Street Photography unethical?
-
- Thread starter BainDarret
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Partial roll of 70mm late date (2011) Portra 160 NC, frozen
- Started by MCB18
-
For Sale Berthiot Eurygraphe 180mm f/4 (France, c1900)
- Started by Manual Camera
-
For Sale FS: Rittreck Wista Revolving Graflok 4x5 Back
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Mamiya M645 Right Angle Finders
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale Lot of cameras for repair
- Started by Jbennett68
Forum statistics
- Status
Although you may have the legal right to photograph someone, sometimes it's not the right thing to do - especially if they indicate they don't like it. Is a photo worth antagonizing someone? Maybe in a great while, but most often not.
You may have stood up to people in the past when confronted, but there are definitely those who are fully capable of making you regret what you've done and those are the kind of people (present APUG company likely excluded) for which any consequences mean nothing.
I equate taking my photo (if I'm a major component of the image) with 'invading my personal space'. It's okay if I allow it. It's not okay if I don't.
No offense, Ratty, but those street photographers with attitudes like yours will eventually force legislation to limit their so-called 'freedom' to do unto others whatever the hell they want. They will reap what they sew. There will be no more happy-go-lucky, "Eff you 'cuz I'm gonna do what the eff I want", shooting. IMO, those jerks are taking risks... that's fine so long as they can live with consequences. One day, their luck will run out.
No offense, Ratty, but those street photographers with attitudes like yours will eventually force legislation to limit their so-called 'freedom' to do unto others whatever the hell they want. They will reap what they sew. There will be no more happy-go-lucky, "Eff you 'cuz I'm gonna do what the eff I want", shooting. IMO, those jerks are taking risks... that's fine so long as they can live with consequences. One day, their luck will run out.
Last edited:
IMO if you are afraid to have your photo taken, stay inside your house.
No... just point your camera elsewhere. If I'm in a crowd... okay. Me alone or in a small personal group... no means NO!! It's not fear... just don't want some nosey jerk invading my space. Bugger off!!
So you tell me you have more right to invade my space than I have to tell you to leave me alone? You say I should just stay at home so you can take all the photos you want without any moderation at all? Seems to me some believe this world is their oyster and they are the pearl. I say, they are the irritating grain of sand that eventually grows big enough to become a new lovely legislation that washes those irritating bits of sand out of existence.
Last edited:
As I have already posted, if someone is clearly showing signs of not wanting to be photographed, I move on to somewhere else. But I do NOT ask for permission in public areas. There is no need for that.
You should ask permission of individuals or small groups. It's common courtesy.
Fear has nothing to do with it. Depending on the attitude or approach of the photographer, it may be seen as disrespect.
I deal with disrespect all the time, but I'm 45 years old and no stranger has ever put a camera in my face. Not something I worry about. I've had a gun pulled on me though.
I've had a gun pulled on me twice. I didn't back down but the ones who pulled the guns did... situation deescalated when they saw no fear. A rude pushy guy with a camera?? Ha ha ha ha!!
This guy on the otherhand, is an asshole
Nope. Don't need to. No one has any right to privacy in public.
That said, 99.9% of the people I photograph have no idea that I took their picture. Yes, I am that good.
I'm telling you now, Ratty, if I ask you to leave me be, then you're wise to do so. It must be very self-gratifying to be so "that good".
Are you illiterate? I have written twice, now three times, that if my subject is showing signs of being uncomfortable with me photographing, I move on.
How many times do you have to read this before you figure out what it means??
Most of your posts indicate you don't care the least bit about others' rights to be left alone. You and others state that you're in the legal right to shoot away. Yes, you've stated more than once that if people ask you to leave them alone then you move on. I suspect you move on then catch them when they're not looking. Am I right?
I mae bee il-itterut but i aints stoopit.
What part of "if my subject is showing signs of being uncomfortable with me photographing, I move on", don't you understand?
What part of this very clear and specific statement implies that I do not respect people's rights?
What part of "...then I move on", is confusing to you?
How about you read your own post #112 among many others? How is anyone expected to interpret that?
Nothing wrong with post 112. No one has any right to privacy in public. That is a fact. No amount of sobbing will change that.
Clearly you do not understand what I am talking about so I shall not waste anymore precious time trying.
Okay...but that's you. Just saying that others, not me, might very well have a more hostile reaction to a camera pointed at them and it has nothing to do with them being afraid.
Their reaction may seem to be totally unjustified to you, but there are all sorts of people out there.
At around 1:30 is quite sad. The poor elderly man being bullied by the photographer.
As a landscape photographer, the behaviour of a few street photographers can be quite confronting and odd. My personal experience is that a few of them can be quite intrusive and overbearing. If that's the case, I turn my back — and they move on to their next subject. I often ask myself, "why photograph me?" "What's so special about me?". I have witnessed confrontations where cameras have been grabbed and hurled (!). I don't think it's a question totally of ethics, but with significant elements of respect and courtesy. A photographer is nothing special, and like his subject(s), is not afforded any protection, especially if there is a legal case eventuating from his/her activities when he/she could well be asked to justify his actions.
Now, regarding rights [to privacy in public], implied or otherwise, have a read of this (below), the law from the Australian perspective. The final paragraph may also hold true for other countries (UK, US?) -- I don't know, but photographers should have an effective working grasp of the law as it stands, especially when visiting other countries where the law could be quite different.
[ from http://www.artslaw.com.au/images/uploads/Street_photographers_rights_2016.pdf ]
Street Photographer’s Rights
Can I take a photograph in public that contains images of people I don’t know?
[...]
Taking photographs in a public place
It is generally possible to take photographs in a public place without asking permission. This
extends to taking photographs of buildings, sites and people. In a case involving street surveillance photography used as evidence in a criminal case, an Australian judge stated “a person, in our society, does not have a right not to be photographed.”
[limitations to this statement omitted for brevity here]
Some photographers have been approached by the police while on the street taking photographs.
The police are usually responding to a complaint by some member of the public who is concerned about children being photographed and who have a mistaken belief that the consent of the parents or guardian must be obtained before children can be photographed. Street photographers should be prepared to respond to this situation, either by acknowledging the concerns of the parents and adopting appropriate strategies, such as explaining what you are doing and asking it is OK to take photographs; or otherwise have the information on street photographer’s rights so that you can have a conversation in which you explain what you are doing and why you have a right to engage in street photography.
Photographing people
There are no publicity or personality rights in Australia, and there is no right to privacy that protects a person’s image. However a person’s image can constitute ‘personal information’ under the
Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) [...]
Now, regarding rights [to privacy in public], implied or otherwise, have a read of this (below), the law from the Australian perspective. The final paragraph may also hold true for other countries (UK, US?) -- I don't know, but photographers should have an effective working grasp of the law as it stands, especially when visiting other countries where the law could be quite different.
[ from http://www.artslaw.com.au/images/uploads/Street_photographers_rights_2016.pdf ]
Street Photographer’s Rights
Can I take a photograph in public that contains images of people I don’t know?
[...]
Taking photographs in a public place
It is generally possible to take photographs in a public place without asking permission. This
extends to taking photographs of buildings, sites and people. In a case involving street surveillance photography used as evidence in a criminal case, an Australian judge stated “a person, in our society, does not have a right not to be photographed.”
[limitations to this statement omitted for brevity here]
Some photographers have been approached by the police while on the street taking photographs.
The police are usually responding to a complaint by some member of the public who is concerned about children being photographed and who have a mistaken belief that the consent of the parents or guardian must be obtained before children can be photographed. Street photographers should be prepared to respond to this situation, either by acknowledging the concerns of the parents and adopting appropriate strategies, such as explaining what you are doing and asking it is OK to take photographs; or otherwise have the information on street photographer’s rights so that you can have a conversation in which you explain what you are doing and why you have a right to engage in street photography.
Photographing people
There are no publicity or personality rights in Australia, and there is no right to privacy that protects a person’s image. However a person’s image can constitute ‘personal information’ under the
Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) [...]
I disagree and I'll add that you should read another two of your own posts... #89 and #96. I don't sob... and I disagree that your time is more "precious" than others'.
Again, any attempt you have made to try to understand what I am saying has failed. Miserably.
I can read and comprehend your posts, Ratty. You, it seems, either cannot or you willfully refuse to admit your meanderings of your own writings. You write one thing and a few posts later contradict your earlier posts. I called you out and you're exposed. Other street photographers who willfully disrespect others will come to your defense. I'm ready for that. Most others will not offer a protective blanket.
You write nothing but incoherent nonsense.
What part of "99.9% of the people I photograph are unaware of me doing so", are you confused by?
What part of, "if someone is disturbed by my photographing, I stop and move on", is beyond your ability to understand?
Only a paranoid and severely delusional mind can add the above together and come up with that I am disrespectful.
My 35,000+ street photography library demonstrates very clearly how utterly wrong your nonsensical ramblings are. I enjoyed building that library and I would not have done so if I were disturbing people all that time. I would have found a more relaxing hobby if even a modicum of your lunacy were true.
- Status
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |