While standing outside having a smoke.
I noticed this guy walking inside with a fancy camera.
He told me that he works for the Moncton Transcript.
I asked the Irving reporter if I could take a picture of him and he played along.
I asked him if he knew me?
He didn’t know who I was. < If he only knew? He would have kept on trucking!! >...LOL
Anyway . . . once inside, I would always take different pictures of the speakers or the people telling their sad stories.
One certain woman took the mike and I click my camera.
She shouted at the Mike - I don’t wish to have my picture taken!!! I have been watching you taking pictures for two days!!!
Well? As we know, I will not stand to be degraded in front of a group of people < never mind in front of more than 200 people!!! >
I quickly answered - Hey? If the Irvings can take pictures? So can I!!! < Maybe this will change after November 2th!!! >
Anyway, I showed two guys the picture and deleted the photo.
What I found funny was there were cameras all over the place but she single me out!!
Why? Who knows?
I confronted the woman afterwards and told her that I deleted her picture.
She told me in a rude manner - I’ll be checking your site!!!
I told her - Hey? I need all the hits that I can get on my site!!!..LOL.
The woman sounds like she has lots of problems’ < especially her attitude >
Anyway . . . I bumped into the Irving photographer and he wasn’t as friendly as he was went he met me outside.
He told me that I cannot take pictures because it’s a private building. If I do take one? I have to ask their permission!!!
But we both agree that we can take pictures of people in a public place such as outside.
I was a little confuse. < Not the first time >
I take a picture of the whole room and I got to ask permission to every each individual?
I don’t know.
I know that I was a little hyper with the camera but these are good souvenirs of the summit and I don’t use them in a bad way!!
Well, I’m a blogger and that’s what I do!!! C’est la vie!!!!
6 comments:
I hate to say this because you are so camera crazy, but technically there is no law that says you can't take pictures on private property if you've been invited. If there was a sign posted somewhere that's a different story, but if not, tell this little irving pischer to get lost.
It was nice of you to delete the womans picture, but as you say, if she is making a public presentation she has no right to make such demands. In fact, you could bring a video camera and tape the event if you wanted to. Even further, if you have one of those tiny camera's then you can film even if they tell you not to. Go watch the news, they do it all the time.
I tend to agree though, while events like this deserve to be covered, a little discretion would be advised. You should only take pictures at certain times, many people do not like their pictures taken, and in the end you may do more harm than good. In New Brunswick it already takes courage to stand up and speak out. It makes it harder to find a job, and harder dealing with the government. Many people prefer their anonymity, and its highly doubtful that Irving will print many pictures.
However, Irving having all those pictures is an equally scary prospect. Very few get used, I wonder what happens to the others?
My GOD???? Sometime there's some very good comments in this blog and this is truly one of them!!!
So good that I have to blog this one!!!
What do the Irvings do with the rest of the pictures???
Very good question indeed!!!!!
Oh, come on now guys, let’s not beat up on the photographer just because he works for an Irving newspaper. He looked pretty happy when Charles first took his picture – I don’t think he had an attitude, but all of a sudden he’s being called an “irving pischer” – that’s not fair to him. He’s just a guy doing a job for which he gets paid and he goes home at the end of the day, not representing the Irving companies. Just because you work for a company owned by the Irving boys doesn’t mean that you are an “Irving boy”. Heck, half of the people in this province probably work for the Irvings directly or indirectly in some way.
About the picture, while you may have the right to take a picture of a public event, an individual has a right NOT to have their picture published. Legally, it’s a case of conflicting rights, but the right of the individual not to have his/her picture published will normally win out. The key though is that the individual has to tell the photographer. It’s why a lot of organizations use waivers where they have someone sign an agreement that says their picture can be used. Professional photographers use them all the time because it protects them from someone suing them later. Rarely is there a suit in this regard since most people just don’t bother chasing it down, but they do have the right and if they advise the photographer ahead of time, then they’ve legally done their part.
As for the pictures that don’t get used – there is no large conspiracy going on. There are hundreds of thousands of pictures taken by news photographers that are never used in publications. Usually they go into what’s called a “morgue” so that if a couple of years from now, someone wants to do a profile piece on Charles LeBlanc and his protest outside the Legislature, then they did into the morgue and find the pictures. Television studios do the same thing. A lot of video tape that is shot during an interview but never used is archived as well. It’s just good journalism practice to build up your files so that you have them to use later if needed.
Anonymous makes a good point about discretion during a public event. The last thing you want is a flash going off again and again. It can be really distracting to the people who are listening to a presentation or a speech or whatever. Generally, the professional photographers will take one or two “scene-setting” pictures to show the group attending and then maybe one picture each of the main speakers. If you think someone does a good job and you want to get their picture, talk to them later and get them to do a quick posed shot for you, maybe with one or two of the other speakers. Makes for a more interesting picture than just a “talking head”.
Don’t know if any of this is interesting, but it’s my two cents worth.
Have a good day.
That woman has something against you, and to single you out probaby made her feel superior or something, I hope she got good thrill out of it. If ya'll were invited to take pictures, there was no signs then too freaking bad. Why just because you don't have a pretty desk in some snot nose newspaper company owned by yours truely, you can't take part and spread the word online?
IDIOTS.
Well atleast you were kind enough to delete her picture, more considerate than what she did infront of everyone. She could of asked you to delete it on the side. What a @$#$@. She must be a brown noser too. You know Charles they all stick together like flies on horse doo.
I'm a photographer. I'm a blogger. You will not be given permission to take a photo of me that could identify me. In this stupid world of cut throat journalism and photoshop, I'm not interested. In saying that, I would ask you to leave my property should you ever pitch a tent outside to shoot me or my family, but I would vacate a public place/forum or turn my back to you instead of trying to get you to leave. I will NEVER speak with media people again. The spin is too risky and I've felt it's sting before. One journalist,now in the Middle East, birthed this attitude in me.
If you believe you have the right to shoot people, why not give them the professional, and I use the term loosly, courtesy to NOT be photographed? Why cause a fuss and make the next photographer's chance more difficult? As I said, I won't speak with media types because of Adrienne Arseneault. Why would you deliberately want to tick people off?
Hey there it’s the guy who’s in the picture. I just wanted to get my say in way late hahaah…First that was a very accurate discription of our conversation you have a good memory and from what ive seen of your shots on the blog you have a pretty good eye too. As for the people who commented they are all right…. The main point is there is no strong law against it mainly because its never been challenged in court in NB. Trust me that’s a good thing for bloggers and the media. What happens when its challenged well quebec is a good example you can even take shots in public showing faces and publish them cause if one person in that photo didn’t want there pict taken they can sue your ass…. As far as where all the pictures they go into archive…. I think its kinda cool I mean to have a hundred years of photos its like visual history but that’s probably the nerd photographer in me…. Any how I also wanted to say im not some Irving goon and thanks for not really making me out to be one… im a supper in debt poor over educated free-lance photographer who like a lot of people in this province is struggling to keep a roof over his head trust me id rather make art… I think your doing a bang up job keep up the good work From what ive read we share the same opinions on poverty and prescription drug use and abuse…. Il check in more often cheers JOËL
www.myspace.com/urbanstyleart
www.myspace.com/newbrunswickundergroundartscollective
Post a Comment