You are very welcome. Thanks for watching the vid.

It's not someone else's design, it's the photographer's design, in this case it's mine. Because light and shadow games are not visible to us as we see in the picture and more in combination with colored backgrounds. Therefore, the imagination must be activated and the picture must be accurately designed, it needs vision and curiosity.

That's your opinion. The host here was describing "a wonderful curve" in the red plastic playground toy. If you had designed that or if you were an architect how would you feel when others photographed your work/designs and called it their art?

This is a much broader Philosophical question, according to what you say a street photographer can not photograph anything on the street, because every element in the environment is the work of someone else. In my opinion this is a narrow point of view, the street photographer searches for these elements and connects them together to one new story that is his art. The slide is part of the work of art but without the child who rides in it and is amazed at the crucial moment that you see only his legs that suggest what is coming and activate the imagination in the viewer the work will not be complete.

Omri Shomer Calling yourself a Street Photographer or giving yourself that title does not allow you to disregard copyright laws. Ethically, as a creative person aka photographic artist will you consider the designs of others? That's up to you. Recently a young photographer thought that he was the first to ever photograph the Sydney Opera House at night and planned to publish prints, t-shirts using his photos of the Sydney Opera House night lights. Those lights are the intellectual property of the designer. Just like the Eiffel Tower lights at night. That's why you don't see night photos of either edifice. You won't see photos of colorful playground toys and art galleries or photo books for similar reasons. You can and are physically able to point your lens at anything you wish, but once you start trying to show those photos publically you will run into copyright laws and the rights of others. Plus is you actually made any signifant income from image that violates copyright /intellectual property laws you could be sued. Ethics is a branch of philosophy. You've decided that no one is allowed to bring up philosophical or ethical issues. How convenient for you to make decisions that benefit only you and support your desire to do as you please. The world may start sending you other messages telling you that you should be considerate of others. I personally don't care if you photograph your child on a playground slide--what I am calling into question is whether it is your art or art all when 98 per cent of the image is made up of the color and design of another's art. How would feel if an artist made a large print of your photo and added a little paint then called mixed media or a collage and then sold it for a quarter million dollars?

Don't start twisting my words in an effort to be right! I said no such thing! If you are incapable of learning something new then I am wasting my time. I am not the only person with the opinions I have clearly stated nor am I the first to state them.