A Californian street photographer awoke to find himself the subject of a vicious, viral Facebook post filled with accusations that contained photos of his face. The post referred to him as a “P.O.S.” and insinuated he was a pedophile after he spent the afternoon documenting strangers, including families, at a county fair the day previous.
Joshua Rosenthal had been at the Ventura County Fair in Ventura, California, with the intention of snapping candid moments of strangers.
Writing on his Facebook page, he added:
I photograph people, often with no prior approval, because the photos speak more to the moment. One can’t capture life when it’s being posed.
The post in question has racked up thousands of comments and shares. The majority of the comments are rather scathing, with one even alluding to Rosenthal being a human trafficker, while another wished for his death.
Following complaints from locals, the local Ventura police department posted this now-deleted message on their Facebook page, advising on how to keep kids safe in public. It also made reference to Rosenthal’s presence at the fair and claims that he was spoken to on the day.
Rosenthal added:
People are just making accusations with no facts. Let’s not forget that a moral compass does not constitute the law. What one sees as being ‘wrong’ is not illegal. In today’s day and age, if you see something you don’t like, ask about it. I’d be willing to bet there is another story.
Sorry I scared you (parents of some random girl). I understand that one wants to protect their kids. But protect them from what? Check out my photography, guys. You be the judge.
This is more about the First Amendment and doxing than it is about me. I’m not trying to get hurt, but I’m more concerned with the rights and safety of other photographers as well as the fear I have instilled in these parents.
It could have all been solved with a conversation, in my eyes.
Rosenthal tells PetaPixel that he’ll be contacting the ACLU next week.
Was he within his rights to take these photos? Do you agree that street and documentary photography only qualify if the subject is unaware of the photographer’s presence?
When I was starting photography in the early 1990s, I shot kids at the park several times, their parents were cool about it. Would then develop the film and printed the shot myself in the darkroom. I guess people nowadays are different.
Shows the intelligence of the mob, if it was a creepy photographer there are far more discrete ways to capture images including using a mobile phone.
I've been a victim of this myself, although it didn't go onto social media I had a pack of rabid parents about to lynch me in a park. It's why I avoid parks now with any camera gear.
People are stupid, and believe whatever social media feeds them. We become sheep, and if you show any intelligence or non-flock behaviour you're the enemy.
One thing I do love about social media is it gives us all an insight into just how quickly mob-mentality spirals completely out of control. It is like watching a modern witchhunt where everyone just eggs everyone else on and tries to outdo each other with their accusations.
He goes from being a creep to a pedo to a fuckin' human trafficker. Out come the internet experts and detective dipshits to solve the case of the photographer at the fair. All Because some obnoxious busybody decided a guy with a camera & what looks to be a 50mm took photos in a public place.
If he was in a car with his telephoto pointed at a public toilet then I would agree he was up to something sleazy.
Or he was a private investigator. Which may or may not be the same thing.
How about from now on, Fstoppers just makes links to the original source article, in the same way they do with the youtube videos?
https://petapixel.com/2019/08/10/this-street-photographer-became-the-tar...
It's literally linked at the bottom of the article.
Cleverly disguised as a source for a quote, but notice how it doesnt say "entire article sourced from the Petapixel article"
Clearly the intent was to hide the fact that literally the ENTIRE article was just rebranding someone elses work.
.
No, in the via tag at the bottom. That's standard blogging process.
No. I am sorry, but you are being deliberately dishonest.
"Rosenthal tells PetaPixel that he’ll be contacting the ACLU next week."
That is attributing that specific statement to Petapixel.
No one in their right minds, and 99% of your users here at Fstoppers, would read that and then think that this ENTIRE article is literally just copied from Petapixel with some information left out.
That is not correct attribution, period. It was done in that way because it is embarrassing to Fstoppers to let everyone know the author just read an article on another news site and then put the cliff notes here.
How about doing some actual journalism. Did you guys reach out to this individual and conduct your own interview? Did you reach out to the alleged victim to do your own interview? Did you contact the police to see what they said? Did you do any journalism, or did you just read an article and report here on what that article said?
Again, I'm talking about the via tag. You're still talking about the quote. Your opinion is noted, nonetheless.
Again, I am talking about doing some actual journalism, instead of just regurgitating what another news site said. What is the point of reading Fstoppers news if I could get more accurate news from another site, the original site?
Photo sites source current stories and content from each other constantly, just like news stations, tech sites, etc. source from each other. It's how the blogosphere works. If you'd like more original content, you can see all our original articles here: www.fstoppers.com/originals. Have a great day!
Fstoppers and Petapixel copy each other's original stories all day long. It's almost like eating the same food, just with a different wrapper.
I think the problem for me is that this is a common occurrence that the author pulls from PP on nearly every article they write. Granted, there are limited resources for legitimate news, but there's sometimes borderline plagiarism.
Ok so the FB post is clearly an over reaction BUT dude should know sniping random pics of people’s kids is not going to go over well.
If you really need that shot, take it and walk over the parents explain why ur shooting their kids and offer to delete if they don’t want you to have it. Most people will be cool if you’re forthcoming with your intentions.
That just basic decency even if it’s LEGAL not to do so.
Legality doesn’t mean something is ethical or moral (see trump administration).
There is a way for everyone to get what they want in situations like these, just be decent and have some empathy for others.
I understand what you're getting to, but it's not always so easy with mob mentality. I imagine from his response if the parents had come up to him this would have never been an issue. Though he really doesn't have to explain anything or delete anything though as it's within his constitutional rights to do so - morality aside as not everyone shares the same moral compass.That said, he's shooting film, not digital, so it's a tad bit harder to 'delete'.
He is making them uncomfortable.
If someone was to corner you in an elevator and start speaking derogatory to you while violating your personal space I bet you would be pretty upset about it... but that behavior is totally within his “constitutional rights”
So sorry I don’t buy that argument. Taking pictures of strangers kids should be universally accepted as inappropriate behavior in our society. If your going to do it; at least have the common courtesy to make people not feel threatened by speaking to them first or immediately after.
You're comparing apples to oranges. A photographer, no a STREET photographer, takes photos of people in public. He is capturing them in a natural un-posed manner. It is not the same as a person making derogatory comments while invading personal space. There is no artistic merit in someone attempting to harass you and depending on what is said by the person invading your personal space it could be a law violation. So, yeah, not the same.
There's also more to the story than just what is posted here and on PP. "The Mom dropped a funnel cake and I made a picture of that. NO KIDS AT ALL. Then she approached me already angry. I have absolutely no interest in engaging with angry people" directly from his post, and it's abundantly clear he's shooting the ground from the photos in this post. Some people had come up to him, he explained, no issue after that from those people.
Regardless, you have no right to privacy,something that is not the same as not being harassed as you tried to straw-man, in a public setting, PERIOD! He's not shooting up-skirts(a violation and illegal), he's not shooting children's private areas(a violation and illegal), he's not selling the photos or posting said photos to illicit website(a violation and illegal). He's taking candid shots of average people at a fair.
You want to strip the rights of an artist away from doing something then become a politician and create a bill to get it banned. Simple.
Yeah I addressed this you can get the candid shot and then go engage with the parents and explain WHY you’re taking photos of their small children. That’s the decent thing to do and no the burden to engage isn’t in the parents. The burden is on the photographer.
Even at my kids soccer games I engage with the other parents and ask if it’s ok to shoot their kids and offer to share pics if they want.
If some stranger started snapping pics of my kids I would absolutely be pissed if they didn’t explain why and have a valid purpose for doing so.
"pissed". Reminds me of this quote by Stephen Fry:
"It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what."
Be pissed all you like, it doesn't change things.
I don’t mind making other people upset so long as I GET WHAT I WANT!!
"Taking pictures of strangers kids should be universally accepted as inappropriate behavior in our society."
So, I've got a 28mm lens on my camera, I'm taking a photo of a cotton candy stand, and there happen to be some kids in the middle of the scene. I'm supposed to wait until all the kids leave? You haven't thought through the implications.
↑↑↑ So very much this! We aren't talking about posing people for an advertising shoot, street photography is candid by its very nature. There really is not "a way for everyone to get what they want" as you say Ryan Ringstad. The whole reason it is legal, is because once you interact with the subject you're no longer capturing the moment that a street photographer's whole purpose revolves around. If it were not protected by law, it would be nearly impossible to do at all. Go read about the original legal precedent regarding "street photography" as a genre, it is pretty explicit in that regard.
Ummm you can interact with the person after you get the shot(s).
Sure he is within his rights but he is not immune to reactions, if you photograph peoples children in public and do not explain your self, then don't come crying about peoples reactions. The notion the burden of engagement is on his subject is pure lazyness.
Ryan and Paul basically want to change the law and make street photography illegal.
"Photographing strangers without a government permit is against the law. Penalty: immediate loss of equipment and a minimum of two years to a maximum of three years incarceration."
Many governments including a significant share of the US government would side with Ryan and Paul as it would basically give them a free hand to round people up or rob them with no records of the event taken. Horrifying. In Austria, they've already crossed this line: it's now illegal to share photos taken in public places with people in them. Photographers have been fined tens of thousands of euros in the precedent cases.
On the other hand, what can be done under current laws in most of the Western world to stop a stalker-photographer? S/he could hide behind the same laws which allow street photography. Best to handle it as the bears do? Come too close to my cub and you'll get a paw across the face?
I suggest you read my post again, instead of making stuff up.
But to help you, he is within he's rights yes, but he and he alone is responsible for how he handles himself.
So if he wants to be that person that does not engage with his subjects that's perfectly fine. Just don't be surprised when people react.
It's rather simple, and if one is so disconnected they can't phantom as to why most parents do not want strangers to photograph their kids, well then I suggest you get a hobby that does not demand human interaction.
Since one has to be socially inept to not grasps such fundamental fact that most parents, in general, are very protective of their kids.
[comment deleted]
I totally agree with you.
Honestly, your comments are rare - if not the only - comments that I would not qualify as unhealthy and savage.
"Being legal" is not enough at all for the better future of our society and humanity.
This is exactly why when I put my drone up for photographing residential property in Los Angeles I try my darnedest to let anyone I see in the vicinity know that I am going to be using a drone. It doesn't take very long and it saves the headache of some random person coming by and putting their finger in my face.
Now granted, I live in Los Angeles. Ventura County is not too far and I imagine it's very much the same. Take photos/video of the photographer and post on social media blasting them later. Hardly ever does a conversation take place asking why.
Note, in the US this is totally legal (as others have said). Still, we have to be aware that just because something is legal it does not mean others will not respond to our actions.
When I shoot kids in public I :
a) Introduce myself as a photographer
b) I ask permission from the parents
c) Show one of my online galleries on my phone to show parents how the final pictures could look
d) Give parents my card and tell them where they can download the image later that week
Remember, parents also have 100% the right to protect their children and if you are perceived as a threat get ready to meet mama bear. Just because we have a right does not eliminate the parents rights to protect their children.
Having said that, wow, talk about over reaction on the side of the parents. Still, parents (and I'm one of them) tend to overreact in the absence of information. It falls on us, the photographers, to put their concerns to rest. I know it it may surprise some but people skills are needed when working with people.
If you...
a) Introduce [your]self as a photographer
b) ...ask permission from the parents
c) Show one of [your] online galleries on [your] phone to show parents how the final pictures could look
d) Give parents [your] card and tell them where they can download the image later that week
...I have to assume that you aren't taking candid "street photography" shots, but in fact trying to further your business and name recognition in your market (particularly from the last two items). This is simply not how one does street photography, which is why the law expressly protects it, otherwise the genre would not exist at all.
Can that have repercussions? Certainly, but only to people who are ignorant of what is actually happening and instead assume the absolute worst case scenario instead. I would argue that one hasn't just lost the battle in that situation, but the entire war as a society if that is their default, and it is normalized by those around them.
But isn't our responsibility as photographers to attempt to educate the ignorant people around us? There is nothing to be lost from having good relations with the people around us, educating them on the whole existence of street photography and the law surrounding it. Potentially even expanding the reach and the market for street photography and adding more members to our ranks.
However, if we do whatever we want to get the shot and don't care about how we are perceived and don't do anything to educate, then we have no one to blame but ourselves for the pervasive ignorance that leads to this kind of behavior from the "mob" online.
What good do you think would come from him interacting with people who have labeled him as everything up to and including a child sex trafficker? That seems like a fast track to some violence.
I appreciate the perspective, but not everyone on the scene accused him in the way this particular, rather crazy, person did. And he probably never would have been accused of anything if he had at least tried.
No, it is not my responsibility to "educate" people about things I do in public. I may CHOOSE to do it, but it is not my responsibility. It is the responsibility of Americans to understand their Constitution.
"It's always someone else's responsibility to do something"
- The Internet
Yeah, and you're making ME responsible for educating OTHERS. How about YOU educate them?
If you actually read any of these comments you'd know that's exactly what I do
Reading through the accusatory reactions of many of these people, clearly this shouldn't be acceptable, and Rosenthal should rightfully defend himself from defamation if necessary. Though i would argue in some circumstances, hiding behind a camera and doing whatever you want just because you are 'allowed' to isn't good enough either, or else of course people will question and critique your actions.
To the more general question about street photography, I think documenting what is going on in the world can be an important creative and truth-telling practice for those on both sides of the camera. I would also add the public freedom to photograph living and human subjects should not veil you from the responsibility of doing so with transparency, integrity, respect and common sense...unless of course you don't give a shit about those things. Alas most people don't strive to practice such standards because as Rosenthal says, "Let’s not forget that a moral compass does not constitute the law..." lol. I don't believe that statement or the one after it were meant to be self-incriminating, but regardless of career or craft, what do you expect if thats the extent of the philosophy you work by?
These people had the right to question what Rosenthal was doing. These people had the right to inform the police of what Rosenthal was doing. These people had the right to investigate Rosenthal's activities (within the limits of the law, not B&E).
These people did not have the right to make ungrounded accusations of pedophile or kidnapping. That's libel.
Photographing children in public is clearly a situation where you are legally right, but you know 100% that it will incite a conflict with their parents. Every decent human being has to know that this situation will alarm strangers and parents. While he may claim that street photos "speak more to the moment", he should also acknowledge that his behavior also causes conflict.
Actually, in this case every party acted legally and reasonably. The same First Amendment that protects his behavior also protects negative opinions too(minus violence). I would expect any person acting in this manner to get the same treatment. This feels like another instance of selfish entitlement using a camera.
Respectfully, I disagree. The guy wasn't doing anything that would have raised this lady's suspicion if he were wearing a press pass, an event staff t-shirt, or had a monstrous news camera on his shoulder. I have a nearly 1 year old son, and I'd think nothing of this happening in such an environment. Of course, I try to see the best in people, or at least give them the benefit of the doubt. My wife, on the other hand, may have reacted similarly. If she found another person who agreed with her, then she definitely would go on at least a small incensed tirade. When she did it, I'd look at her like she was insane and respond with the following:
If we have to assume everyone is a murderous cannibalistic child kidnapping molester, then I think we have already lost as an society. That's clearly what happened here, by my reckoning. Neither of us were actually there to see precisely what went down, but this lady is out for blood over a few pictures (but again, much much later, when she was already home and scanning her footage), and to his credit the photog seems quite rational and apologetic. Anyway, if it were really as alarming as she says it was, why not say something then and there? A >>truly<< concerned parent would, I think.
And, if we humor her likely irrational paranoia, why can't the photog be equally as upset that she was recording him to incite her friends later? How is that not also camera-related-entitlement? The difference is that the photographer could have actually taken legal (or at the very least civil) action against this woman.
This sort of thing is actually not, strictly speaking, legal. At the VERY least, he could have had a very strong defamation/libel case and probably would have won a decent cash settlement for damage to his public reputation. The woman isn't just expressing her "negative opinion", she is more or less calling the guy a sex-offender. The first amendment protects what he is doing (as he is doing nothing wrong in point of fact), but not necessarily what she did in response to it. "Freedom of speech" isn't a blank check, it has some well precedented limits.
The photographer could have chosen to wear identification as a photographer, get a media/police pass, or even ask permission from the parents- but chose not too.
You write that "why can't the photog be equally as upset that she was recording him to incite her friends later?" which makes no sense at all, since they are both protected equally.
I don't see a case for libel or defamation. The original posts called him names and is derogatory, but actually only describes the facts of his behavior. Plus the subject's name is not used.
I think you're missing the point: She is running around videoing people "without their consent/knowledge", and screaming at him for photographing people "without their consent/knowledge". Better hope she didn't video any children, otherwise, what makes her any different to him?
There's plenty of scope for libel or defamation for many of the comments. A name is helpful, but not required. All that is required is that you are "identifiable", which, well, there's plenty of pictures of him.
The original post was very sensationalist and tabloid. We weren't there to see how he went about it.
I'd just ask if if I saw someone I thought was making pics of my kids in an weird way. There's a way to do things right and there's a way to solve an issue before sending it to social media. The whole issue would have been a non issue if dealt with on the spot.
Paranoia gets us nowhere.
I agree 100%, on all counts. I'd add that a truly concerned parent would have to be quite cowardly, even to the point of neglecting their child's wellbeing, not to confront a person on the spot if they thought there was a sincere danger to their child.
To me, the main issue happens to be the lack of public understanding of expectation of privacy in regard to this genre of photography. Plainly stated, in a public place, there is none. Still, there are ways to mitigate these reactions. Does this guy have a business? Print a press pass with a logo, laminate it, and display it plainly. It might not get him backstage at a concert, but it looks less shady if you clearly display something like "Bob's Photojournal Weekly Official Press Pass".
Another thing I have done before is to set an intervalometer (#cooltricksmy7dmk2cando) to more or less continually take shots, then just walk around with the lens cap off of my camera. You're "shooting from the hip", so you may not get the best compositions, but you get the shots and 99% of the people around you won't go all "spidey senses tingling" on you.
Of course the true irony of all this comes when you understand the capabilities of modern tech. My $700 smartphone today can take better pictures (at least from a mathematical standpoint) than my $4000 prosumer body could 10 years ago. High res cameras are tiny now, but the fact that someone sees you pointing a big lens at their kid will send them into a frenzy (at least when they think you aren't looking).
I've been through all of these arguments with burner (as in "The Man") friends, who are religious about consent for everything from sideways glances to handshaking to penetrative sex (okay, that last one is entirely understandable). They think they are still on the playa everywhere they go, but they forget that even there it won't be the person walking around obviously taking pictures with a big camera that they will really need to watch out for. After all, the very definition of "voyeurism" requires that the person or persons being watched do not know they are being watched. The clandestine nature of the observation is requisite for the thrill to someone like that.
IMO, the guilty party here is this woman, but not for freaking out (which is, in my eyes, cowardly since the poor guy couldn't even defend himself) after the fact on social media. She's guilty of nothing more than misplaced ire stemming from abject ignorance and foolishly erroneous assumptions. Of course then she had to be a dick about it. Society would be a lot more cohesive if we didn't immediately jump to the worst possible conclusion. There's always one though...
I can see, having read a lot of these very polarized comments, that even many photographers do not understand the fundamental concepts necessary for a photo to be "street photography". Considering this, it's much easier to understand why this woman reacted as she did: complete and total ignorance resulting in unfounded paranoia resulting in a "worst case scenario" assumption. Kindly skim this article (at least the first few sentences), those of you who are shifting the blame onto this photographer "for not being more personable" (and so on):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_photography