The sticky issue of consent in street photography

I was literally threatened by a man with the dog ready to attack for making test video shots of different color modes in the center of the city in the public space. I was directing my camera to the ... well to the bush. Intentionally away from the people walking on the paved road. Intentionally not directing my camera to any property. Just a public bush growing in the public bush. Did it help? No! There was literally no one alive in the shots except that very bush itself. No people around by the way. Just this one 'normal' man coming from behind or in your terminology 'boiled frog' that was ready to question me in the middle of the public street and was threatening me with his dog if I do not comply with his requests. So talk to me about rudeness.

You may think it is one rare example? It is not. If you do street photography for some time you'll see many 'interesting' aggressive things directed toward you even by people who you intentionally avoided to put into the frame. At this stage if you prefer to name my small 'call for sanity' a rudeness I could not accept it, sorry.

>You're acting like it's insane that the boiled frog is complaining about the water temperature.

It is insane if 'boiled frog' is complaining about photography which has nothing to do with the real issue while 'boiled frog' should really complain about 'the water temperature' and many other things.

>Meanwhile facebook just released sunglasses that can surreptitiously record everyone everywhere.

Exactly my point. Direct complains where they belong and leave photographers alone. Let them do their hard job and keep society respectful toward freedom of artists. Without it society doomed to failure.

> HONY presents photographs derived from this tradition but divorced from its vast potential for social import. Its brand of “humanity” requires no scrutiny, for it is designed to do what photography’s critics have accused the medium of doing at its worst: to capture, to possess, and to provoke in the viewer unprocessable, useless emotion.

Sorry but then it is called 'Not allowed' If you need to ask any permission.

By the way it seems that it never occur to those people who adapted such laws to ask the basic question : Why right for artistic expression should be 'allowed' by them? Who are they to allow other person to perceive the world in a certain way and express it in some artistic form or another? The freedom of speech and freedom of artistic expression as part of it can and should be protected if society wish to flourish and be free. The nature of the right suggests that no majority or authority can take away your right.

>I live in a country where surveillance cameras can only be used, in most cases, to investigate crimes. (although the government is trying hard to change this, lately).

I especially loved this part : "in most cases"

If this country is full of people who cannot respect artistic freedom It would be foolish for the gov. not to abuse them further.

This is exactly what you pay when you disrespect artists. No surprise there. You pay with your own freedom and you sacrifice freedom of the society itself. Is that is such a difficult concept to grasp in your country?

By the way in one such country or presumably this very country I was almost attacked even for walking with camera. No pictures where taken at all. Talk to me about 'allowed'...

In Germany turns out people think that they are entitled to posses pictures they never made. They think it's their pictures failing to understand that it's never them on pictures it is what artist see in them or about them on artist's picture. When fools starting to dominate and take freedom of artist to express himself the payment will come and it will be much much worse then arguably such a little discomfort of someone taking picture with you on it.

"A surprising number of people retain from childhood the idea that there is a fixed amount of wealth in the world."