more (illegal) liberals move in, and more conservative voices move out.

Victor Davis Hanson, a prominent conservative (democrat) Californian has a few choice things to say about the state:
http://townhall.com/columnists/victorda ... /page/full
http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/ca ... epage=true
http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/be ... alifornia/

That last one is so true, and I've been describing California as increasingly medieval for a long time now, so VDH really hit the nail on the head with that one. He also mentions in that article one of the reasons that so many right-thinking people choose to stay there....they literally cannot afford to leave. They are upside down on huge mortgage/equity ratios, and if they sold out and walked away, they would still owe the banks and take nothing in equity. Back when I was still living there, someone at the county or state level commissioned a study that was not too widely published (because it was so damning) a study showing that one had to be earning in excess of $75,000/year to escape poverty in California. It also pointed out that one could not buy a home on an income of less than $75K; that the only way to avoid public assistance on a salary of less than $75K was to never go out for dinner, never go see a movie, never go to a baseball game, etc., etc. I used to have a printed copy of that study. And yet, and that study notwithstanding, millions of people in California who earned less than $75K per year also wore $200 sneakers, had big screen TVs, drove BMWs, and had time and money for trips to Vegas. How, one might ask? Easy. Tell the state you're broke, and they will give you money for food, money for utilities, mortgage assistance, etc., etc., etc. Somebody pays for that, and the million or so millionaires in California, despite the higher taxes, aren't enough people paying enough taxes to pay for that. It's the middle class there who is paying it.

I swear to cow, if I were still living there, I'd sell out and leave......which is exactly what I did 7 years ago.....even if it meant taking a loss. Thank goodness I didn't have to sell at a loss; but for people who don't want to leave because they're going to sell at a loss, do any of them seriously think it will get better?

....and one of my favorites.....as a Californian farmer himself, VDH's take on the famous Superbowl "God made a farmer" video: http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/th ... epage=true" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

We were doing the tourist thing in London back in the 80s (ah, we were so young..) and were in Trafalgar Square. This guy holding a sheaf of papers in one hand and a camera in another took a picture of the wife and I without our request or permission. He then demanded we purchase a picture and I said no. He continued to aggressively hound us for three or four minutes until we walked away ignoring him. Had another run-in with a shuttle bus driver in NYC at the JFK airport years ago - he demanded a tip and I ignored him, he became quite rude and aggressive as well.

I would not give a nickle to a professional panhandler, but we have bought food for some who we deem are really down on their luck. They can get food from us but never cash.

johncanfield wrote:We were doing the tourist thing in London back in the 80s (ah, we were so young..) and were in Trafalgar Square. This guy holding a sheaf of papers in one hand and a camera in another took a picture of the wife and I without our request or permission. He then demanded we purchase a picture and I said no. He continued to aggressively hound us for three or four minutes until we walked away ignoring him. Had another run-in with a shuttle bus driver in NYC at the JFK airport years ago - he demanded a tip and I ignored him, he became quite rude and aggressive as well.

I would not give a nickle to a professional panhandler, but we have bought food for some who we deem are really down on their luck. They can get food from us but never cash.

He really didn't need your request or permission, yes the hounding was over the top but in public permission isn't needed at all not for any reason, the photog can use the picture as he sees fit and even make money off of it

I do street photography quite often and have taken pictures of a number of pan handlers. you should know that i do use a telephoto lens and most of the time they have no idea. there are no laws that say i cannot do this and have come up with some eye opener pictures. the few times that they have seen me i try to make it a point to go talk to them. some ask for money, some just want someone to listen to there story and others just don't care. only once have i had to make a hasty retreat. they really are a fascinating type of people. i may not run into problems with them for the simple reason that i am a mason and tell them this and that i am willing to help them anyway i can. uselessly ends up with me buying lunch but i never give money.

JP171 wrote:.. the photog can use the picture as he sees fit and even make money off of it

I'm not sure about that - why do photographers ask people to sign release forms? I realize the clown in Trafalgar Square didn't need my permission to take my picture - he was obnoxiously preying off tourists and trying to intimidate into buying his product.

johncanfield wrote:

JP171 wrote:.. the photog can use the picture as he sees fit and even make money off of it

I'm not sure about that - why do photographers ask people to sign release forms? I realize the clown in Trafalgar Square didn't need my permission to take my picture - he was obnoxiously preying off tourists and trying to intimidate into buying his product.

the photog owns all rights to any picture taken, you sign a release form for nothing more than to ensure if you attempt to sue you are out of luck and cannot attempt to gain part of royalties. These forms are usually tween photogs and models or paying customers as the law does give some rights to the use of model pics, ALL public pics are solely the property of the photographer no matter the subject unless the subject is a copy righted object and that begins to enter another area of the laws

johncanfield wrote:

JP171 wrote:.. the photog can use the picture as he sees fit and even make money off of it

I'm not sure about that - why do photographers ask people to sign release forms? I realize the clown in Trafalgar Square didn't need my permission to take my picture - he was obnoxiously preying off tourists and trying to intimidate into buying his product.

http://content.photojojo.com/tips/legal ... ographers/

THE TEN LEGAL COMMANDMENTS OF PHOTOGRAPHY

1. Anyone in a public place can take pictures of anything they want. Public places include parks, sidewalks, malls, etc. Malls? Yeah. Even though it’s technically private property, being open to the public makes it public space.
2. If you are on public property, you can take pictures of private property. If a building, for example, is visible from the sidewalk, it’s fair game.
3. If you are on private property and are asked not to take pictures, you are obligated to honor that request. This includes posted signs.

There's more, including on what to do if you're confronted while trying to take a picture.

As CHLs, we have a particular obligation not to escalate any given situation if we can help it, but the bottom line for a photographer is that if you are anyplace you have a right to be, with very few exceptions you have a right to take a picture of it, and for the most part it doesn't matter if anybody's in the picture or not. If they don't want to be in it, they can register their objection and you can wait until they move, or ask them if they mind moving, but even then, you have a right to take the picture. News photographers don't ask everyone in their viewfinder to sign a release......and they own the images, or their employer owns it if that is in their employment terms. I've taken a number of pictures of street scenes with people in them. Nobody has hassled me so far, but it wouldn't matter from a legal standpoint—CHL and deescalation aside. The camera is mine. The digital files are mine, and I've got a right to be there taking pictures. End of story. IF you asked me politely to wait until you could get out of the frame, I'd wait—even if it meant that the moment passed and the shot is lost—but that is simply because I try to be a nice person who values courtesy and is not seeking to deliberately tick people off. On the other hand, if you TOLD me not to take the pictures without any legal authority to do so, and you wouldn't move out of the frame.....sorry, your picture is getting taken.....from a distance with a telephoto lens maybe.....but it is getting taken because I don't take orders from jerks. And the fact is also, at least for me anyway, it's not a picture of YOU. It is a photograph, a piece of art, if I did everything right, and you just happen to be in the scene. But unless you are doing something that invites photography such as street performance, or performing a criminal act, or something as icky as having sex in the open on the beach, it isn't really a picture of you. You're just part of the background. Like the above 10 commandments say, the other persons have to have a reasonable expectation of privacy in whatever they're doing for me to not have a right to photograph it.

Them's just the facts. As in all things, acting like a decent human being, and treating others like their concerns might have some validity, will go a long ways toward defusing these kinds of situations. Although I have never had someone ask me not to take their picture, I have had several people express interest and possibly marginal concern about what I'm doing and why. When that happens, I'll show them my SmugMug site on my cellphone so that they can see that I'm actually trying to take interesting pictures that people might want to buy.......art, not just snapshots, although I don't claim to be a great artist.....I'm still learning.

It doesn't sound like this photographer escalated anything unless you count refusing to pay when they tried to shake her down.

gringo pistolero wrote:It doesn't sound like this photographer escalated anything unless you count refusing to pay when they tried to shake her down.

And the stabbing was brutal, unconscionable and should be punished severely. Like any other petty matter, there was no reason to escalate to deadly force over a photograph or a payment for one.

My point was different. I don't walk around the worst parts of Oak Cliff at night by myself. To do so invites potential problems that I don't want. It seems that all around the world, the panhandlers have their own set of values (which I don't share and are not legally binding) and I consider crossing those values another risk that I can avoid. The poor victim in this case did not cause the attack but she had a couple of chances to avoid it. She could have taken the picture more discretely or, when confronted about her picture, acquiesced and made a donation. Legally she was 100% right. Unfortunately, she became a victim after those choices.

While there is no doubt that the photographer owns the picture, common courtesy suggests that I as a photographer should ask before I own someone else's image. Perhaps I'm overly sensitive because I spent part of my youth in PA's Amish country. Several of the Amish sects are religiously opposed to pictures being taken of them but the tourists do it anyway. Being a non-violent people, Amish will not attack a photographer. I wouldn't suggest talking to the subject of the picture afterward if you try. I doubt that the average tourist/photographer understands the Amish viewpoint. That's unfortunate.

Victims are not responsible for becoming victims That responsibility lies with their attackers. It is possible in some cases to avoid becoming a victim. In a gang related area, I would minimize gestures to avoid inadvertently flashing a gang sign that I didn't intend. Around panhandlers, I'm also very cautious. The fact that they are there, in a public place, means that there is not a lot of police help and, further, that I'm pretty much on my own in dealing with them. I had a woman in Florence chase me a half a block while carrying a baby and screaming "il bambino, il bambino" because I had momentarily made eye contact with her. I wasn't about to listen to her threaten to call the police and accuse me of attacking her unless I gave her money, a frequent ploy there. It is amazing how someone who's native language was obviously not Italian based on her dress was allowed to operate as she was doing. As is said of gun fights, the best defense is not to be there when it happens.

Years ago, I was approached by a homeless man just minutes after finding a crisp $50 bill on the sidewalk. I figured easy come.. easy go.. and handed it over to him with a big smile. Minutes later, sirens and cop cars swarmed the area, and my curiosity got the best of me, so I turned back to see what the fuss was about. My heart sank when I saw that same homeless man pinned on the ground by a bunch of officers next to the bloody body of a young lady about the same age as me. He had evidently stabbed her in the neck when she refused to cough up a "donation". I never was able to find out if she made it or not and carried around a bunch of guilt for years because I wondered if I actually had a direct hand in encouraging that sicko to expect everybody to fork over cash. I was a stupid naive girl who learned a big girl lesson that day!