Ashamed to be photographed?

[David H. Bebbington]

I could care less if someone takes my photograph when I'm in a public space.

You may think you have some right to privacy when you are in public, but you don't. In public there is no privacy. In an urban or suburban environment we are constantly being photographed.

Get over it.


willie

Just a factual observation here - if there is no restriction on photography in public places AND (emphasize AND) no restriction on the use of the resulting pictures, then situations will occur on a daily basis where, for example, a perfectly innocent picture of a teenage boy and girl, walking down the street hand in hand and not engaging in behavior remarkable in any way, turns up in a newspaper to illustrate an article and captioned "Sexually transmitted diseases rocket as drug-crazed teens indulge in reckless promiscuity." You and no doubt all other readers can imagine ways in which pictures of themselves could end up being used in similarly defamatory ways. People are without doubt over-reacting hysterically, but their concerns do have some basis in fact, and the basis is as I have described above!

Regards,

David

 

[Steve Smith]

I think there is a difference between taking a photograph for your own use and having it published. If it is published and the people involved are recognisable then a model release is required (at least in UK) and that means that the people shown have given permission for its use so the situation you mentioned should not happen.

Steve.

 

[Andy K]

I think there is a difference between taking a photograph for your own use and having it published. If it is published and the people involved are recognisable then a model release is required (at least in UK) and that means that the people shown have given permission for its use so the situation you mentioned should not happen.

Steve.

That model release business is a bloody nuisance. I cannot legally publish any photographs I make during the summer season because at any one time there could be up to 5,000 people in frame!

 

[David H. Bebbington]

That model release business is a bloody nuisance. I cannot legally publish any photographs I make during the summer season because at any one time there could be up to 5,000 people in frame!

My impression of the current legal situation is that you can publish pictures taken legally, so long as this is done in a neutral way. Examples of legal use might include your personal website or blog, a camera-club exhibition or other exhibitions, and indeed press use in a neutral editorial context (for example, if you took pictures of visitors to Southend and these were published with an article entitled "Southend just as popular as ever" or "Southend sizzles in heatwave."). The problem, as I indicated, is putting pictures through channels (such as picture agencies) in which they could be used for any purpose (such as the one I described). It is here that you will get nowhere without a model release (and you should be glad, since otherwise your risk of being sued would be acute!).

Regards,

David

 

[catem]

A few points: (sorry Roger, this is far too interesting a subject - and important - to let it drop!)

I agree implicitly with Aggie over her comments about Reservations.

It is also an issue in Australia with regard to the indigenous aboriginal population whose rights have been ridden over roughshod, and to whom the idea of photographing sacred sites is deeply sacrilegious and offensive (my goodness the complaints about having certain areas of Urulu "off-limits"...). It is also the situation in many areas of the world where westerners don't think twice about their role as tourists and consumers.

David H Bebbington's point about the class system in the earlier part of the 20th century, and how photographers and being photographed were perceived -
Yes, I agree, I think things have changed fundamentally. People don't respect photographers (usually middle and upper-class) and cameras in the way they did, they have their own and take their own pics, and a crucial point that no-one's mentioned: any photograph nowadays is likely to end up on the internet, people are well aware of this possibility and that increases reluctance to be photographed. It feels different being seen in a respectable magzine in the '30's (guv') and being seen in a front room on the other side of the world.

On model releases - they exist to protect the photographer (from possible come-back from the model). It is not the same as seeking informed consent from a subject (which is to protect the subject).

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Stargazer,

Okay, you've dragged me back in. I agree about Hopi reservations, aboriginal lands and more: for example, I've seen disgraceful behaviour at Losar celebations (Tibetan New Year) and at the burning ghats on the Ganges.

I'd also agree about most solemn occasions, unless the main players WANT you to photograph it: a friend recently said after the event that he wished I'd photographed his mother's funeral (I had a camera with me but left it in the car -- I didn't even want to be seen carrying a camera at such a solemn occasion). This comes back to Helen's point that you can't have 'one size fits all'.

But when it comes to the primitive peoples of the affluent west who have in the last 10 to 20 years decided that they don't want their souls stolen by the photographer with his magic box, I think it's pitiful.

As for a model release, it can be worded to protect both parties (with a limited release) but as a contract it is worthless without valuable consideration.

Finally, how 'informed' is 'informed consent'? It's next to impossible to work with a translator hanging around all the time -- I know, I've tried it in China -- but unlike Aggie I can't always muster enough of the local language to talk to prospective subjects: I'm just not that good at the following languages (in alphabetical order, for some of the places I've been in the last 20 years): Bengali, Catalan, Czech, Dutch, Flemish, Greek, Hindi, Hungarian, Italian, Kannada, Maltese, Mandarin, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Slovakian, Slovenian, Spanish, Tamil, Tibetan and Turkish. That's before you start on the dialects...

Cheers,

Roger

 

[livemoa]

Very interesting thread.

Personally, I find it uncomfortable to be photographed on the street, but, and this is the big one, if I want to photograph in public, (which most of us do), such as old farm houses, sunsets, or buildings from public property then I think it is rather two faced of us to complain about being photographed by street photographers.

And as an aside, being a 6 foot 3 inch gweilo in Hong Kong it is almost impossible to do unnoticed street photography (not that I have been much into it)..... I'm too damn obvious

 

[jd callow]

Some posts have talked about ethics and I was one. I'll retract what I said earlier and restate it this way: There is nothing inherently unethical in shooting people in public places. Ethics is an almost impossible variable to place in this conversation. Is it ethical to shoot people who may or may not wish to be shot? Is it ethical to shoot people without asking? If the answers are true, is it ethical to write about them is it ethical to talk about them, illustrate them or in any way describe them? Photographs can be far more revealing than words and most illustrations. Is the degree with which a photograph can describe so great that it requires special consideration?

It is obvious that an argument could be made that the power of photography is so great that to deny that power would be a shame if not wrong.

I prefer to approach it differently. It is better to always assume the best from others. Even though we all know there are more than a few bozo's walking the streets with cameras (guns, knives, clubs, infectious diseases, uncontrolled anger, bad gas, volatile stomachs and on and on).

If It is also better to assume that one person's desire for privacy is the equal to anothers desire for exploration. What is a genteel society to do? Make one behavior acceptable and the other not? If that is the case I'll side with the explorer, even though it gives free reign to the bozo. I suspect that society will harvest a greater benefit.

This is all said in the abstract. We don't live in a genteel society. We live in an extremely diverse environment which is often mean spirited, competitive, and suspicious. This leads me back to the beginning. Should I be upset if my picture is taken and should I worry that the person in my shot might not wish to be photographed? My thoughts are that we live in a free society each of us can go a long way toward achieving our goals. Wear a hat, carry a camera and hope that your mother taught you well.

 

[Claire Senft]

Ahen I am out in public, I would prefer to be warned that my photo is being taken so that I can put some clothes on.

 

[BWGirl]

I am not really nuts about having my photo taken, but that's just because I'm not really nuts about how I look! So, if I looked better, I'd probably be like my little nieces who clamber about squealing "take my picture, take my picture!" But they are adorable, and I well... you see my avatar... it is a self-portrait. I suppose it's not too bad it I'm in a shot as part of the rest of the herd, but alone... not so much.

 

[anyte]

First off, one or two people isn't everyone. Secondly, my face and body is mine to do with as I please and it doesn't please me to have strangers having photos of me, especially when I don't know in what way it's being used. People's likenesses are often used to represent something negative. If you want to hold someone up as an example of something negative go find yourself another victim. I have a right not to be your joke, your negative example.

Your assumption of me being ashamed is wrong. Perhaps you shouldn't make such assumptions when you really have nothing to base it on but a desire to make an argument.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Anyte,

Perhaps you shouldn't make assumptions at all if you can't do better than this. I wasn't trying to make an argument. Why would I want to do that?

First, I was trying to point out the inconsistency of wanting to take street pictures and not wanting to be photographed, which is a form of hypocrisy.

Second, I was trying to find out others' views -- some of which, I have to say, I find shocking and depressing, but hey, that's the internet.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Andy K]

Do we all get a cut when you write your article based on our replies?

 

[david b]

I am not ashamed to be photographed. I am amazingly handsome and people want to photograph me all the time. I get stopped on the street by total strangers who tell me how beautiful I am and how they want to take my picture.

 

[catem]

Second, I was trying to find out others' views -- some of which, I have to say, I find shocking and depressing, but hey, that's the internet.
Roger

No, it's other peoples' views.

 

[Andy K]

some of which, I have to say, I find shocking and depressing, but hey, that's the internet.

No, that's you.

 

[MikeSeb]

If you're in public, you're fair game to be photographed. This should not give the photographer a license to harrass anyone, and like someone else mentioned, if a subject objects strenuously, I usually honor their refusal (I'm a hobbyist, not a PJ).

Keep on using those $1.00 (1.80 pound-sterling) words, Roger. Someone's got to look after the Queen's language.

Your point about the present becoming the past is especially well taken in this context.

 

[Andy K]

Keep on using those $1.00 (1.80 pound-sterling) words,

Actually $1.00 US = £0.55 GBP (approx) at current rates.

 

[MikeSeb]

First off, one or two people isn't everyone. Secondly, my face and body is mine to do with as I please and it doesn't please me to have strangers having photos of me, especially when I don't know in what way it's being used. People's likenesses are often used to represent something negative. If you want to hold someone up as an example of something negative go find yourself another victim. I have a right not to be your joke, your negative example.

Your assumption of me being ashamed is wrong. Perhaps you shouldn't make such assumptions when you really have nothing to base it on but a desire to make an argument.

Your face and body are indeed yours to do with as you please, but you have no legal expectation of privacy when you leave private spaces and venture out into public. The same legal system that allows others to photograph you in public also prevents them from publishing your image without consent for commercial use, and from holding you up to scorn or ridicule. You have legal recourse if these things happen; and I can't imagine in this day and age any publisher actually doing these things without a model release.

In the meantime may I gently suggest you should lighten up, and realize that none of us is really as important or noteworthy as we'd like to think, in the scheme of things.

How can I gently suggest to you that

 

[Roger Hicks]

Do we all get a cut when you write your article based on our replies?

Let's see... 1400 views... 90+ replies... take out the VAT... add post and packing... Yeah, send me an envelope, two international reply coupons and one pound (or dollar or euro) and I'll send you a shilling, nickel or 5 centime piece (your choice).

Cheers,

Roger

 

[catem]

Or why not start a thread about naughty shocking depressing people who are so ashamed they don't use their real names when they get into discussions with you....

 

[Cooki]

I just don,t allow digital imagry of myself. :rolleyes:

 

[MikeSeb]

Actually $1.00 US = £0.55 GBP (approx) at current rates.

Yikes! No wonder the UK Chamber of Commerce keeps sending me those invitations to visit! ("Here comes that Yank who can't figure exchange rates!")

 

[anyte]

Your face and body are indeed yours to do with as you please, but you have no legal expectation of privacy when you leave private spaces and venture out into public. The same legal system that allows others to photograph you in public also prevents them from publishing your image without consent for commercial use, and from holding you up to scorn or ridicule. You have legal recourse if these things happen; and I can't imagine in this day and age any publisher actually doing these things without a model release.

In the meantime may I gently suggest you should lighten up, and realize that none of us is really as important or noteworthy as we'd like to think, in the scheme of things.

How can I gently suggest to you that

I'll learn to temper the manner in which I address people when they do likewise. I find it insulting that someone make the assumption that someone is ashamed of not wanting to be photographed.

And yes, I do have an expectation of privacy when out in public because I have no other alternative but to venture out. If I could stay home 100% of the then I would do so to ensure that not only people were not invading my privacy but also not putting my life at risk (which is another topic).

I would suggest that people not tell other people to lighten up, gently or otherwise, as it only serves to aggrevate matters. And people shouldn't make negative assumptions and generalizations about people. Instead of asking what people are ashamed of, it should have been asked, simply, why some photographers don't want to be photographed. Just because something seems hypocritical (and that's assuming the photographer doesn't ask for permission) doesn't mean someone has a right to negatively label them as being "ashamed" to have their photo taken. That's childish and one could say that perhaps that is the person that needs to lighten up.


I think it unwise for me to continue in this thread so if you wish to say something more to me please send me a PM.