Gambling pictures Yes? No?

[gvallee]

I am dithering whether to upload some great images I've taken last month of a "two up" game in the Australian Outback.

 

"Two up" is a traditional Australian gambling game played on Anzac day, where you bet on coins falling on two heads or two tails. It's a rough affair played in its original tin shed in the Bush. Here is a picture of it on Alamy by another contributor.

 

Faces of people are all visible, clearly locals and not tourists. Wads of $100 notes in hand or on the ground. The place I took them is the only legalized Two Up School in Australia, so presumably it's private property.

 

In addition, even before the game started, a woman asked me not to take pictures of her. I said no problems but here she is in the middle of the crowd in every picture.

 

My intuition is telling me not to upload. What do you guys think?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 27, 2021 by gvallee

[MarkK]

I am sure the photos are very fascinating from an anthropological/editorial/sociological viewpoint but I think you should stick with your intuition.  Since the woman asked not to take pictures of her and happened to appear in each of them (divine intervention indicating you shouldn't sell them? lol).  I think if it weren't for that you would need to consider the private property situation.  Is there a way to crop the photos so the woman isn't in them and to possibly get permission from the school or to at least ask them what they think?

 

Just writing out loud here but have you checked photos of gambling in casinos which are obviously private property.  Do they just show table chips? people playing? etc.  It would be interesting to read what you decide on.

[gvallee]

19 minutes ago, MarkK said:

I am sure the photos are very fascinating from an anthropological/editorial/sociological viewpoint but I think you should stick with your intuition.  Since the woman asked not to take pictures of her and happened to appear in each of them (divine intervention indicating you shouldn't sell them? lol).  I think if it weren't for that you would need to consider the private property situation.  Is there a way to crop the photos so the woman isn't in them and to possibly get permission from the school or to at least ask them what they think?

 

Just writing out loud here but have you checked photos of gambling in casinos which are obviously private property.  Do they just show table chips? people playing? etc.  It would be interesting to read what you decide on.

 

Yes I have checked pictures of casinos on Alamy, which would not prove much legally in any case. They seem to be only models. I would never consider uploading pictures of people gambling in a casino, and I think that we would be kicked out if someone attempted to take any. I have been asked to leave in Macao for just wanting to watch a game of mahjong. These are obviously private property. The difference with the gaming ring is that it's in an open field but I would imagine it's still somebody's property. 

 

No the woman can't be edited, she's too enmeshed in the crowd. She's all the more noticeable that she's a stunning young Thai woman with a chignon that makes her stand out. Other participants include Aborigines and other colourful local characters. My strong instinct is telling me that they might not be too keen to appear somewhere with thick wads of bank notes. 

, 

[Bryan]

Probably better not to use the photos.

 

However your story reminds me of an episode from my childhood. I was walking back from the railway station in the colliery village where I was brought up, and came across a gathering of pitmen stood on one of the pit heaps playing a similar game. They had posted sentries I guess to warn of approaching authority, but I was ignored. Men gambling what was presumably the housekeeping budget. It felt wrong to me then despite my young age.

 

The pit heaps are now gone, and there is a nature reserve in their place.

Edited December 27, 2021 by Bryan

[Phil Crean]

As you were specifically asked not to take pictures of her it's a huge NO!

 

In fact I wouldn't publish them anywhere.

 

Is there any chance you can track down this woman and show her the photos? if so you may be able to ask her to change her mind...

 

Phil

[gvallee]

Links deleted

Edited December 28, 2021 by gvallee

[gvallee]

1 minute ago, Phil Crean said:

As you were specifically asked not to take pictures of her it's a huge NO!

 

In fact I wouldn't publish them anywhere.

 

Is there any chance you can track down this woman and show her the photos? if so you may be able to ask her to change her mind...

 

Phil

 

I agree. It's also my gut feeling. 

I've moved hundreds kms away from this place now.

[Allan Bell]

 

I have had photos with people in them doing things which I thought could be considered controversial so did not upload them and have actually deleted them rather than allowing them to be put out in the public domain accidentally. 

 

From what you say about other form of gambling photos and your own feelings about possibly publishing your images I would say go with your instincts and not upload them BUT you could keep them safe as they are interesting from the anthropological/editorial/sociological viewpoint as mentioned by MarkK above and may be of interest to future generations.

 

Allan

 

[gvallee]

9 minutes ago, Allan Bell said:

 

I have had photos with people in them doing things which I thought could be considered controversial so did not upload them and have actually deleted them rather than allowing them to be put out in the public domain accidentally. 

 

From what you say about other form of gambling photos and your own feelings about possibly publishing your images I would say go with your instincts and not upload them BUT you could keep them safe as they are interesting from the anthropological/editorial/sociological viewpoint as mentioned by MarkK above and may be of interest to future generations.

 

Allan

 

 

Yes it seems to be the obvious conclusion. Thank you for your input Allan. 

[Allan Bell]

9 minutes ago, gvallee said:

 

Yes it seems to be the obvious conclusion. Thank you for your input Allan. 

 

Thank you Gen. I suggest you wait a while longer before making your final decision to see if you get any more replies to your post. Out of four replies all have been against you uploading to A and one post also giving you something to consider further.

 

Allan

 

Edited December 27, 2021 by Allan Bell

[Alex Ramsay]

Absolutely not for Alamy, though if you were to return and spend enough time there to form relationships, some people might agree to your exhibiting them. An interesting world or culture to be part of.

 

Alex

[spacecadet]

My view is pic 1, yes, pic 2  tells less of a story but would illustrate gambling more generally. You could blur her face but I wouldn't say one person in a group has a right of veto if the image was lawfully taken.

The chances of any participant becoming aware of the images are pretty slight. I'm assuming Australia has taken its cue from the UK and doesn't have right of personality.

Edited December 27, 2021 by spacecadet

[gvallee]

Alright, thank you all for your input. I will not upload these images. It was my inclination from the start, just wanted confirmation.

 

Gen 

[sb photos]

Only you can way up the odds re the pics you took, and you've decided, likely the right decision.

 

I suspect all photographers at some time go through the doubts you had. I remember watching a fake auction at a UK coastal resort with my wife long ago. A woman with a disability in a wheelchair was being fleeced, and she became hysterical. Heavies ejected her and her carer. I grabbed a few shots of the fracas on my OM1/24mm. I always believe in shooting first, then later deciding later whether to use, and I didn't. What I did do later was to buy a tube of superglue and squirted it into the yale lock of the premises the con artists used. We walked past a few times the next morning, it took them to midday to open up. It at least saved a few more unsuspecting people getting fleeced

[gvallee]

4 minutes ago, sb photos said:

Only you can way up the odds re the pics you took, and you've decided, likely the right decision.

 

I suspect all photographers at some time go through the doubts you had. I remember watching a fake auction at a UK coastal resort with my wife long ago. A woman with a disability in a wheelchair was being fleeced, and she became hysterical. Heavies ejected her and her carer. I grabbed a few shots of the fracas on my OM1/24mm. I always believe in shooting first, then later deciding later whether to use, and I didn't. What I did do later was to buy a tube of superglue and squirted it into the yale lock of the premises the con artists used. We walked past a few times the next morning, it took them to midday to open up. It at least saved a few more unsuspecting people getting fleeced

 

That was the idea, shoot to practise, as people are not my forte, then decide later. 

Good superglue trick! 

[Phil Robinson]

I've uploaded pics of people scamming tourists in London and Paris with the old 'three cups' trick. I had no qualms about uploading them as those concerned were breaking the law and can't really complain. I didn't include the people getting scammed, though most of those "playing" - the ones who appear to win - are all part of the same gang. 

 

 

I think yours are different though - not criminals, just ordinary people doing something they perhaps shouldn't.

I'd agree with the principle of editing after you've taken the pics. Shoot everything (if it's safe) then decide what to do with them later.

[Phil Crean]

From my understanding of the situation Gen was asked by this woman not to be photographed....

In this case there is no way I would publish the photos anywhere! In fact whilst shooting I would have gone to great efforts not to include her.

 

There are situations where I would ignore a request like this, but this is not one.

 

Phil

[spacecadet]

5 minutes ago, Phil Crean said:

I would have gone to great efforts not to include her.

 

11 hours ago, gvallee said:

No the woman can't be edited, she's too enmeshed in the crowd.

https://ibb.co/zxPg67f

[wiskerke]

Not a whole lot of searches on AoA.

0 for the rolling year.

There seem to be around 36 images on Alamy, which drown in thousands of two up two down houses and just *two things* in Australia.

 

In Google Images, most if not all publications involve ANZAC Day and or WW1.

 

Next time maybe shoot with privacy in mind. Wads of money in hands or on the ground seem most interesting but lack context. The same for flying coins, but these might be enough. Especially when marked with crosses. Maybe coins or wads in focus and the rest oof? Shooting crowds from a bit further away is always a good idea.

On Anzac Day all these problems disappear obviously.

 

And then you could try a Stalin era Photoshop job.

 

wim

[meanderingemu]

6 hours ago, Phil Robinson said:

I've uploaded pics of people scamming tourists in London and Paris with the old 'three cups' trick. I had no qualms about uploading them as those concerned were breaking the law and can't really complain. I didn't include the people getting scammed, though most of those "playing" - the ones who appear to win - are all part of the same gang. 

 

 

I think yours are different though - not criminals, just ordinary people doing something they perhaps shouldn't.

I'd agree with the principle of editing after you've taken the pics. Shoot everything (if it's safe) then decide what to do with them later.

 

 

Interesting.  Isn't that an issue in Paris with French laws?

[Phil Robinson]

1 hour ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

Interesting.  Isn't that an issue in Paris with French laws?

Well, yes, a bit.

[gvallee]

10 hours ago, wiskerke said:

Not a whole lot of searches on AoA.

0 for the rolling year.

There seem to be around 36 images on Alamy, which drown in thousands of two up two down houses and just *two things* in Australia.

 

In Google Images, most if not all publications involve ANZAC Day and or WW1.

 

Next time maybe shoot with privacy in mind. Wads of money in hands or on the ground seem most interesting but lack context. The same for flying coins, but these might be enough. Especially when marked with crosses. Maybe coins or wads in focus and the rest oof? Shooting crowds from a bit further away is always a good idea.

On Anzac Day all these problems disappear obviously.

 

And then you could try a Stalin era Photoshop job.

 

wim

 

It's always a dilemma of mine. Because I go to places far off the beaten track in Australia, there is not much coverage of it. Is it a niche or is nobody interested? My stats tell me that what sells the most for me are beaches. No-one is interested in the Outback. How many times have I heard Australians telling me 'you've seen places in Oz that we will never see' because of their remoteness. 

 

I had done a search on what's on Alamy for the Two Up game and noticed that apart from a few tourists, there were no pictures of genuine punters. This added to my suspicion that it was not a good idea.

 

I might have used the word 'crowd' wrongly, it was more a case of a circle of people sat on benches around the ring. It is quite a small venue, maybe 20m in diameter, so no much space to play around with. I was sitting next to a character with a greasy pony tail and a heavy gold chain. He had those $100 in his hand. I wasn't too keen to try and get a decent picture... People were concentrating on the game but with my big DSLR, I was quite self-conscious.

 

Anyway, this was a fun outing which I rate high on my list of things we have done in our 2 1/2 year of travel so far.

 

 

Thank you all again for your replies.

Edited December 28, 2021 by gvallee