Any personal restrictions on public photography?

[perkeleellinen]

I voted 'yes'. In fact whenever I've attempted 'street' photography, my brain has been overwhelmed with issues of constraint.

I'm too shy to ask strangers if I can take their photograph and I fear the consequences of being caught not asking.

I always see a look of "oh God what does he want" on strangers' faces when I ask for directions - I don't think I'd ever be able to approach a stranger for a photo.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Not quite.
Whether you should fart in church, for instance, is not.

What is wrong with farting in church? Sometimes if you gotta blow, you gotta blow! It is a perfectly normal bodily function.



Much worse, in my opinion, to fart in a cafeteria line.

Steve

 

[Sirius Glass]

Not quite.
Whether you should fart in church, for instance, is not.

Man who fart in church, sit in own pew!

Steve

 

[arigram]

Ok, for me is very simple:

- A photographer records life
- You can either do that in a studio or outdoors
- A composition can be either posed or candid
- Posed people photography is usually called portraiture
- When people pose, they will not just pause: there is a definite limit of characteristics that one can capture
- Life is mostly not pleasant, well adjusted and happy; people won't give out their best face, their largest smile or have their hair combed all the time. Often the most interesting and intimate moments and faces are not pleasant or happy-happy.
- Most people will not want records of a moment that they regard as not pleasant.
- Consensual photographic records of usually happy times are usually called snapshots or portraits if they are artistic.
- So, to record life as it is, with not any artificiality or pauses, one has to press the shutter as life flows around him/her.
- So consent usually means that the photographer has already affected the scene and stopped its flow and the photograph will be a different record.

 

[jd callow]

Where would we be photographically without people willing to "shoot first and ask questions later"?

We'd be in big trouble, but no ones sensitivities would be damaged.

The reality is that we all have our internal rules. My rules may offend some and still others might offend me. There is no line that will please all and therefore those who are most sensitive may get offended more often and what is permissible may still offend the majourity, but the benefit of having the freedom to photograph at will in public places far exceeds the harm of greater restrictions.

 

[Anton Lukoszevieze]

I voted yes. I hate being around the general public, I cannot concentrate at all when there are people around, they truly bug me. It is probably a good thing that my favourite thing to foto are trees....in the countryside......i can just about handle one to one for portraits, as long as they don't say anything

 

[arigram]

Considering many if not most photographers are not really comfortable in public and are not willing to find themselves in a conflict (from an annoyed look to a rifle pointed at them), it is much more a matter of personal psychology, experience and artistic goals, than that of morality. Add to the fact that most can think of at least one situation -they, themselves- would not push the shutter.
Thus most people will definitely vote yes as also evident from the comments posted.
And so, the poll is really useless and biased.
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.

 

[Domenico Foschi]

Considering many if not most photographers are not really comfortable in public and are not willing to find themselves in a conflict (from an annoyed look to a rifle pointed at them), it is much more a matter of personal psychology, experience and artistic goals, than that of morality. Add to the fact that most can think of at least one situation -they, themselves- would not push the shutter.
Thus most people will definitely vote yes as also evident from the comments posted.
And so, the poll is really useless and biased.

What did I tell you?! What did I tell you?!! What did I tell you?!
Oh, we are not on Facebook here.....

 

[jd callow]

The only moral implication is personal. It has been argued that to photograph without consent is to damage civil society and that those who do somehow live in a world of "me first" and if it isn't against the law it is ok for me to do it. Morality, for me, comes in when you photograph instead of help where help is greatly needed or your photograph or the act of photographing materially and or measurably injures an innocent beyond any benefit the photograph may have. Those last bits are so amorphic as to be almost undefinable.

 

[Domenico Foschi]

The only moral implication is personal. It has been argued that to photograph without consent is to damage civil society and that those who do somehow live in a world of "me first" and if it isn't against the law it is ok for me to do it. Morality, for me, comes in when you photograph instead of help or your photograph or the act of photographing materially and or measurably injures an innocent beyond any benefit the photograph may have. Those last bits are so anamorphic as to be almost undefinable.

Domenico likes this.

 

[jgcull]

GJA... that's a wonderful shot!

(by the way, I voted "yes")

 

[Jeremy]

I'm unsure of the point of this poll as you're asking everyone to answer this question:

Q: Can you imagine (at the furthest reaches of your imagination) a single instance whereby you would feel that you should not make a photograph in pubilc?

I don't understand how this question can further discussion as it's a straw man to be knocked down. Every individual has their own personal line developed through society, environment, and upbringing which they will not willingly cross and every individual has this personal line except for psychopaths--that being a loose definition of a psychopath. So by asking the question you are making people think of what their personal line is (and introspection is always something to be applauded), but by adding the qualifiers to obscure the question I feel this isn't the reason for the question. There are no qualifiers needed for this poll as the question is based on personal morals and not on laws including references to whether you live in the United States or what your job is. If there isn't some ulterior motive for this poll then I apologize, but if there isn't then I once again stand by my statement that this poll is quixotic in nature and serves no practical purpose for engendering discussion.

 

[jd callow]

What Jeremy said and what I tried to say.

 

[Q.G.]

The only moral implication is personal. It has been argued that to photograph without consent is to damage civil society and that those who do somehow live in a world of "me first" and if it isn't against the law it is ok for me to do it.

Well. Not be me, it hasn't.
It has been argued that there are cases in which it can be [etc.].
It has been argued that we need to do more than just consider whether it is legal, more than whether you, personally, like to do what you like to do.

Morality, for me, comes in when you photograph instead of help where help is greatly needed or your photograph or the act of photographing materially and or measurably injures an innocent beyond any benefit the photograph may have. Those last bits are so amorphic as to be almost undefinable.

Which is why it, by force, is a matter of judgement (whether you call it taste, decency, etc. doesn't matter). Judgement, in which you weigh what you like, want, etc. against what you think your fellow human being might want, like, etc.

And why it is not a matter of "i have a piece of paper that [etc.]".

I'm glad we finally agree!

 

[jd callow]

I doubt we agree as I will willfully photograph people in public places without their consent. I will and have printed those images, displayed them in galleries/public, sold the prints and posted scans of the photographs online. To drive my point further I am not too bothered by those who push the limits further.

The paper that you like to hold up as being pacifier for the ill mannered is a document that helps educate one about the law and offers guidance. Beyond that I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Early Riser]

Possessing a camera is not an excuse or a permit for invading someone's privacy, being rude or trespassing on other other people's property. All 3 actions occur often enough to make much of the general public highly suspect of people with cameras, especially professional looking cameras. And as a majority of the public carries cameras on their cell phones, this rude behavior happens more and more often.

 

[arigram]

Possessing a camera is not an excuse or a permit for invading someone's privacy, being rude or trespassing on other other people's property. All 3 actions occur often enough to make much of the general public highly suspect of people with cameras, especially professional looking cameras. And as a majority of the public carries cameras on their cell phones, this rude behavior happens more and more often.

Actually, I agree with you.
There are certain things that the masses shouldn't be allowed to do, but the few that are willing to take the risk will usually stand out either because of their jerkiness or because the artistic results were worth it.
I am also glad that common snapshots are moving quickly towards the cell phone and leaving the dedicated camera behind to the hands of actual photographers. In that regard we stand out, for good or bad. At least you are identified as a more serious practitioner and not just a tourist or amateur. But also targeted because of that...
Elitism? Perhaps. But art is something for the few, especially the creative part and this discussion doesn't apply to the common snapshot takers.
As for privacy, I only think of paparazzi and private detectives being a common abuser of it and thankfully they never target the innocent...

 

[jd callow]

Possessing a camera is not an excuse or a permit for invading someone's privacy, being rude or trespassing on other other people's property. All 3 actions occur often enough to make much of the general public highly suspect of people with cameras, especially professional looking cameras. And as a majority of the public carries cameras on their cell phones, this rude behavior happens more and more often.

Are we talking about shooting on private property or invading peoples privacy? Can you define a person's privacy? Does their privacy change depending upon where they are or what they are doing? Trespassing is of course wrong 99.9% of the time. Privacy is another matter and rudeness is as nearly undefinable as any concept can be. Is it rude to burp, spit, swear and or fart in public? Is it rude to have eye contact, ignore queues and talk above a whisper? Is it rude to stand in the way when I am photographing or for me to include you in a photograph when you do? I think rude is too tough a nut to crack to be included. I think privacy is contextual and where it exists it should be respected, but it is greatly reduced once you step on the sidewalk.

 

[Early Riser]

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. If the people are in the public domain, as in being famous or celebrated, their notariety makes them newsworthy, (although that is a definition that the first amendment may not have considered when it granted freedom of the press as it was more concerned with keeping a populace informed of the decision making and actions of it's government) and you can argue that they have a lesser degree of the right to privacy than ordinary citizens.

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. And if people would argue that a person's likeness is not property and has no value then I suggest they use a person's likeness to sell a product without their consent and time just how long it takes before they end up in front of a judge.

Most of the rulings regarding photographs of private citizens in public places have to do with freedom of the press issues. However photographers who are not accredited members of the press use those rulings to justify their own actions. So the laws state that anyone on public land or who can be seen from public land without the aid of optical enhancement, can be photographed without their consent. That makes it legal, but not necessarily right.

 

[Terence]

Courts have also occasionally decided that "artistic" use of a person's likeness is not necessarily the same as a "commercial" use of the likeness to sell an unrelated product. Of course, getting multiple people (even here) to agree on what is artistic would probably be as easy as heading up the proverbial creek without a paddle.

I am fascinated by some of the responses here that people think it's acceptable so long as it's done by a journalist, or someone with "talent" or "taste", ie. it was okay for HCB to do it because he was talented, regardless of how many non-keepers he took that we've never seeen. I bet if we picked any one photo in the world, and any ten people on this site, we would get ten different opinions as to whether it was done with talent or taste.

 

[jd callow]

Mr Riser,
So the bottom line for you is that private citizens who are not famous should not be photographed without their consent regardless of whether or not they are in a public space. That is your opinion and something separate from whether or not they have the right expect not to be photograpjhed. It may be that an argument could be made on legal grounds that to shoot people in public is an invasion of privacy, but that argument has yet to win in court.

Even after copying and pasting the definition doesn't give rudeness any greater use in this discussion. Just like defining where the line is drawn with regard to what you will or wont photograph, what is rude is a personal measure. Everything I identified earlier is not rude to some and very rude to others.

 

[2F/2F]

Mr Riser,
So the bottom line for you is that private citizens who are not famous should not be photographed without their consent regardless of whether or not they are in a public space. That is your opinion and something separate from whether or not they have the right expect not to be photograpjhed. It may be that an argument could be made on legal grounds that to shoot people in public is an invasion of privacy, but that argument has yet to win in court.

Exactly.

Welcome to the United States of America. That is the way things work here. If you don't like it, get and keep a plurality together to change it over time, or find a more suitable country...but don't argue that the law is what it in fact is not.

 

[Q.G.]

Why is it that this keeps returning to an either - or debate?
It is by no means a matter of you always can, or you always cannot. Not a matter of you never should, or you always should.

There are circumstances in which acting within certain bounds can be o.k. for one person, not for another.
Dealing with other people, interacting, you have to judge how the people you are interacting with are experiencing the interaction.
Everybody can be perfectly happy with what is happening, while other people, under the same circumstances feel uncomfortable.
That makes a difference. What the consequences are is up to judgement again: you need to evaluate the situation as you find it, as it unfolds.

One thing that could result is that you say that what you want is not worth what it does to other people. You could also find that there is no such obstacle, and you can snap away all you like.

The problem in this exchange of views is, in my view , that very often extreme positions are taken, the heels get dug in, and only "we always can", "you never should" statements are put forward.
Views that recognize that the world is neither black nor white are snowed under

The law provides very little help in deciding what is right or what is wrong in everyday life, except in cases in which all subtlety is lost, and we really do not need a law text to know which is which.
And even if: keep in mind that the law alone is nothing. There is a reason why there are judges (and juries) as well.

Most rules we live by haven't made it to becoming law. And thank heavens for that! Yet they do make the difference between being a lout, or being a civilised member of society.
I have mentioned this example before: there is no law that says that we shouldn't fart in church. Very few of us will have trouble recognizing that you shouldn't, and most abide by that rule.
That is not the beginning of a totalitarian society. That is civilisation in action.

Now let's assume that we all agree that it is rude to fart in church. Why would it not be when you are a journalist, or an artist?
If people had come to see, hear and smell a petomane, it would be very different. But it's church, and people have come to do something else.
Also not the beginning of the end of the free world.

I find it completely unbelievable (in the literal sense of the word) that there are people who do not recognize that what is perfectly appropriate in one situation may be not so in another situation.
And when i say recognize, i mean that they too have a gut feeling that it might not be appropriate. Not just that they may have read somewhere and remembered that it would not be.

We all have personal restrictions in whatever we do. Even those whose answer in this poll is that they do not.

 

[Roger Krueger]

It good to be polite and all that, but street often gives you a choice between being a nice guy and getting the shot. I'm not saying a jerk isn't a jerk. But I am saying being a jerk isn't the end of the world, isn't illegal, and has produced some great pictures.

And yeah, there's a lot of stuff I don't shoot, not because I think I shouldn't, but because I've got a certain amount of something (somewhere between civility and social anxiety) hard-wired into me that I can't break. But "can" and "should" are different concepts.

 

[Ian David]

I'm unsure of the point of this poll as you're asking everyone to answer this question:

Q: Can you imagine (at the furthest reaches of your imagination) a single instance whereby you would feel that you should not make a photograph in pubilc?

I don't understand how this question can further discussion as it's a straw man to be knocked down. Every individual has their own personal line developed through society, environment, and upbringing which they will not willingly cross and every individual has this personal line except for psychopaths--that being a loose definition of a psychopath. So by asking the question you are making people think of what their personal line is (and introspection is always something to be applauded), but by adding the qualifiers to obscure the question I feel this isn't the reason for the question. There are no qualifiers needed for this poll as the question is based on personal morals and not on laws including references to whether you live in the United States or what your job is. If there isn't some ulterior motive for this poll then I apologize, but if there isn't then I once again stand by my statement that this poll is quixotic in nature and serves no practical purpose for engendering discussion.

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