Any personal restrictions on public photography?

jd callow · Jul 14, 2009

QG
I don't see the either or debate. Most are simply saying what restrains them and for some the law is the most helpful item available others not. Farting in church is not interchangeable with photographing in public. No one earns a living, and few document their life/activities or find farting in church a reasonable way to express their free speech.

jd callow · Jul 14, 2009

iandavid said:
Jeremy

What's the problem so far? Why do you and Domenico and JD find this threatening?

Ian

Ian you really need to get off your high horse I don't find your poll or you at all threatening. What I do see is a worthless poll that some have turned into a decent thread. If you can keep out of it it may continue to be a decent thread.

Ian David · Jul 14, 2009

arigram said:
I am still waiting to read a comment that convinces me that there should be a generalised "code of honour."
Even without the poll, I will repeat, this is a matter of personal psychology and not of morality.

Ari

I have never argued for any generalised code of honour. I am not really sure that anybody here is trying to convince you of the need for one.

Ethics can certainly be personal matters. The question I was interested in was really whether people have any personal code of ethics when they are out photographing for themselves. I don't understand why people are so indignant that such a question should be asked.

But I am starting to think that all 3 recent threads on this general issue should be shut down because they seem to be doing more to foster personal animosities within APUG than I could possibly have imagined.

Ian

Jeremy · Jul 14, 2009

Early Riser said:
According to the dictionary rudeness is showing inconsideration towards the feelings of others and ignorance of even the most basic of social behaviors. Photographing a private citizen without their consent, even if they are in public is rude.

According to your definition of rudeness, photographing a private citizen in public without their consent is *not* rude. Having your photograph made without your consent is now a basic social tenet in nearly all developed nations due to the inclusion of CCTV and other surveillance equipment utilized *everywhere*. Try to walk down the street in New York or London without being captured on camera. It's not rude for the ATM camera to capture a picture of me as I walk in front of it down a public sidewalk, but it is rude for a photographer standing on the other side of me to take my picture? Now I haven't entered into a discussion of personal space and rudeness because the idea of "personal space" is different based on culture. Where it might be considered highly rude to stand very close to someone while walking down the street in Missouri, when you're exiting a metro stop in New York you'll be lucky at some stops to have enough space to lift both your arms up, let alone extend them.

The definition you give also states that the rude individual must show, i.e. display, inconsideration to the feelings of others so would my using a 400mm lens from across the street without your knowledge constitute not being rude? I would be using a long lens from a long distance to not attract your notice--from your definition I would not be rude because I was attempting to be considerate of your feelings of uneasiness about being photographed.

Early Riser said:
While many argue that there is or isn't a right to privacy, the unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness stated in the US Declaration of Independence, can be used to support an argument that people have a right to be left alone and not have their privacy intruded upon. You can also use the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution as justification to prohibit the photographing of people without their consent as an example of their property, their very likeness, from being taken from them and used without their consent.

The Declaration of Independence is not a law creating document, but a declaration of 13 ragtag colonies that they were no longer under British rule. Additionally, you say there is an argument about whether or not there is a right to privacy, but there isn't in the United States--you have a legally protected right to privacy, just not when you're in public.

As to the second part, you are more than welcome to go ahead and try to use the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution as justification to prohibit the photographing of people without their consent, but you'll be thrown out of court and probably be counter-sued by the photographer you're suing. See Justice Stewart in the Supreme Court's majority opinion in Katz v. United States, what one "knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of the Fourth Amendment.” Katz, 389 U.S. at 351 and this has been expanded by California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986) where photographs can be made from aerial locations as it is considered to be no different than walking past an exposed window and peering into a house--there is no expectation of privacy and therefore is not a subject for the Fourth Amendment.

Ian David · Jul 14, 2009

jd callow said:
Ian you really need to get off your high horse I don't find your poll or you at all threatening. What I do see is a worthless poll that some have turned into a decent thread. If you can keep out of it it may continue to be a decent thread.

What is your role as moderator, JD? I am not sure that you are in a position anymore to discharge it.

Ian

jd callow · Jul 14, 2009

Why is that Ian? Because I find you tiresome and I responded to your insults? I'll accept your response in a PM, but not on this thread.

Q.G. · Jul 14, 2009

Jeremy said:
Additionally, you say there is an argument about whether or not there is a right to privacy, but there isn't in the United States--you have a legally protected right to privacy, just not when you're in public.

You do.
You have a right, or rather, conversely: noone (that is: no ordinary citizen) has the right to walk up to you in the street and go through your coat pockets, or even just know what is in your pockets.
Even though you cannot deny anyone a right to look at you in that same public place.
There are many more such examples of the right to privacy in a public place.

Here, JD, is your example of the either-or thing. It is argued that you either do have a right of privacy, or you do not have a right of privacy in a public place.
It's not either. It is both. It depends.

jd callow · Jul 14, 2009

QG
It still does not support your premise that people see this as either or. Jeremy is not advocating going through pockets and in another thread he stated that everyone has their limits. In other words Jeremy might not photograph a person even though he lawfully could. In the post you've quoted he is responding to another post where someone was imagining a law that does not exist.

Jeremy · Jul 14, 2009

iandavid said:
Jeremy

The poll arose from another thread where it eventually became impossible to see the wood for the trees. I just wanted to pose a particular question to see how people would respond. It is my question, and I take responsibility for it. If you don't like it, that's OK.

Nobody, not me, not the US legislature, is going to use the results of the poll to force you to do or refrain from doing anything. I am not even going to publicly draw conclusions from it. What could my ulterior motive possibly be?

It is simply a question which I posed because I wanted to see if there were really some people out there who feel they have no personal boundaries whatsoever when it comes to taking photographs. Judging by the result so far, there are quite a few such people. I find that really interesting.

What's the problem so far? Why do you and Domenico and JD find this threatening?

Ian

Ian, I read the other threads (in entirety) and my point is that regardless of whether you draw and publicly state conclusions from your poll, the poll itself is fallacious so I wanted to know your point in posting it. There are a number of side comments you have made throughout this thread that only engender animosity and that is why I am assuming there is an ulterior motive to the pointless poll. I am not "threatened" in the least by your asking if people have no personal boundaries whatsoever when it comes to taking photographs, but as I have already stated that your other comments do lead me to believe you have an ulterior motive I am posting to this thread to find out if you do have as blatantly idiotic question (not that you are an idiot, but that your poll is idiotic) as you say or if you are trying to instill conflict in this community. Below I've copied these, in my opinion, blatant attempts at trolling for conflict with JD and Domenico.

iandavid said:
Hi Domenico. What a relief! I had thought we weren't friends any more.
Does this mean that you have changed your mind, or that you finally understand the question?

iandavid said:
Well in that case it seems that you and me approach the world differently from Domenico, JD Callow, et al

iandavid said:
What discussions have you been reading, JD? Clearly not the same ones as me. My question reflects what I have been saying and what you and Domenico have apparently been getting so upset about. Don't tell me all the strong words came about because you were not reading carefully!

Note, this quote also came in reply to JD's post where he also states what I have, that this is a pointless poll: I can't imagine anyone voting no. And then he continues on to actually provides 2 questions which could begin a fruitful discussion on photographing in public, yet you ask him What discussions have you been reading, JD?, though it seems you did not truly read his response.

jd callow said:
I can't imagine anyone voting no. Would a more contemporaneous question be something like:

Would you photograph someone without their knowledge and or permission?

Do you trust other photographers to do the right thing or does there need to be more restrictions on photgraphing in public?

iandavid said:
Ari
I am interested in your thoughts in your last post. (I am however slightly shocked that we seem to be on the verge of having something like a thoughtful discussion rather than a slanging match )

iandavid said:
Thanks Domenico. Your comment allows me to give a good example of the benefit of thinking of more extreme situations when deciding whether someone is speaking nonsense. Thus your logic would suggest that:

- I cannot comment on what I think is right or wrong in wartime because I have never been a soldier on active service and don't understand what it REALLY means to sack an enemy town.

- I cannot comment on whether I think sexual contact with small children is wrong because I don't understand what it REALLY means to love an infant that way.

You are speaking nonsense again.

iandavid said:
This is great! Nobody has thrown their toys out of the pram. Such a calm thread so far...

iandavid said:
What is your role as moderator, JD? I am not sure that you are in a position anymore to discharge it.
Ian

Ian David · Jul 14, 2009

Jeremy

That is a pretty remarkable post which must have taken you some time to compile. I won't ask if you have an ulterior motive.

If you are interested in the context for my various remarks, you can read this thread and the other two related threads in their entirety (Don't leave home without it; and Are American photographers jerks? (now in the soapbox)).

I am very concerned for the APUG community. Which is why I don't understand why people keep stoking this fire.

Ian

Larry Bullis · Jul 14, 2009

Here's something that happened in a photo program where I once taught. First, you should know that I was not the lead instructor in that program.

A student came in proud as punch having a shot of a very obese man, asleep stretched out on a park bench, with his fly open. Obviously, the man didn't know he was being photographed. The photograph was devoid of any other redeeming value.

It made me sick, frankly, and since I cannot tell a lie and have a certain responsibility to my students, I had to tell him so. I told him that I thought it was in very poor taste, exploitative of a person who had no opportunity to even participate in the transaction, demeaning, and demonstrated a serious lack of respect for humanity. I let him know that the image said a lot about himself, much more than it said of the man portrayed, and what it said about him wasn't likely to command respect for him. All this was identified as my opinion. His job is to scrutinize his own attitudes and values.

Well, my opinion didn't count. When the student show went up (images selected by the other guy) -- there it was. It made me sick again, and somewhat ashamed to be a part of that program.

Otherwise, I'm ready to shoot just about anything I see if it grabs me -- as long as it is respectful of the human condition.

Jeremy · Jul 14, 2009

Q.G. said:
You do.
You have a right, or rather, conversely: noone (that is: no ordinary citizen) has the right to walk up to you in the street and go through your coat pockets, or even just know what is in your pockets.
Even though you cannot deny anyone a right to look at you in that same public place.
There are many more such examples of the right to privacy in a public place.

Here, JD, is your example of the either-or thing. It is argued that you either do have a right of privacy, or you do not have a right of privacy in a public place.
It's not either. It is both. It depends.

No, no one can walk up to your and inspect your private property (your pockets), not even the police without probable cause. This is not an apples to apples comparison. This discussion is only dealing with whether you have a legal right to privacy against having your picture taken while in public (you don't) and whether there being a law against it or not should dictate how and what people photograph (to bring in the "is it rude?" question).

Jeremy · Jul 14, 2009

iandavid said:
Jeremy

That is a pretty remarkable post which must have taken you some time to compile. I won't ask if you have an ulterior motive.

If you are interested in the context for my various remarks, you can read this thread and the other two related threads in their entirety (Don't leave home without it; and Are American photographers jerks? (now in the soapbox)).

I am very concerned for the APUG community. Which is why I don't understand why people keep stoking this fire.

Ian

It didn't take me any time at all to compile it, maybe 3 minutes while I waited on my work computer to process 1,000 files. Your passive aggressive comment that [You] won't ask if have an ulterior motive. once again points me to thinking that you are only here to troll and are not concerned about the Apug community regardless of what you say you are concerned about. Your future posts may change my opinion, but at the moment I lump you in with the trolls who find it self-aggrandizing to cause conflict in online communities. Additionally, I have read this thread and the other two related threads in their entirety (Don't leave home without it; and Are American photographers jerks? (now in the soapbox)) (as I have stated) and I still don't see how the snide comments you've made throughout this thread are any indication of you having concern for this community nor do I find their context to be more illuminating than the simple pull-quotes themselves.

SuzanneR · Jul 14, 2009

bowzart said:
Here's something that happened in a photo program where I once taught. First, you should know that I was not the lead instructor in that program.

A student came in proud as punch having a shot of a very obese man, asleep stretched out on a park bench, with his fly open. Obviously, the man didn't know he was being photographed. The photograph was devoid of any other redeeming value.

It made me sick, frankly, and since I cannot tell a lie and have a certain responsibility to my students, I had to tell him so. I told him that I thought it was in very poor taste, exploitative of a person who had no opportunity to even participate in the transaction, demeaning, and demonstrated a serious lack of respect for humanity. I let him know that the image said a lot about himself, much more than it said of the man portrayed, and what it said about him wasn't likely to command respect for him. All this was identified as my opinion. His job is to scrutinize his own attitudes and values.

Well, my opinion didn't count. When the student show went up (images selected by the other guy) -- there it was. It made me sick again, and somewhat ashamed to be a part of that program.

Otherwise, I'm ready to shoot just about anything I see if it grabs me -- as long as it is respectful of the human condition.

The problem with such pictures is not that someone took them, but generally they are so facile, and such a cheap and easy way to make a picture of something "important". Just because you are addressing, perhaps, an important issue in your pictures i.e., homelessness, poverty, alcoholism, doesn't automatically grant importance to the pictures. That takes more work. I've seen a lot of younger photographers make such pictures, but hopefully it can be a first step to realizing the difference between exploitation and an honest dialog between photographer and subject.

Had that student taken the time to learn a little more about his subject, had he engaged him in a conversation... there might have been some excellent photographs. And that's where a good guide or mentor might lead the student .

I, for one, don't have a particular problem with pictures of people in public places. They can be an extraordinary record of the human condition. Seems a shame not to make them. But, I think we each need to find our own limits.

jd callow · Jul 14, 2009

Pictures of the homeless, and other images of people that were taken because the person was different, ugly, etc... are truly cheap and to my mind taken by the emotionally immature and those who have no empathy. The proper response is that taken by Bowzart and to try and teach your children well so that they may be able to pass that stage of life quickly. Frankly I feel the same about the vast majourity of nudes that i see.

2F/2F · Jul 14, 2009

There is no accounting for subjective matters of taste in these laws...but, good or bad, that is part of what makes this place special, and part of what protects us from tyranny. Freedom brings up plenty of disputes, but is any alternative really better? We all pay the price for the fact that everybody has certain liberties here. These liberties may (and I would say "often") create situations that are not to our liking. I accept that I may not like certain things that arise due to the liberties of others. I accept that this nation is not made to make any one person 100% comfortable 100% of the time.

What is this argument about, anyhow? I thought the original question was somewhat interesting. I liked reading all the responses that answered the question.

Ian David · Jul 14, 2009

2F/2F said:
What is this argument about, anyhow? I thought the original question was somewhat interesting. I liked reading all the responses that answered the question.

Thanks 2F/2F. That was my only motive for posting the question - curiosity. The responses have indeed been interesting.

Ian

Larry Bullis · Jul 15, 2009

SuzanneR said:
I, for one, don't have a particular problem with pictures of people in public places. They can be an extraordinary record of the human condition. Seems a shame not to make them. But, I think we each need to find our own limits.

I don't have a problem with that either, but it seems pretty easy to identify through the image whether the photographer has anything in mind beyond predation.

Thanks for your comment, Suzanne - as always, thoughtful and to the point.

Larry Bullis · Jul 15, 2009

jd callow said:
... Frankly I feel the same about the vast majourity of nudes that i see.

Me too.

Q.G. · Jul 15, 2009

jd callow said:
QG
It still does not support your premise that people see this as either or. Jeremy is not advocating going through pockets and in another thread he stated that everyone has their limits. In other words Jeremy might not photograph a person even though he lawfully could. In the post you've quoted he is responding to another post where someone was imagining a law that does not exist.

And exactly that - blanket statements about a law that might, or might not, exist - is an example of the black or white thingy.
Presented as either you have, or do not have a right to privacy in a public place, and if the latter (heard many times) you can do anything, if the first (construed to be the only alternative to their view by the ones who are sure that you do not have), we're in a totalitarian society.

Anyway (no more going round in circles), it be clear that there is ample room for being a perfect jerk within the confines of law and bylaw. Not breaking a law does not mean that what you do is perfectly right. Law is not the only meassure (and it even is a very poor meassure) for what we should or should not do.

All mention of law in a thread like this is missing the point.

jd callow · Jul 15, 2009

QG,
First of all Jeremy did not bring the law into it. Jeremy was responding to someone who feels much like you do on the subject and went so far as to argue that the law was on his side, when in fact the law was not and hence Jeremy's post. Meanwhile, that lone post was what interjected the law into the the discussion and all responses that followed (other than those that tried to explain it to you) simply pointed out that he was wrong about the law. No one is making claims that you can do whatever you like, but many have noted that you can do much and no one seems to see this like you like to state time and again. Everyother post has pretty much avoided the law except where it was their personal marker and many do not feel as you do: that this is about being a jerk or not, but infact a thread about when you self edit prior to shooting and why. Although there has been a fair few comments about the validity of the poll and the intentions of some posters. And I'll add my own: It appears that you aren't reading the posts, but simply looking for an opportunity to beat the same old drum. Good luck with that.

Flea77 · Jul 15, 2009

As I have stated in other threads I believe photographing people in public is just fine, unless they specifically, beforehand, request not to be photographed and they are not intentionally being a "public spectacle". That to me is a question of common courtesy and mutual respect and falls under the same category as my napkin goes in my lap, I will not fart in church, open the door for ladies, etc.

Now someone said the photographer's occupation should not matter, for example a news photographer. I disagree. A photojournalist will photograph what makes him money, and only people who are "newsworthy" fit that bill. If you are just some joe schmoe walking down a public street, you are quite safe from them.

Next someone mentioned CCTV and security cameras. I also disagree with that analogy as I have accepted those on the basis that their images will only be used in connection with solving a crime or maintaining security, not placed in the public view which may happen with some random photographer.

Next, someone mentioned what we would have missed without the candid shots from Bresson, etc. I argue that a good outcome does not necessarily mean it was worth it to get there. For example, war has always massively advanced technology and helped society. In WW2 we gained nuclear energy, jet engines, advanced rocket propulsion, huge medical advances. Was it worth the millions of lives lost? This has been the conundrum through the ages back to the Roman Empire and beyond.

Is the end result, no matter how good, worth the cost, no matter how bad? That is a question each person will have to answer themselves, and live with that answer the rest of their lives.

Lastly, if you believe in a God, and that when everything is over you answer to them for everything you ever did, do you think when they ask you "why did you photograph this woman when she asked you not to", an answer of "because I could" will be very redeeming?

Allan

Dinesh · Jul 15, 2009

Flea77 said:
Lastly, if you believe in a God, and that when everything is over you answer to them for everything you ever did, do you think when they ask you "why did you photograph this woman when she asked you not to", an answer of "because I could" will be very redeeming?

Allan

If there is a God, this question would be the least of my worries!

Flea77 · Jul 15, 2009

Dinesh said:
If there is a God, this question would be the least of my worries!

Well.... Mine too But then again, I really do not need even more heaped on me!

Allan

Terence · Jul 15, 2009

Allan, the NYC Dept of Transportation cameras can be viewed online. Would this be an issue for you?

Also, such cameras are routinely used in divorce lawsuits, and other civil cases, etc. where no crime has taken place.

So to say government cameras are only used for government purposes is not quite true.

Any personal restrictions on public photography?

Any personal restraints on public photography?

yes

no

jd callow

Moderator

jd callow

Moderator

Ian David

Jeremy

Ian David

jd callow

Moderator

Q.G.

jd callow

Moderator

Jeremy

Ian David

Larry Bullis

Jeremy

Jeremy

SuzanneR

Moderator

jd callow

Moderator

2F/2F

Ian David

Larry Bullis

Larry Bullis

Q.G.

jd callow

Moderator

Flea77

Dinesh

Flea77

Terence

Any personal restrictions on public photography?

Any personal restraints on public photography?

yes

no

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency