One wall of Tyler Munford’s small apartment bedroom looks like an evidence board from a Law & Order episode. Photos of street scenes, colourful charts, online article printouts. Although it’s been almost two months since the NSCAD student was involved in an altercation with a Halifax Alehouse bouncer after Munford took his photo for a school project, the bigger issues that fueled all the media attention, messageboard speculation and violent threats still remain. Photographers’ rights and the public’s perception of privacy laws are murky at best.
Munford’s proposal began with another project on surveillance, where he was hoping to capture late-night drunken fights outside bars. A bouncer pointed out to him where incidents were likely to occur, but said he couldn’t take photos. “And so, I listened,” says Munford, “but I found out later that was actually misleading. They don’t have that power. And so that’s what let me to this project—to discover and question the law of photography and how people understand that law.”
When Steven Farmer, Munford’s digital photography class instructor, read his proposal, he arranged for him to speak to lawyers, who clarified that Munford’s project was indeed legal (NSCAD has also released a statement that it “stands behind its students”). Munford points to two photos on the bedroom wall, his earlier attempts, taken a week before the Alehouse incident and before he figured out his lighting system (the controversial schematic that became proof to some people that Munford set up the bouncer, was actually a simple diagram showing where lighting should be placed).
The first photos are grainy: shot using only available light, Munford knew he needed proper lighting and someone to hold it, so he asked around on Facebook for volunteers. Fellow student Stella Ducklow volunteered to hold the lights, and another friend to hold a video camera.
“I accepted a certain amount of risk,” admits Munford, who wrote in his proposal “I may take precautions such as hav[ing] another friend further away with camera to document should anything go wrong.”
He says, “I found it really strange that it’s an accepted rule that you don’t take pictures of bouncers. It’s just accepted that they will act against the law. But I didn’t think that anything, to this extent, would happen. Yes, I had my video camera with me, but I didn’t think it would happen.”
“If I walk up and grab a photo of you, manipulate it and put it on the internet, that’s illegal,” explains Farmer over the phone. “But if I walked up in a public space and took a photo of you and you didn’t want me to but I did anyway, that’s not illegal, but it might push your buttons and make you mad. Does that give you the right to assault someone to take that camera?”
From a teacher’s perspective Farmer doesn’t think that Munford was “completely successful. One, he spent a lot of time handling media, or the media handling him. But you have to take this and stand back and look at it from another perspective: ‘Hey, this isn’t just about someone who overreacted to a simple situation, it’s how we’re being perceived in society with what we want to do for a living, or for artwork or whatever. Let’s examine this.'”
And that’s exactly what Munford is doing, and why he has all the paper on his wall and in piles on the floor. He agrees with Fisher that the initial project wasn’t a success—“considering I only had 12 minutes of shooting with a system that created well-lit photos,” but it’s fuelled his interest in larger issues about photography and media.
Munford and Farmer are not alone in their concerns over photographer rights: Last Saturday there was a mass photographer gathering in London’s Trafalgar Square, protesting the arrest of several photographers under the UK’s heavyhanded terrorist laws. It’s a complicated, global situation that Munford unexpectedly, and violently, stumbled into.
“What do we do?” asks Farmer. “Do we change the laws or do we change public perception to photography?”
Related Stories
Art photo project gets bounced – hard
This article appears in Jan 28 – Feb 3, 2010.
I still think he’s an idiot.
Ivan, you hit the nail on the head. Photographer’s rights indeed.
There’s a lot to be said about entrapment here. If he made a concerted effort to orchestrate a photo shoot of this nature, one could argue in criminal court that he was egging them on, and therefore responsible for anything that they had done that evening. It’s a stretch, but still arguable, and a good lawyer (heh, a security company lawyer vs. an art school student’s lawyer) could drag it out. Not to mention too, he had a second camera to shoot what happened if “anything were to go wrong”, which implies to me that he was expecting something bad to happen to him, whether he instigates it or not. Failing criminal court proceedings, there is a defamation of character issue, and the burden of proof is significantly less in those situations.
His attitude around photography without consent is poor. To simply state that it’s not illegal is fine, and technically correct. There is an issue about respecting people’s privacy, and to treat it like he can take a photo anywhere, anytime, I hope someone takes his precious dSLR and smashes it. He would certainly deserve it. Just because you’re an “artist” doesn’t allow you to walk all over social conventions.
I agree with you Doctor, 100% Those who claim to be the self-appointed first line of defense between us, the apathetic bovine herd and a monolithic, Big-Brother type of state are always the first to turn to that state to enforce or enact laws to protect their occupation, hobby or livelihood, usually at the expense of the population’s most basic rights (privacy, security etc).
To create a situation that was as contrived and artificial as a Marlin Perkins nature documentary (Watch now as Stan uses his cattle prod to force the North American Puma into a life or death struggle with it’s natural enemy, the Burmese Python) is insulting. And to claim some higher purpose as a motive, is laughable.
Freedom of (fill in the blank ) has degenerated to mean little more than Freedom from Criticism and Freedom from the Consequences of Your Actions. Nothing I’ve heard from Mr. Munford or his supporters alters this perception. Maybe that’s the best of a bunch of rotten choices, but it doesn’t bode well for society. I wish I had an answer, but I don’t.
I agree with you Doctor, 100% Those who claim to be the self-appointed first line of defense between us, the apathetic bovine herd and a monolithic, Big-Brother type of state are always the first to turn to that state to enforce or enact laws to protect their occupation, hobby or livelihood, usually at the expense of the population’s most basic rights (privacy, security etc).
To create a situation that was as contrived and artificial as a Marlin Perkins nature documentary (Watch now as Stan uses his cattle prod to force the North American Puma into a life or death struggle with it’s natural enemy, the Burmese Python) is insulting. And to claim some higher purpose as a motive, is laughable.
Freedom of (fill in the blank ) has degenerated to mean little more than Freedom from Criticism and Freedom from the Consequences of your actions. Maybe that’s the best of a bunch of rotten choices, but it doesn’t bode well for society. I wish I had an answer, but I don’t.
Indeed. There really isn’t a proper answer here. It’s the artistic equivalent of a journalist doing a “gotcha” piece. The latter has serious consequences (financial and regualtory), and is poor journalism, meanwhile, people like our Mr. Munford here pass off “gotcha” photos as “art”. Never mind the fact that what Mr. Munford has done has more to do with the former, than the latter.
This passage is of the most concern to me: “But if I walked up in a public space and took a photo of you and you didn’t want me to but I did anyway, that’s not illegal, but it might push your buttons and make you mad. Does that give you the right to assault someone to take that camera?”. It’s a double standard that exists within this specific community.
I don’t really understand where he’s violating anyone’s privacy. All the guy did was photograph people at work at an effectively public venue. As far as I know, the entire incident took place on public property. Halifax is famous for having a violent downtown bar scene, and you’re finding fault with somebody for wanting to document it? And then it’s okay that he gets assaulted by someone whose job is to keep the peace?? I don’t get it. Why should the employees of an company that makes money by intoxicating people be above the law?
Because Jeb, it was staged. It’s not like he did a serious piece of photographic journalism. Yes, the bar scene is violent. So is every other city’s bar scene. Anytime you get young adults (primarily young men) together, add a dash of liquor, you get fights. Either between patrons, or bouncers and patrons. Problem is, bouncers are not drunk and usually twice the size of the fuck-stick they’re tossing out. What he did wouldn’t fly in journalistic circles, so why should it fly here?
Secondly, his attitude towards privacy is quite clear. He doesn’t give a damn about privacy, except for his own, as Ivan has already mentioned, when he evokes those lucrative photographer’s “rights” (i.e.: the right to shoot whatever he wants, where he wants, without prejudice and without consent). That’s a dangerous attitude to have simply because it erodes the average person’s privacy and rights because eventually if something like this goes into criminal or civil court, next thing you know, you’ll need to get family members to sign consent waivers to take a family photo, to limit liability. What about the people, other than the bouncers, that he photographed. Who is to say they wanted to be photographed? All of this in the name of “art”, disguised as bullshit.
I agree with the Doctor on this one.
Speaking directly from inside NSCAD’s photo department (student) I believe Munford wasn’t thinking critically about what was doing. But rather just passing a “gotcha” photographic style, that is more suited for humorous blogs, as an art piece.
The fact that something so unworthy of any sort of attention is arising so much discussion is a shame. Tyler Munford doesn’t deserve any fame or glory that we are giving him by writing articles on him in The Coast.
I’d rather devote my thoughts and time to actual art.
Couldn’t what Mr. Munford did be considered a form of harassment, and therefore make him at least somewhat liable for the ass-kicking he (should have) received? Maybe, who knows, which is exactly why we need lawyers lawyers lawyers!
How about I follow him around in public some day, without his permission, and take pictures and/or videos of him every time he picks his nose, scratches his balls, and makes weird faces and post it all over Facebook and YouTube, entitling it “TYLER MUNFORD PICKING HIS NOSE AND SCRATCHING HIS BALLS.” All in the name of “art,” of course. Leave it to The Coast to to defend this typical NSCAD idiot.
Like others have said, there should be a reasonable expectation of at least some personal privacy even in public.
I disagree Dr. Fever.
There is no criminal act in taking a photo in a public place. The intent in taking the photo of possible violent altercations between others also IMO doesn’t mean he is breaking any law. Unless he has set up a situation whereby someone associated with him deliberately provokes a bouncer in hopes of getting a ‘violent incident’ captured by whatever media type he was recording on, film, tape or electronic. Then I could see people being upset with this photographer.
What really stands out is how inexperienced this guy really is. THere are many low light alternatives to filming/recording an image & you don’t have to introduce extra lighting. Which again IMO, if he had been a little more experienced & prepared for low light conditions. No ‘extra’ light would have been needed & chances are he wouldn’t have been as intrusive,as he was with extra lighting & helpers to handle it. If he was any good at all, or accomplished in photography in low light,even without him hiding, someone who was paying attention to an altercation probably wouldn’t have noticed him photographing the incident standing on the sidewalk away from the action.
I didn’t say what he was doing was entirely illegal More. In fact, I conceded what he was doing was legal. My argument is that like Q here, there is a legal argument (and any good lawyer could argue this) for harassment. It could be further argued that he could be responsible for any violent goings-on that evening because of that harassment.
hi just wanted to say i don’t like tyler munford or stella ducklow because of this im pretty sure i went to highschool with her anyways the bouncers may have been out in a public place but he was working in that public place now i don’t know if that changes anything or not, does anybody know if there is a line that the bouncer can’t go across when dealing with unruly patrons and i mean a physical line not a figurative line like say the bouncers are kicking out a guy who is fighting in the bar and then it escalates to the street is the bouncer just supposed to stop and walk back to the door or fear being accused of assault or say somebody just stole a bunch of money from the bar and runs outside is the bouncer not allowed to chase them down and detain them and wait for the police. can somebody please give me a legitimate answer