Do the Toronto Star photographers stand behind this?

[Kenneth Armstrong]

Were they consulted?

Do they adhere to this?

http://on.thestar.com/1Uk1FxA

[Moe Doiron]

A very unusual column to run by a news organization and is rather misleading and reckless. It's simply an opinion and is clearly not based on any legal fact or precedent. Even his ethics argument is shaky. Appears the writer is a guest columnists of sorts.

[Fred Lum]

While I tend to follow the guideline of 'reasonable expectation of privacy', I try to make it a personal rule, if I'm photographing people who are living on the street or are vulnerable, to ask them if I may take their photograph. It's the decent thing to do and I tend to avoid long lensing so if I'm in their space, then yeah, I'll explain who I am and why I'm asking. Sometimes I'm good to photograph, other times, I thank them for their time and move on.

[Steve Russell]

A very unusual column to run by a news organization and is rather misleading and reckless. It's simply an opinion and is clearly not based on any legal fact or precedent. Even his ethics argument is shaky. Appears the writer is a guest columnists of sorts.

Wow, I hadn't seen this. I have to agree with Moe on this and will talk to our Photo Editor and Public Editor about this.

The line that really burns me in the article is this, "I can’t speculate on why the guy would take your picture (maybe he gets off on men who marry older women)"

Why is that when people write a story about this aspect of photography have to insinuate that the person taking the photo is some kind of pervert?

The other thing that bugs me about the article is that the question seems dubious.
" There was a nerdish-looking man across from us, travelling alone. He was busy on his cellphone when I noticed his phone camera had us directly in its sights. I could actually see the screen with us in it."
He was across from the writer, busy with his phone, and the writer could see the screen?
How would the "nerd" know what he was photographing is he has the screen pointed to the writer?

[Amber Bracken]

"In those halcyon days, before you took a picture of someone, especially a stranger, you sought permission. Whether the subject was a levitating shaman or the kid next door, you always asked “may I take your picture” — in part because cameras were so bulky there was no way to snap secretly. "

  Classic "good old days-ism" from someone who's totally clueless. Blah blah, argument, Bruce Gilden, Martin Parr. I win.

Also, isn't it a little weird how comfortable he is with the state photographing every public movement? But somehow it's criminal for individuals to process the world they are experiencing.

More and more I'm personally moving to a model where I prefer to have consent when possible. And sometimes that's as simple as reading body language in a developing moment. Not because I think it's necessarily more ethical but because it works for my process and the type of images I'm interested in making. But the right to photograph in public is an important line to defend and I'm disappointed in the editors for this piece. 

[David Buzzard]

That's pretty weird, considering you can't go anywhere without ending up on someone's surveillance camera.  I try to get at least tacit permission to take someone's picture, and there are always people who don't want to be in a newspaper for whatever reason.  Most of the time, I respect that and will move on to get someone else's pic instead.  Of course, if you're being escorted into a police car or something like that, then tough luck. 

It reminds me of a funny story.  I had an old 1980's Ford truck I used for off roading.  One morning I work up and this guy had set up a 4x5 view camera in my driveway and was photographing it.  I poked my head out the door, mostly because I was curious about the camera, and he picked up the camera and ran off.

[Steve Russell]

The picture used with the article didn't help the story either!

[Steve Russell]

We have the best readers!

A trio of letters to the editor in today's (June 30th) edition of StarTouch!
My personal favourite is letter #2!

The ethics of taking photos in public
    
Get consent before you snap picture of a stranger, June 18

Ken Gallinger’s column is not only inaccurate, it’s irresponsible. It seems to suggest that people taking photos in public have ill intentions as a general rule. Would that apply to Star photojournalists, who sometimes have to snap photos of people leaving courtrooms or take routine photos in public to illustrate a story?

Mr. Gallinger refers to “creeps like your nerd in the tube, who think it’s their God-given right to take pictures of anyone, anytime, without permission.” Well, perceived ethical issues aside, it is a Canadian right to take photos in public. Many important historical images and iconic street photography wouldn’t exist without this right, and the freedom of the press to publish it.

As a street photographer, I don’t aim to embarrass anyone by snapping their photo. My goal is to present the world as it is, complete with its interesting people and places. To assume public photography is somehow ethically wrong is just that: wrong.

Jeff Hayward, Hamilton



Ken Gallinger may feel that the person taking the pictures was on the wrong side of the ethical divide. However, for the Star to permit such uninformed codswallop to appear in its pages is a rejection of any ethical standard of journalism.

Opinion or not, his comments are unprofessional, his projection of motives on to the person with the cellphone, and his own characterization of that person as a “creep, ” are offensive. Why does the Star provide free reign to engage in childish name-calling? Gallinger needs to publish an apology.

Robert Fisher, Oshawa



I expect Ken Gallinger is not aware of the fantastic collection of candid photography that's been created over the years by many — including Henri Cartier-Bresson, William Klein, Helen Levitt and Leonard Freed. They rarely asked for permission before shooting because it's obvious to any observer of their images that the beautifully captured instant would be lost if they paused to interfere in the activity of their subjects.

On one hand, Gallinger makes it clear that photographing people in public is not unlawful but only bad manners. Then he suggested that anyone who is displeased by an ill-mannered photographer should walk away and call the authorities. Is he seriously suggesting that police should be involved? Are photographers to be charged with being impolite or having bad manners?

Today many have been conditioned to fear cameras in public, particularly when they're pointed at children. The downside is that wonderful photos are now almost “banned” by public opinion.

George Dunbar, Toronto

[Andy Clark]

Nice letters from readers and all three right on the money......The "Halcyon Days" eh!.... well here is a word from those so called good ole days he refers to...  "Balderdash" every scribble of it.

[Moe Doiron]

A much more intelligent response on a similar issue ...

http://www.j-source.ca/article/brunswick-news-ombudswoman-it-possible-be-private-public-event