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?
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
People with limited brain capacity and paranoïd tendencies whose judgment is quick and flawed are dangerous themselves.
When I was still on Facebook, I have seen loads of posts of mentally challenged persons who made the most outrageous claims and never checked any facts.
Just don't take photos of kids without consent. Don't try and justify it, no matter your benign intentions, whether it's "legal" or not. Just don't take photos of kids. It's fricken creepy in any setting. Replace this setting of a fairground with a playground, or a public pool, or a schoolyard and then try and justify it.
Replace the settings of your landscapes with a gym lockerroom and try to justify it. See how stupid that sounds?
Yep. That sounds pretty stupid.
If I replaced my settings of the landscape for a gym it would most likely be for architectural or real estate work and there wouldn't be any kids.
In all serious though, is there a line? If you're ok with taking photos of kids discreetly as to be as candid as possible, where would you think it's not ok? Would you hide in bushes or in your car with a telephoto? If you saw someone else doing it would you think it was suspicious? What about a really little kid running around naked at a beach? I'm genuinely curious if there is a line you wouldn't cross? Or is absolutely anything in public fair play?
Since when slander is legal and a good thing?
Would this have even been a story if it were a woman taking pictures. There is too much stigma against men nowadays. What is everyone afraid of.
"Would this have even been a story if it were a woman taking pictures."
Yes:
https://wibx950.com/webb-school-district-issues-warning-about-woman-vide...
https://www.wlfi.com/content/news/Lafayette-neighborhood-reports-suspici...
https://www.kjrh.com/news/local-news/neighbors-concerned-after-suspiciou...
Paranoid people don't think about "stigma against men" (or any other type of modern victimization garbage like what you posted). They don't think much at all, which is why they attacked this photographer without cause.
2 of those stories were about women casing residents homes for possible burglary
Making assumptions about their intent, huh? Just like the paranoid people in this article. One of my links even states outright that what the woman was doing wasn’t illegal.
Care to comment on the other link I posted that you ignored? It answers your question: if a woman was taking pictures of kids in public, they would be attacked just like a man.
People are nuts and will attack and defame a person regardless of their gender. You’re the one who unnecessarily brought up that he was a man: a strawman point used to play the victim.
The person who made the facebook post was also taking pictures (and not informing anyone) yet no one is questioning that person's right to do so. Had he been using a smartphone rather than a real camera - I suspect no one would have questioned it. Lesson here is: if you are a street photographer or a peodophile - use a smartphone to escape notice.
It depends on the county and the law, but for me as a mother it feels wrong. As I know, it's legal in the US. In my country you need the permission of a parent (or legal guardian) to take a photo of a minor even in public places (when it's a portrait and not a scene with many people) and that's not include anything about publishing the picture anywhere. It needed to be specified too, and gdpr also applies.
Had the photographer been female, would people be this bent out of shape? Likely not. That said, People's kids are off limits. Not because you're necessarily doing anything nefarious. But, the optics, especially now days, will be bad as we're seeing in this example. If he's innocent, I hope the word "liable" registers with his accusers who are the real P.O.S's here.
And we Americans make fun of cultures who think photographs steal part of a person's essence...
This is no more than a modernized, rationalized version of that same hysteria.
I would love to try street photography as I love capturing real moments but insanity like this is the main reason I am afraid to do so.
Some people need to be introduced to the wider meaning and legal ramifications of libel.
Any photographer taking pictures of children without parental consent in writing deserves all the criticism that he gets.
I will be honest, I don't think the full and correct fact's of the story are presented here. However having said that I have been questioned by people for carrying my camera and equipment near children. I like flowers and buildings especially churches for the most part. I was recently visiting my mother and people got so upset that I had my camera out near a fountain were children play that my brother, sister-in-law and I decided it was best to put it up. I almost never take pictures unless I have my wife, mother or sister-in-law with me. I also carry around more gear than I would otherwise to avoid reactions like this.
I regularly see children and want to photograph them, guess why I don't...
This is very grey zone. I was a PJ for 40 years, (now retired) and did a lot of street work, but never did children unless in a War Zone. I wouldn't go around taking images of children at a street faire. Let's face it, Freedom of the press is under attack in the USA and across the world. In the old days people wanted us to tell their story, but who knows what they think now. I have to ask why would a person take images of young children at a street faire? I also have to ask what was this woman doing taking cell phone videos of people at a street faire???
I had this happen to me about 3 months ago. I signed on to shoot a 24 hour program for a book for a local city and while photographing I captured two people/couple coming out of a biker bar, I wasn't shooting them I was shooting a chopped Harley in front of the bar, this women saw me and whipped out her cell phone and started videoing me. So I left and they got on their bike, and followed me, she was cussing at me the whole time, so I went to get coffee at a local coffee house I go to and they stopped and she came up to me wanting to know what I was doing and none of the images better go on the internet while she was videoing me with her cell phone. I must confess that in my younger days I rode a bike with a group of people and they were kind of nasty, and this women final pissed me off. So I started walking towards her telling her what I wasn't photographing and what it was for, she won't listen so I told her I won't photography her ague fat, F...ing Ass if you paid me. Then I went over to her fat ass boyfriend and ask him to control his bitch. He never look up at me, he never got off his bike/dressed hog. I can tell you, in the old days I would have been off the bike so fast and we'd been going at it, before all the words were said, but that's the old days, I'm 68 now.
So story made short, I found out these were Sunday Bikers, they're jobs wouldn't have approve of their being at a biker bar, and that they were married, but not to each other. Go figure, ya she was scared.
As for this case I understand the women and I kind of understand the photographer. Why didn't the women ask him what he was up to? Was he legit? With film you can't go through the images with a parent and erase images they want erased, it makes them feel better. Why was she videoing at the faire. It's weird.
I know the area where this occurred. I don't shoot images of children. Most of all it isn't the photographers you see with the big cameras that you have to worry about, it's the one you don't see with the cell phones. Maybe this woman was one of those and she wanted to move attention away from her, and the other guy who reported the issues.
Freedom of the press is under attack
I thought religion was the root of all of our issues, looks like FB is taking aim at 1st place. What the fuck is wrong with our society?
Under the First Amendment, if you are in a public place you have the Constitutional right to make photographs, paintings or sketches of anything or anyone you can see with the naked eye. No permission is required to MAKE the images, although under certain circumstances permission may be required to PUBLISH the images. You may not thereby subject people to public ridicule (we have slander laws) or seek to overcome their attempts so preserve their privacy (i.e. by covering their faces or wrapping themselves in a beach towel). If you are in a public place and do not want an image of you made, you can leave, or you can cover or hide yourself. You cannot enforce a demand that someone stop creating images unless their behavior constitutes harassment or assault by, for example, actively and intentionally blocking your movement or attempting to remove clothing or pull hands away from a face.
The modern notion that photographers and artists must ask permission completely undermines the intentions behind the First Amendment. Photographers are not responsible for the fevered imaginings about pedophilia, stalking, terrorism, or "creepy" attention on the part of people who go about their business in plain view of the public. And, public slander of photographers on the part of such people is exactly that - sanctionable slander.
I agree with you that we currently do, and always SHOULD, have the right to make photographs in public spaces. I also don't believe that anyone here is suggesting that photographers "must" ask permission to take their photographs. However, if we still occasionally 'do' ask permission, or behave generally in a way that does not bring suspicion upon us, or in such a way as to put the ill-informed people around us at ease, then we are going to ensure we maintain that right into the future.
What a lot of people (not you) don't seem to understand is that we only have that right, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. And the fastest way to get the attention of lawmakers and to convince them that everyone has a right to the protection of their image, even in public, as other countries do, is to run around pissing everyone off and giving street photographers a bad name.
Our current political climate and online rhetoric should be enough to convince anyone that a cause need not be just to gain traction and that outrage culture can move the needle on issues. Just look at the ridiculous blaming of video games for gun violence. People can yell all they want about how "It's legal and no one can say otherwise!" and "these people are crazy hypocrites for slandering him online" (and they are) but being more divisive is the fastest way to get our rights and freedoms taken away. Also, we could just try to be nicer to people since, you know, it's better.
"we only have that right, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others"
First, we only have that right so long as we protect it.
Second, the boundaries around First Amendment rights have already been made quite clear by the courts. No harassment. No invasion of privacy. No falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded movie theater.
People in public have the right to leave or cover themselves or their kids. They even have the right to ask us to stop making images. They don't have the right to FORCE us to stop if our activity is not otherwise unlawful. The First Amendment is the FIRST amendment to to founding document of our country. I'd rather fight for my rights than gradually fritter them away just to placate some paranoid narcissist vigilantes.
No one saying they should have the right to force you to stop anything. And no one DID stop him from doing what he did. It's legal, we all know it's legal and we all think it SHOULD be legal. You say you'd rather fight for your rights, but you aren't taking action to do so. I'm out there, trying to maintain a positive rapport with people on the street to ensure that we have nothing to worry about in the future as far as the paranoid narcissist vigilantes gathering enough support to sway lawmakers against us. Since when is being nice to people on the street "placating"?
Slander and defamation are also illegal. And, I AM fighting for my rights by not giving in every time some vigilante tells me to stop. I even carry in each of my camera bags a printed copy of an article that explains First Amendment rights as they pertain to photography so I'm ready to hand it to anyone who needs educating.
Very eloquently put. Jacques, you are 100% right. "Rights" are exactly that, our right to do something.
We are free to exercise those rights and to defend them by their use. That's quite literally the definition of the word "right".
I am tired of the suggestion that every guy with a camera should apologize for or beg permission to photograph young human beings in a public place. I have no idea what these idiots fantasize about when they see a camera in these situations but whatever it is - it is their mental malfunction and not mine.
This whole "you should interact with your subjects" thing is fine if you prefer it as a style but street photography as a genre is about candid photographs not staged/posed photographs. And that is almost always lost when asking permission to shoot.
People in public spaces, including people with children do not have a legal expectation of privacy. Provided the photos were for art, photojournalism or personal use they were completely legal. That said having a legal right to take a photo does not mean that the subject is not allowed to be angry or upset. It is generally good manners to talk to someone before taking their picture, especially if children are involved, even if it is legal.
What the people doxing the photographer were doing including calling him a pedophile online WAS ILLEGAL and the photographer would;d be in his rights to file complaints or civil suits against them.
"Provided the photos were for art, photojournalism or personal use they were completely legal."
Photos are not legal or illegal. The making of them in public places is legal, and the improper use of them afterward may be illegal.
I always tell everyone what I'm doing, and always ask permission from officials at public events. Swallow your pride and be humble. Respect other people, and understand no means no. I always ask a security officer to accompany me, and offer free prints/ pictures to who I shoot. I don't do street photography anymore because twice I got confronted and once got robbed!
Yes, I as well, when I am trying to capture candid moments of natural street life, carry a bullhorn and announce what I am about to do first. Its is best practice to hire one of those airplanes that can fly a billboard across the sky as well, and perhaps launch up some flares to get everyones attention before you make your announcement that you want everyone to behave candidly so you can take a candid picture.
Your infantile sarcasm notwithstanding, enjoy explaining to the cops when an over-reactive mother or some other SJW reports you.
Side note: I thought the sarcasm was well done and on point. Pandering to hysterical idiots is not the way forward for those serious about a street photographer's art.