Street Photography unethical?

[removed account4]

deja vu all over again: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)
too bad i can't find the thread of the guy who crashed the little kids birthday party to photograph little kids
swimming ( with out the parents consent ) and got upset that when no one had a clue who he was he was asked to leave

all this must be the "important work" the peta pixel guy was talking about...

 

[Gerald C Koch]

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.

I fully agree.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Professional photographers are aware of the legal aspects of their profession. It would be well if amateurs did the same.

As to whether selling your photos constitutes commercial use this is a gray area of the law. You are making a profit from someone's image.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

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.

It is off these exceptions that lawyers make their money.

I showed this thread to a friend of mine who is a lawyer. After reading all the posts one of his comments was particularly funny, "I wonder if the level of indignation expressed is inversely proportional to the talent of the photographer."

To sum up his other comments, "It's complicated and often comes down to which lawyer presents a more compelling case."

 

[Theo Sulphate]

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.

What is this building? Is there a news article link?

Although in this country it seems anyone can sue for anything, I don't see how this is enforceable. Tourists photographing friends & family and the building is two blocks away in the background? Did someone have a tripod set up or was perhaps using "professional looking" equipment right across the street and a security guard came out?

I've done video where I've had to obtain location and model releases, so I'm very familiar with the principles involved. I'd just like to know more about this case - I'm not doubting you.

 

[mooseontheloose]

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.

Some people just don't like their pictures taken without permission. I'm one of those people....
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.

+1
As a photographer, of course I think it's fine to photograph people in public. But, as the subject of an unknown photographer, I think people people should have the right to refused to be photographed, especially in close quarters/proximity - as ONF points out, and as the article suggested (guy across from the couple on the subway). Just because you know that your intentions are good, no one else knows that.

One of the differences between a photographer like HCB and one shooting today is, I have to say, the Internet and photoshop, and combined with a lack of integrity by a certain number of people. In the end, you have no idea where or how your photo will end up. Women I've worked with have ended up on porn and other questionable sites, even though the images in question (taken in public, by strangers) were not suggestive in any way. As such, they (and I) have become much more suspicious of strangers taking pictures (w/o showing good intent or asking permission).

Even here in Japan, in some popular tourist areas, school children are taught to put their heads down en masse the second any one of them sees a camera pointed at them. And I pity the poor maiko and geiko who are trying to go about their business here in Kyoto - the paparazzi tourist hoards that descend on them for a snapshot is so off-putting it makes me embarrassed to be a photographer. It'd be nice if people would remember that that's a real person, and not some tourist attraction at the zoo. (I know these are slightly different examples to what's been discussed above, but really the issue is where do you draw the line between what photographing whatever you want, and thinking about, and respecting, what your subject wants. I know it's not always easy to determine that difference.)

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

What is this building? Is there a news article link?

Although in this country it seems anyone can sue for anything, I don't see how this is enforceable. Tourists photographing friends & family and the building is two blocks away in the background? Did someone have a tripod set up or was perhaps using "professional looking" equipment right across the street and a security guard came out?

I've done video where I've had to obtain location and model releases, so I'm very familiar with the principles involved. I'd just like to know more about this case - I'm not doubting you.

Yes, people sue for just about anything in search of a free fortune... http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/...-settlement-public-domain-20160208-story.html

 

[Jim Jones]

And ag gag some laws (or at least proposed laws) give them an opening to sue for what many of us routinely photograph. I remember the proposed Iowa law of a few years ago cited in the article. A zealous prosecutor might have used it to persecute almost anyone for almost any photography of farms http://www.businessinsider.com/phot...have-significant-impact-on-photography-2012-3. As the article states, the final bill was more reasonable. However, we must remain alert for continuing efforts of reasonable people to promote laws that unintentionally proscribe our reasonable pursuits.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

... http://www.businessinsider.com/phot...have-significant-impact-on-photography-2012-3 ...

Wow. I had no idea.

 

[TheRook]

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.

I feel the opposite. It doesn't bother me at all if strangers take pictures of me. When in public, I'm not ashamed of the way I look or what I'm doing. If a street photographer finds me interesting enough to photograph, then by all means, snap away. And if the photographer happens to be using a film camera to do so, I may even respond with a friendly smile and thumbs up!

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Let me just point out to those who don't like their photos to be taken in public: at least here in the UK, there is so much CCTV cameras everywhere, even disguised in lamp posts, that sincerely the Police and the local Council already have lots of pictures of you.
Besides you are in public and if you have a camera in your hands then you can't complain about others taken photos of you or not.

And if the photographer happens to be using a film camera to do so, I may even respond with a friendly smile and thumbs up!

Same here and I'll be very happy to see someone with a FILM camera actually using it instead of just going to a forum and talking about "how they miss Kodachrome or this film or that film".
Let me say this: most of young photographers that I met in the streets don't even know about this or any other Photography forum: they just like to take pictures and they just get on with it. Just like the young man I met another day, just left college and going to have his first gallery exhibition. Or the nice young American lady I met yesterday. She had a Rolleiflex and a Yashica SLR with her and just liked to take pictures on film.
These are the future of Photography, not us old gits complaining about this or that in an Internet forum.
I'm very optimistic about the future of street photography once these old gits get out of the way and let the youngsters just get on with the job.

 

[dabsond]

"Unethical" ... Hogwash!

 

[baachitraka]

I was taking bus to home on evening and the bus was nearly full. There was a man somewhere in 40-50's pointing his smartphone camera towards a child sitting opposite to him and taking photographs with loud pseudo shutter noise. The concerned passenger alerted and the father of the child came and demanded him to show what he had taken. Guess what? He is a pedo and there were photos of many other children and some minutes later Police came and took him away.

Shocking indeed.

I may take photos of patterns on the street but people, NO.

 

[tomfrh]

Some people don't like having their photos taken, and in my view there's something mildly immoral about taking sneaky photos of people without their consent - especially when it's poverty-porn that photographic "artists" are so fond of.

But it certainly seems a stretch to compare it to politicians fanning the flames of racism and the locking up of people on the basis of race!

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

It's not a matter of hiding anything. Political correctness? How about you leave me the hell alone and respect the fact I don't want you taking my photo? That's political correctness... not doing to others what they don't want you to do. Even in public there should be at least some respect for others' privacy. How would you like it if I covertly videotaped you talking dirty to your girlfriend then posted it on youtube and your wife saw it? I never cheated and that's not the point. The point is, STAY OUT OF MY PRIVATE BUSINESS. If I ask you stop taking photos then you'd better stop immediately.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Public video cameras? Yes, they exist. What becomes of the files? Nothing... they don't get posted anywhere. Years ago, when cameras were fairly new to the USA catching those who speed or run stop lights, a man was photographed speeding. Unaware he had been photographed and was cited for speeding, he returned home to his wife who had opened the letter containing the citation and the photo. The photo showed the man with another woman in the passenger seat. Soon after, a divorced followed as did a lawsuit against the agency that INVADED HIS PRIVACY.

 

[faberryman]

Of course he lost the lawsuit, so now the guy owes his litigation lawyer a fee for filing it. It's what happens when you lash out irrationally.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

That's probably true but here's an excerpt from the link below...

"If someone waves you off when you try to photograph him or her, you may be well within your legal rights to take the shot, but ask yourself if it’s worth the verbal or even physical altercation that it may yield. Confrontation aside, I’d always advise being respectful and considerate towards your subjects, and if they express that they’d rather not be photographed, I’d suggest simply moving on."

Common Sense and Reasonable Respect of Others

 

[Theo Sulphate]

What a tempest in a teapot. It's really very simple: with surveillance cameras, everyone in an area is being photographed; you are not being singled out. When a stranger (and it's almost always a guy) points his camera at you, you are being singled out as the subject. It's natural for many people to be suspicious and question his motives, why he wants the photo and what's he going to do with it.

Since I'm always being mistaken for Omar Sharif, I simply think people are admiring my good looks and it doesn't bother me.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Yes, Theo, but what becomes of those images collected by State surveillance cameras? Nothing... no galleries, no internet posting, no commercial use. Don't get me wrong... I don't like State surveillance either but I can't ask those cameras to stop taking my picture. I can ask a street photographer to please leave me alone.

BTW, I LOATHE paparazzi... and I mean LOATHE them... absolutely ZERO respect. I imagine if I were a big celebrity I'd be jailed for beating the snot out of some. Am I equating street photographers with paparazzi... yes but only those who completely disrespect my privacy when asked to stop.

I guess I'm lucky though because AFAIK no one has wanted my image. I guess there's a positive side to being unattractive and boring.

 

[Diapositivo]

I was taking bus to home on evening and the bus was nearly full. There was a man somewhere in 40-50's pointing his smartphone camera towards a child sitting opposite to him and taking photographs with loud pseudo shutter noise. The concerned passenger alerted and the father of the child came and demanded him to show what he had taken. Guess what? He is a pedo and there were photos of many other children and some minutes later Police came and took him away.

Shocking indeed.

I may take photos of patterns on the street but people, NO.

What was he accused of? Being a "pedo"? Sorry you are a "pedo" can you leave here?
A picture is always as innocent as a picture, whether you get the picture of a child or a dog, whether you are paedophile or zoophile, you are just taking a picture, and doing no harm.

I think we should relax this histeria about pictures and about paedophilia. If that man enjoys a wank while looking at a child picture, so be it. No victim, no crime! Or do we want to start a new kind of modern witch hunt?

Besides, the person was actually a masochist. He wanted to be the object of contempt, or he would have unactivated the noise.

 

[Diapositivo]

To answer the original post: ethic or unethic is limited within your "inner forum". Legal or unlegal is something pertaining to society.
Something can be objectively legal, or illegal. Nothing can be "objectively" ethic, or unethic.
The boundary between what is legal and what is ethic is personal, is in your conscience.

The article writer assumes (as many do in Protestant countries, I think this has to do with religion somehow, or religious education) that there is an objective concept of "ethic", and certainly he's got the key of what is ethic and what is not, so that it can discuss about it in an objective way.

Just like tastes, ethic is entirely and solely personal.

PS I am under the perhaps misguided assumption that, while in Italy or Catholic countries the general idea is that you mind your own business and you never try to correct other people's behaviour, in Protestant countries everybody feels authorized to fingerpoint and to show other people's the correct way of living. But this might be an impression of mine.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Yes, Theo, but what becomes of those images collected by State surveillance cameras? Nothing... no galleries, no internet posting, no commercial use. ...

Right. That's why they don't bother me either.

 

[tomfrh]

I think we should relax this histeria about pictures and about paedophilia.

Parents do indeed get hysterical and most people who run into trouble are perfectly innocent, however there are pedophiles that take pictures of children - sometimes as a way of assembling a folder or pin-up board of potential "targets", and thus it's understandable that some parents lose their mind a bit when strange men start photographing their children.

 

[Colin Corneau]

Parents do indeed get hysterical and most people who run into trouble are perfectly innocent, however there are pedophiles that take pictures of children - sometimes as a way of assembling a folder or pin-up board of potential "targets", and thus it's understandable that some parents lose their mind a bit when strange men start photographing their children.

What do you base that on -- evidence? Hearsay?

There are people who engage in cannibalism. Therefore we should ban all knives and large cooking pots...same exact logic.

It seems the most hysterical fearmongers out there, who see abusers behind every shrub, are the ones posting hundreds of photos of their children on their Facebook page...guess how safe THAT one is from predators!