I think there's a further consideration. I go to a famous building (let us say), and there are people there on vacation. Is it plausible to ask me to get the permission of each and every one of them to be photographed? Would they even care to be bothered by someone asking such permission? Most likely I would prefer them not to be there, but what can I do about it? In any event, can I not argue that it is their choice to be out in public, and to be seen by whoever happens to be present? By extension, could I not argue that my camera simply extends the number of people who can perceive this public place, and in no way changes the circumstances of those who might happen to pass before my lens?
I certainly object to those who want to control the use of photography (or indeed tape recorders) for private use, in any circumstance whatever. I have, it seems to me, a complete right to my own memories, whether I hold them in my head or on paper, and anyone who does something in front of me of which they are (let us say) ashamed, should simply not have done that thing. Come to that, is it not my business whether I report what I saw by saying, 'here, let me tell you about it' or by saying, 'here, let me show you a picture'?
It would appear that any objection to this is a direct attack on the rights of the disabled. I happen not to be eidetic. I rapidly lose the enjoyment of my experiences if I do not take steps to record them. Others lack the gift of description, and while they may hold memories in their heads, cannot communicate those memories without technological assistance. Are we then to be punished for this incapacity? How so? And if so, why would I build wheelchair ramps? I can say, well, I'm sorry, it's your choice to employ the technological assistance of wheels!
It is perhaps a different matter in the specific case of someone who is putting on a performance, whether at their suggestion or mine, and there is some contractual negotiation. If I say, pretty lady, would you be willing to stand by this window and look over there, and she says, 'why yes, but there are strings attached,' or again, if I engage someone to sing me a song or tell me a story or explain something to me, and so, at some possible inconvenience to themselves, they do this thing. Perhaps I can see them putting conditions on the performance, such as that I should not record it—but that is a negotiation, and at very least I can take my business elsewhere. And I still dislike it, because what is the point of an experience that I cannot later recall?
And in a shared public place, when someone's actions are not performed with my encouragement, then who is infringing upon whom when I want to make a recording?
If I were debating, I would take this argument one step further, and suggest that there is little to distinguish the impulse to control information about things that have actually happened and historical revisionism. But the suggested equation of ethnographic delicacy with holocaust denial is the sort of thing that I do for performance purposes only. After all, one needs to control the context ;).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-02-24 01:17 am (UTC)I think there's a further consideration. I go to a famous building (let us say), and there are people there on vacation. Is it plausible to ask me to get the permission of each and every one of them to be photographed? Would they even care to be bothered by someone asking such permission? Most likely I would prefer them not to be there, but what can I do about it? In any event, can I not argue that it is their choice to be out in public, and to be seen by whoever happens to be present? By extension, could I not argue that my camera simply extends the number of people who can perceive this public place, and in no way changes the circumstances of those who might happen to pass before my lens?
I certainly object to those who want to control the use of photography (or indeed tape recorders) for private use, in any circumstance whatever. I have, it seems to me, a complete right to my own memories, whether I hold them in my head or on paper, and anyone who does something in front of me of which they are (let us say) ashamed, should simply not have done that thing. Come to that, is it not my business whether I report what I saw by saying, 'here, let me tell you about it' or by saying, 'here, let me show you a picture'?
It would appear that any objection to this is a direct attack on the rights of the disabled. I happen not to be eidetic. I rapidly lose the enjoyment of my experiences if I do not take steps to record them. Others lack the gift of description, and while they may hold memories in their heads, cannot communicate those memories without technological assistance. Are we then to be punished for this incapacity? How so? And if so, why would I build wheelchair ramps? I can say, well, I'm sorry, it's your choice to employ the technological assistance of wheels!
It is perhaps a different matter in the specific case of someone who is putting on a performance, whether at their suggestion or mine, and there is some contractual negotiation. If I say, pretty lady, would you be willing to stand by this window and look over there, and she says, 'why yes, but there are strings attached,' or again, if I engage someone to sing me a song or tell me a story or explain something to me, and so, at some possible inconvenience to themselves, they do this thing. Perhaps I can see them putting conditions on the performance, such as that I should not record it—but that is a negotiation, and at very least I can take my business elsewhere. And I still dislike it, because what is the point of an experience that I cannot later recall?
And in a shared public place, when someone's actions are not performed with my encouragement, then who is infringing upon whom when I want to make a recording?
If I were debating, I would take this argument one step further, and suggest that there is little to distinguish the impulse to control information about things that have actually happened and historical revisionism. But the suggested equation of ethnographic delicacy with holocaust denial is the sort of thing that I do for performance purposes only. After all, one needs to control the context ;).