Downtown Crossing ‘Street Photographers’ Crossing The Line?

What I see in the linked video is clever editing designed to make them look bad.

Stealthy Ninja wrote: What I see in the linked video is clever editing designed to make them look bad.

You mean the media spins things? Dang Sherlock...

That is just wrong. Those people aren't photographers, just perverts with cameras.

Hi. I am from the area where these guys are everyday. I am known very well among these guys,because I have been very observant of them and quite vocal. I know that they are not true street photographers. I have seen them aim their cameras primarily at females,including minors. I have seen them take shots of their behinds and chests as well as full-body shots. For a while,John Mac( the elderly man) was using a video camera; this was during the summer months. They are out there daily,pretty much on a schedule. At lunch time,John Mac is in Chinatown. John is in the Downtown Crossing area later in the afternoon. Joe Gallo and Bob are out there along with John later in the day; they spread out,but also group together. There is a heavy set man in the group,too. There are mainly 4 of them,but they recruit others. John proudly showed off his video images to a friend of mine; they were close-ups of breasts,etc. . A friend of mine observed John photograph a woman's behind as she walked in front of him. John is the worst of them,but the others are bad,too. Bob is sneaky,but I witnessed him aggressively photograph a group of teenage Chinese girls; he was asked to stop by their adult guide,but continued. Joe Gallo is the punk of the group. He has taunted me when with the group,but has no balls when alone. Look them up online,you'll mostly find nothing of these guys. John posted photos a long time ago,but nothing current or recent. With all the pictures they take,it's amazing that they have nothing to really show. Random galleries and old uploads? Where are all these photos from this group going? There are candid sites that host candid pictures of females,but for a fee to those wishing to view and download them. Look up candidstreet.com for example. Don't be fooled or feel bad for these guys.....they are not street photographers. Street photography is wonderful,but these guys spit in the face of it.

kukikid wrote: Hi. I am from the area where these guys are everyday. I am known very well among these guys,because I have been very observant of them and quite vocal. I know that they are not true street photographers. I have seen them aim their cameras primarily at females,including minors. I have seen them take shots of their behinds and chests as well as full-body shots. For a while,John Mac( the elderly man) was using a video camera; this was during the summer months. They are out there daily,pretty much on a schedule. At lunch time,John Mac is in Chinatown. John is in the Downtown Crossing area later in the afternoon. Joe Gallo and Bob are out there along with John later in the day; they spread out,but also group together. There is a heavy set man in the group,too. There are mainly 4 of them,but they recruit others. John proudly showed off his video images to a friend of mine; they were close-ups of breasts,etc. . A friend of mine observed John photograph a woman's behind as she walked in front of him. John is the worst of them,but the others are bad,too. Bob is sneaky,but I witnessed him aggressively photograph a group of teenage Chinese girls; he was asked to stop by their adult guide,but continued. Joe Gallo is the punk of the group. He has taunted me when with the group,but has no balls when alone. Look them up online,you'll mostly find nothing of these guys. John posted photos a long time ago,but nothing current or recent. With all the pictures they take,it's amazing that they have nothing to really show. Random galleries and old uploads? Where are all these photos from this group going? There are candid sites that host candid pictures of females,but for a fee to those wishing to view and download them. Look up candidstreet.com for example. Don't be fooled or feel bad for these guys.....they are not street photographers. Street photography is wonderful,but these guys spit in the face of it.

If you have proof, i'd love to see it. Otherwise this is spreading rumors and hearsay about other people.

You want to be careful about this type of thing, because we don't support headhunting professionals or other artists on this forum.

Also, the enter/return button is your friend.

Yes show some proof.

You see I don't get it when you take photos of a model you have to have a singed paper by them giving you permission to have pictures of them used in either your portfolio or other projects. So how is it I can go straight up and photo someone's body in a leud or unleud way way and they have no legal right to tell me to destroy the pic?

Arkangel7x3 wrote: You see I don't get it when you take photos of a model you have to have a singed paper by them giving you permission to have pictures of them used in either your portfolio or other projects. So how is it I can go straight up and photo someone's body in a leud or unleud way way and they have no legal right to tell me to destroy the pic?

1. Public location
2. depends on local laws
3. depends on how you're using it.

I think saying (sic) "leud or unleud way" (spelling is "lewd" btw) is the key though. If you take pictures up a girls skirt/dress or down their tops then it's different to even taking pictures of their legs or (clothed) buttocks/breasts etc. proving intent with the latter is a messy business.

BTW they do have the legal right in the U.S. to tell you to destroy the pic. You guys have freedom of speech written in your constitution that give people the right to tell you anything. You don't have the legal obligation (I assume) to destroy the picture however.

BTW I have no idea if these guys are actually "bad" the video doesn't prove that to me as I can see through tabloid journalism. The post above decrying them proves nothing to me other than one person's opinion. For all I know the guy above is harassing genuine street photographers without reason because he/she feels offended somehow.

My main point in all this is the news journalists in this case were using blatant tabloid style manipulative language and editing to make people look bad. AKA their jobs.

LOL

Stealthy Ninja wrote:

Arkangel7x3 wrote: You see I don't get it when you take photos of a model you have to have a singed paper by them giving you permission to have pictures of them used in either your portfolio or other projects. So how is it I can go straight up and photo someone's body in a leud or unleud way way and they have no legal right to tell me to destroy the pic?

1. Public location
2. depends on local laws
3. depends on how you're using it.

I think saying (sic) "leud or unleud way" (spelling is "lewd" btw) is the key though. If you take pictures up a girls skirt/dress or down their tops then it's different to even taking pictures of their legs or (clothed) buttocks/breasts etc. proving intent with the latter is a messy business.

BTW they do have the legal right in the U.S. to tell you to destroy the pic. You guys have freedom of speech written in your constitution that give people the right to tell you anything. You don't have the legal obligation (I assume) to destroy the picture however.

BTW I have no idea if these guys are actually "bad" the video doesn't prove that to me as I can see through tabloid journalism. The post above decrying them proves nothing to me other than one person's opinion. For all I know the guy above is harassing genuine street photographers without reason because he/she feels offended somehow.

My main point in all this is the news journalists in this case were using blatant tabloid style manipulative language and editing to make people look bad. AKA their jobs.

LOL

tu shay

I haven't found any follow-up to the situation in Boston. What I found disturbing in the video was the photographer who can be seen walking up behind a group of women, he bends at the waist halfway down and takes a picture. I tried taking a picture from that angle with a chair as a subject, I could get the back or legs/rungs of the chair (altho I was guessing at the distance). The photographers when interviewed seem uncomfortable and evasive; that behavior indicates they're not being forthright about what they're doing.

From what I've read people do have a reasonable expectation of privacy in public, which refers more to a public restroom, locker room etc. I would think it would be a reasonable expectation for a woman to be in public w/out someone photographing part of her body w/out her consent. I did find info. related to subjects like 'up-skirt' photography but decided not to post the link as it deals w/sexual harassment issues that may not be appropriate on a family friendly website. (It's from EPIC, the Electronic Privacy Information Center which is a research center in DC.)

It doesn't seem like there's a law to cover this, but this situation might be the type that will prompt a new law eventually.