>>4481666
>once
hopefully

>>4481665
Does it harm the animal in any way? There are human harms to some breaches of privacy, but does the same hold true for an animal?

If it doesn't harm the animal, then should be fair game. No?

>>4481670
So i can watch them have sex?

>>4481681
Depends on why you're doing it.
>watching them because its nature and you're a nature photographer
>you believe that your photo will improve things in some way
this is okay
>you get a sick joy from watching animals bump uglies
this is bad. You are doing a harm to yourself by indulging in this joy.

>>4481665
not in public space
but better make them sign a release just in case

>>4481665
Do they want it?
(uploading files in incognito mode is not allowed.jpg)

File: irCanDeerGiveConsent.jpg (1.6 MB)

1.6 MB JPG

>>4481735

>>4481735
>(uploading files in incognito mode is not allowed.jpg)
Works on my machine.

>>4481665
Best thread on /p/ right now

Greatest question of the century in photography.

This is one of the reasons why I appreciate photographing insects. People care a lot less. There's like a million of them.
When we have like 4 owls in that one patch of woods and there's 50 photographers going after it (exaggeration) I can see where the issues start. So much attention will disrupt their lifecycle. And when there's so few individuals...

>>4481665
A dog will lick its cock and ass right in front of you. Privacy is exclusively a human need

>>4486605
The dog is just making a statement

>>4481746
oh deer

>>4486605
I mean, I'll do it in public too, but then they put me back on the house and make me take meds...