Street Photography unethical?

[Colin Corneau]

That's the worst crap journalism I've seen on the topic, and sensationalist at that, hoping someone will find it because of the Dunald Crumb reference.
It's because of garbage journalism like this that photographers get incorrectly threatened by civilians, security guards, and even police - because laws of countries regarding photography in public are misappropriated and misrepresented like this. Makes me so mad.

Totally agree, Thomas.

Pretty typical of a lot of the Star's social agenda, though.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

While taking a photograph may be legal, its puublication may be subject to legal action. This is particularly true if the subject is shown in a demeaning manner and thus subject to ridicule. You could win such a suit but then there are attorney fees to consider.

 

[Slixtiesix]

I think what makes people so over-sensitive to this issue these days is not street photography itself, but the chance that their picture may show up somewhere on the web. It is remarkable that in an era when most people flood social networks with photos of themselves (which are often rather unfavorable by the standards of developed taste by the way!), they freak out once somebody else is taking a picture of them.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Many people are just too stupid to realize the that the internet is forever. That it is impossible to completely remove what gets posted there. If they did they might be more judicious in what they post. I can remember when it was considered proper for a lady's name to appear only three times in the news. Once when she was born, once when she was married and once when she died. Hatch, match, dispatch.

 

[blockend]

I think what makes people so over-sensitive to this issue these days is not street photography itself, but the chance that their picture may show up somewhere on the web. It is remarkable that in an era when most people flood social networks with photos of themselves (which are often rather unfavorable by the standards of developed taste by the way!), they freak out once somebody else is taking a picture of them.

Times have certainly changed. Last night I looked at a review of an exhibition by the late Tony Ray-Jones (d.1971 aged 30), in which it was suggested he wouldn't have been able to take the same pictures now. It's hard to disagree. TRJ mixed irony with compassion for his subject, old people, kids, bathing belles, high society, the unemployed, are completely unconcerned by his presence. Nowadays it would be assumed he had an agenda. Even work as recent as Martin Parr's seafront photography in the 1980s, would see the police called today.

It's probably a mistrust of the internet, combined with general cynicism about our fellow citizens. We may find that in spite of there being unprecedented numbers of photographs taken, some aspects of modern society remain undocumented.

 

[Dali]

I'm going to agree with part of the writer's thesis.

It is important to differentiate between that which is legally permissible, and that which is morally and ethically acceptable.

And it is always valid to question what we consider to be acceptable.

But I fail to see what might be unacceptable about taking a cell phone picture of people using the subway system, unless there is something unusual about the circumstances.

I agree 100%.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

So, basically, some on this thread wants to kill candid photography.
I'm walking on the street and here is two ladies on bicycles, it lasts one second, because they are close and moving.
I'm taking it. But according to "permission takers" I have to yell - freeze, my I have yours permissions!
I think I read about before. By the time cars were introduced, some jurisdictions required to have person with torch walking before vehicle. I think, it must be next rule for street photography demanded by this Toronto radical "liberal".
Every street photographer must wear yellow star. Dude in the article is also antisemit, btw.

 

[faberryman]

huh, another insensitive photographer! you neglected the traumatized piece of plywood!!!!!

Well, the plywood seemed well adjusted.

 

[CropDusterMan]

Winogrand, Friedlander, Cartier-Bresson, Arbus...all of their images would have been empty void pieces of shit
if they'd "asked for permission". Ask this question...why are people so concerned with having their picture
taken? Is it vanity? People out in public are in public.... "They may be concerned where that image is going to be
used"....Half of the people out there have logos all over them with sunglasses, t-shirts, Nike swooshes are
ubiquitous, they are already walking F*%king billboards!!! So what the heck are they worried about? I go out of
my way not to wear logos simply out of personal preference to not look like a tool. Everyone is on Facebook
these days telling what they had for dinner and what they did all weekend in endless mind-numbing dribble...yet,
they get bent out of shape if someone takes their photograph while they're out on the street. It's ridiculous.
Most people take themselves too seriously, and for me in the end, it's not about the people most of the time
anyways, it's about how they fit into the environment I put four corners around. The level of PC here is
pretty frustrating...where the hell did it all come from?? People have no teeth anymore.

 

[Chan Tran]

Yes, indeed. Good manners and consideration of others are more important than getting by with whatever one can.

I do not like people taking pictures of me. So if they ask I said OK but prefer that they don't. If they take the pictures anyway I don't do anything. I may or may not ask the people I want to take pictures of but if I detect the slightest disagreement I would not take the pictures.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Ko.Fe Those of us that are older may remember the show Candid Camera produced by Allen Funt. Today we would refer to it as reality TV. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candid_Camera

The point here is that none of the recordings were broadcast without the consent of the people involved. Since the show poked fun at people's foibles this was very necessary. A necessary condition is that the subject or an average person viewing it would consider the photo as demeaning. Some people did not give their consent. So you can take candid photos BUT if you wish to publish or display them in any way you should obtain permission. This means anyone and everyone who is identifiable in the photo. So you must consider not only the main subject but any others in the photo. Think of it as model release. You may have noticed that in news casts people's faces may be blurred or obscured in some way. There are a few very specific exceptions. For example public figures are fair game. Some people are missing the point. You do not have to ask permission before taking a photo. But you certainly must obtain a release if you wish to use it unless you are completely reckless. In which case lawyers love you.

 

[Chan Tran]

If HCB were alive today he would be in trouble with the law in some countries. Google has been sued several times for taking photographs of people's houses.

And he sued DDD for taking pictures of him and published in his book.

 

[CropDusterMan]

What Gerald sees when he looks through his viewfinder...

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Winogrand, Friedlander, Cartier-Bresson, Arbus...all of their images would have been empty void pieces of shit
if they'd "asked for permission". Ask this question...why are people so concerned with having their picture
taken? Is it vanity? People out in public are in public.... "They may be concerned where that image is going to be
used"....Half of the people out there have logos all over them with sunglasses, t-shirts, Nike swooshes are
ubiquitous, they are already walking F*%king billboards!!! So what the heck are they worried about? I go out of
my way not to wear logos simply out of personal preference to not look like a tool. Everyone is on Facebook
these days telling what they had for dinner and what they did all weekend in endless mind-numbing dribble...yet,
they get bent out of shape if someone takes their photograph while they're out on the street. It's ridiculous.
Most people take themselves too seriously, and for me in the end, it's not about the people most of the time
anyways, it's about how they fit into the environment I put four corners around. The level of PC here is
pretty frustrating...where the hell did it all come from?? People have no teeth anymore.

Some people just don't like their pictures taken without permission. I'm one of those people. If there are photographers taking indiscriminate photos without peoples' permission and we don't want that, what are the rest of us supposed to do? Should we stay at home behind closed doors so street photographers can do whatever they please? It's a matter of privacy. I hate having my photo taken while I'm eating. What about when a couple is sharing an intimate moment such as a kiss? I would be quite annoyed if someone poked into my privacy with a camera. I don't like it. Many other people don't like it. Sorry if anyone reading this post doesn't like my opinion but just don't take my photo without asking.

I should add: If I'm just one of many in a crowd then shoot away. But me alone or with one or a few other people such that I or we become the main subject(s)... no.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

...But you certainly must obtain a release if you wish to use it unless you are completely reckless. In which case lawyers love you.

Wrong.

In Canada pictures taken in public, like sidewalk, do not require model release for publishing. And if you are submitting photo from event to photo stock they will take it without model releases from everyone in the crowd on the picture. As editorial.
Take it easy, Ko.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

In the US, the rule is that you can even photograph someone in public, have them be identifiable, and use the image without their consent, if it is NOT for commercial purposes. Hanging in an art gallery and selling prints is not considered for commercial purposes. Commercial purposes would be putting that image on the label of a can of soup, or in a magazine print ad for selling that can of soup. Legal and ethical take separate paths at this point.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

There are two people involved, both have rights, and both have responsibilities. It's the balance of all that which makes the ethical quandary.

Keep in mind, however, that much philosophy surrounding ethics is based on respect for the law, like Immanuel Kant and Jeremy Bentham, for example. So even in ethical considerations the law must be taken into account.

I think it comes down to simply not being an a$$hole. If somebody doesn't want their picture taken, then erase it or whatever.

Another angle that I find important is the documentation of mankind, for historical purposes. There are pictures in our history books, and they got there somehow. A thoughtful approach will help insure this tradition of learning about the past will continue.

I confess to being sneaky when I'm out walking. I bring a little plastic POS (piece of shit) to take pictures with. People usually assume I'm super old fashioned (they hear the film wind) or think I have no clue what I'm doing, or both (which isn't necessarily incorrect). But I don't challenge the mood on the street by bringing something that looks intimidating.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

You may find the following useful.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html

Recent SCOTUS decisions have only increased the application of the idea that people have an innate right to privacy.

What really scares me about this thread is that some look upon the photographer as the aggrieved party.

Once again the sticking point is how the photo is perceived. The photographer can be sued and a jury must decide if the image is demeaning or subjects one to ridicule. Having the right to take a photo does not provide the photographer with much legal cover. As simple a thing as a school yearbook photo has resulted in legal actions.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Recent SCOTUS decisions have only increased the application of the idea that people have an innate right to privacy.

Don't you worry! If someone is having privacy moment in public place, like pooping on sidewalk, I'm not going to take it.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Obtaining permission can also apply to inanimate objects. Street photographers in NYC have been sued for not obtaining permission when a building appears in the background.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Obtaining permission can also apply to inanimate objects. Street photographers in NYC have been sued for not obtaining permission when a building appears in the background.

And that is incredibly asinine. How that is even possible boggles the mind.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I wouldn't like it if someone photographed my home without my permission but as long as they don't show the address or me or any identifiable markings or my vehicle license plates I wouldn't make a big deal of it. I can't think of any reason anyone would be interested in photos of my run down old place but if they did, I would definitely want to be asked first. I consider it rude and presumptuous and invasive not to ask first.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

I'm so sick of people wandering about seeking things to be offended about. In the USA you have no expectation of privacy in public with few exceptions. Generally I see situations where decency plays a role in whether to take the shot and if you're a reasonable person you do the right thing. In cases where they do not deal with it then. I prefer to not have my photo taken and displayed but oh well. Sometimes life is just life and you don't get your way.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

If I see you pointing your camera at me and I hold my hand up to block the view and shake my head 'no' then I expect you to stop pointing your camera at me. End of story... no discussion... just don't do it.