Photographing the down and out

[Sirius Glass]

Can you substantiate that? Or is did you just pull it out of thin air?

At least in the US, if it can be seen from public property, a street or sidewalk one can photograph it as long as it is not on a military base where it may be illegal to photograph classified military property.

 

[Pieter12]

Once again, substantiation? I know of at least one law in California:

647j PC is the California Penal Code section that makes it a crime for a person unlawfully to invade someone else’s privacy. A conviction is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 6 months in jail and a fine of up to $1000.00.

There are three ways a person can incur invasion of privacy charges:

1. by using a device (like binoculars) to view someone inside a private room,
2. by secretly photographing or recording a person’s body under the clothing for sexual arousal, or
3. by secretly recording or photographing someone in a private room to view that person’s body.

Examples

• watching a woman undress in her bedroom while using a telescope or periscope to see her intimate body parts.
• recording someone undressing in a fitting room / changing room with a mobile phone or camcorder.
• a peeping tom taking upskirt photographs of females in a shopping mall.

 

[KerrKid]

You probably hope no one sees you photographing your neighbor with a 1000mm lens through the cracks in the curtains.

Or you discover that they're photographing you, too. Better drop the snack cakes and put on some underwear.

 

[Sirius Glass]

At least in the US, if it can be seen from public property, a street or sidewalk one can photograph it as long as it is not on a military base where it may be illegal to photograph classified military property.

Once again, substantiation? I know of at least one law in California:

647j PC is the California Penal Code section that makes it a crime for a person unlawfully to invade someone else’s privacy. A conviction is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 6 months in jail and a fine of up to $1000.00.

There are three ways a person can incur invasion of privacy charges:

1. by using a device (like binoculars) to view someone inside a private room,
2. by secretly photographing or recording a person’s body under the clothing for sexual arousal, or
3. by secretly recording or photographing someone in a private room to view that person’s body.

Examples

• watching a woman undress in her bedroom while using a telescope or periscope to see her intimate body parts.
• recording someone undressing in a fitting room / changing room with a mobile phone or camcorder.
• a peeping tom taking upskirt photographs of females in a shopping mall.

I was referring to building, object and people out in public view, not being a peeping tom.

 

[Pieter12]

I was referring to building, object and people out in public view, not being a peeping tom.

OK. But one cannot use the recognizable images of people and certain buildings even in public places for commercial purposes (like ads, on T-shirts or mugs) without the owner's permission. The Chrysler Building in NYC and Disney Hall in LA are examples. Use for editorial and art is a different matter.

Earlier in this thread the conversation turned to photographing people without their consent. In addition to the example of the photographer Arne Svenson photographing people in the building across from his studio with a long lens that I cited earlier (he prevailed, by the way) there was the case of Philip-Lorca DiCorcia holding that a photographer could display, publish, and sell street photography without the consent of the subjects of those photographs.

 

[Sirius Glass]

OK. But one cannot use the recognizable images of people and certain buildings even in public places for commercial purposes (like ads, on T-shirts or mugs) without the owner's permission. The Chrysler Building in NYC and Disney Hall in LA are examples. Use for editorial and art is a different matter.

Earlier in this thread the conversation turned to photographing people without their consent. In addition to the example of the photographer Arne Svenson photographing people in the building across from his studio with a long lens that I cited earlier (he prevailed, by the way) there was the case of Philip-Lorca DiCorcia holding that a photographer could display, publish, and sell street photography without the consent of the subjects of those photographs.

Ah, but I rarely take portraits and when I do it is of family members, I avoid having any people in my landscape photographs, and I do not sell photographs. So I would not be taking any of the photographs discussed in this thread.

 

[Pieter12]

Ah, but I rarely take portraits and when I do it is of family members, I avoid having any people in my landscape photographs, and I do not sell photographs. So I would not be taking any of the photographs discussed in this thread.

Not to drag this out, but selling your photographs is not an issue unless it is for commercial purposes (like advertising).

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

In Europe, particularly in France, there is the so called 'Droit a l'image' meaning that everyone is the only person (solennellement) who can decide what happens with the representation in public HIS 'figure' (and propriety).

About 10 years ago, I was shooting in the street in Lille (North of France) for a business brochure on bakery supplies for an advertising agency.
As I had to shoot a shop window of a (well known) bakery with the belfry reflected in it, on that moment, just by accident, meters away there was a woman passing by on the sidewalk nobody saw in the heat of the fight.
When the photo was published she could be recognised reflected in the window, "the dolls started dancing"! She claimed € 20 000.- and got it...
So, when you take a photograph of a person on the street without his/her consent, and publish it, troubles will start.
In France all publishing is considered as commercial when any kind of 'carrier' incorporating that image/text is sold or used for business purpose.

In your example, the picture was sold for commercial purposes and the women never got paid or signed a consent agreement. Woold tn have been a problem if posted on social media in France?

I'm curious about what the definition of carrier is?

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I'm curious. To me there is absolutely no direct link between legal and ethical matters—unless, of course, one lives in a religious state, in which case you wouldn't be talking about ethics, but of morals. So, enlighten me: why is it that a discussion about ethical matters in photography—street photography, to be precise—always turns into a discussion about legal matters in photography?

I'm not talking just here. I see it often, on other plateformes, whenever there is a discussion about the ethics of photographing the poor, the homeless, migrants, refugees, etc., whether in one's country or in another's. You'd think it would be possible to discuss whether or not an ethical frame of reference for photography is possible—yes, a very complicated matter, but worthy of discussion—, but it seems difficult for the discussion not to veer towards "is it legal or not."

Worries me a bit, I must say. Seems like the very legitimate, and very compassionate, concern towards the beggar—"should I do it?"—has been obliterated in favor of the concern towards the photographer—"Am I allowed to do it?"

 

[faberryman]

Perhaps it is more fun to pretend you are a lawyer than to pretend you are an ethicist.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

No politics, please.
Personally, I don't feel right taking a photograph of someone who appears to be down and out. I don't photograph people anyway, so no biggy.

 

[Moose22]

Not to drag this out, but selling your photographs is not an issue unless it is for commercial purposes (like advertising).

I don't know European law. US law is that using a likeness in an advertisement is not OK without consent. For models, of course, but especially for famous or known people because it might be considered an endorsement or advocating the position of the ad.

Commerce, as in selling a photograph taken in a public place, requires no consent.

As for the original part of the thread, I just use judgement. I took a picture of someone in San Francisco who was obviously homeless, but she was freaking out and waving at cars while so f_ed up she couldn't stand after having smoked something in a foil pipe.

I don't like to take pictures of people who don't want me to, but if you're tripping balls on the corner of Columbus and Broadway, in full view of the whole world, I'm going to take the shot if I think it'll be interesting. Only reason I didn't share it here was that it just didn't tell the story I wanted it to tell when I was done, but that's that.

 

[Moose22]

One more small anecdote. I think I've shared it before.

I was taking photos years ago on the seawall where people go to watch sunsets. I was taking shots of the seagulls that fly along the bluffs, just to play with a new lens.

Homeless guy came up all angry at me for taking his photograph. He was local, I've seen him around, and I had a read on his personality. I walked him away from the crowd a bit and showed him my photographs (it was digital) and talked with him for a while. There's no explaining the "tough, you're in public so deal with it" part of the law, and I passed the dude every day on my walk. He'd seen me before, I'm hard to miss. He realized I was on his side and we shook hands and parted.

I'm not out to harass. Especially not in a crowd of people just looking to see a pretty view. That said, I'm fully in my rights to take a photograph, there's no more public place than a park where people gather. It's just not "newsworthy" or worth it to me if it makes people angry. I don't have a hard and fast rule, but that's on one side, the druggie smoking her shit on the street corner is on the other.

 

[Sirius Glass]

No politics, please.
Personally, I don't feel right taking a photograph of someone who appears to be down and out. I don't photograph people anyway, so no biggy.

ditto

 

[Rolleiflexible]

I don't know European law. US law is that using a likeness in an advertisement is not OK without consent. For models, of course, but especially for famous or known people because it might be considered an endorsement or advocating the position of the ad.

Commerce, as in selling a photograph taken in a public place, requires no consent.

As a US lawyer who practiced extensively in trademark law, and dabbled in privacy issues, I will say that the law is a good deal more nuanced, and confused, than this. People (not just celebrities) have a right to their likeness and it is infringed when their likeness is used without their permission. Treatises have been written on this, and I am not equipped to try to summarize it all in a few sentences here.

In the US, if you sell a photograph -- put it "in commerce," in legalese -- the circumstances matter. A lot. Selling a photograph taken in a public place of another for use in a Chanel ad, probably requires consent. Selling a photograph at Gagosian as a work of art, probably not.

This is an evolving area of the law -- more so on the privacy side, than on the trademark side. And the rules change not only from nation to nation, but also (at least as to the laws of privacy) from state to state in the US. YMMV.

 

[KerrKid]

I was taking pictures downtown and was approached by an angry down-on-his-luck guy who wanted $100 if I'd taken his picture. I handed him my camera and said, "Here, you take my picture and you give me a $100." His whole demeanor changed and we got along fine after that.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Just as an example, in New York a photographer was found not to have invaded his neighbor's statutory privacy interests under New York law, when he photographed them through their window and presented the photographs as art. See Foster v. Svenson, 128 A.D. 3d 150 (1st Dept. 2015), which may be read here:

Foster v. Svenson, 128 A.D.3d 150 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Foster v. Svenson, 128 A.D.3d 150, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

The court held that a work of art is protected speech, and that profiting by its sale does not constitute a violation of the plaintiff's privacy interests.

At least, that was true in New York. In 2015. The usual disclaimers apply.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I was taking pictures downtown and was approached by an angry down-on-his-luck guy who wanted $100 if I'd taken his picture. I handed him my camera and said, "Here, you take my picture and you give me a $100." His whole demeanor changed and we got along fine after that.

I might have offered my camera, but I would not have handed it to him.

 

[KerrKid]

I might have offered my camera, but I would not have handed it to him.

Well, Steve was his name, and Steve knew better than to make me unhappy.

 

[BrianShaw]

 

[Pieter12]

Of course you all realize you are stealing these people's souls when you photograph them.

 

[snusmumriken]

Of course you all realize you are stealing these people's souls when you photograph them.

There’s a lot in that, if you don’t take it too literally. You certainly take more than you give.

 

[awty]

I'm curious. To me there is absolutely no direct link between legal and ethical matters—unless, of course, one lives in a religious state, in which case you wouldn't be talking about ethics, but of morals. So, enlighten me: why is it that a discussion about ethical matters in photography—street photography, to be precise—always turns into a discussion about legal matters in photography?

I'm not talking just here. I see it often, on other plateformes, whenever there is a discussion about the ethics of photographing the poor, the homeless, migrants, refugees, etc., whether in one's country or in another's. You'd think it would be possible to discuss whether or not an ethical frame of reference for photography is possible—yes, a very complicated matter, but worthy of discussion—, but it seems difficult for the discussion not to veer towards "is it legal or not."

Worries me a bit, I must say. Seems like the very legitimate, and very compassionate, concern towards the beggar—"should I do it?"—has been obliterated in favor of the concern towards the photographer—"Am I allowed to do it?"

I cant see anything ethically wrong with taking photos of people in public (the laws take care of what you shouldn't do). The course of homelessness is unrelated and if anything would benefit by more exposure.
I do think people who demonize people with their own weird ethics to be a huge problem and I will challenge anyone who does so.....and I do.

 

[Pieter12]

I cant see anything ethically wrong with taking photos of people in public (the laws take care of what you shouldn't do). The course of homelessness is unrelated and if anything would benefit by more exposure.
I do think people who demonize people with their own weird ethics to be a huge problem and I will challenge anyone who does so.....and I do.

How does taking a photo of a homeless person benefit their cause (or did you mean case)? And why is the ethics of not wanting to or thinking it wrong to do so weird? I’m up for the challenge.

 

[bjorke]

...From an artistic point of view, it made a wonderful photograph in terms of tone and composition. However, I thought it morally wrong to photograph.

It's always about intent.

Do you have an opinion about Matt Black's American Geography? How about the portraits of Robert Bergman's A Kind of Rapture?

Of the three personas: subject, photographer, viewer -- who is being served?

How did you perceive: "wonderful"?