Ethics of Shooting Random Strangers on the Street

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

12/29/2012 10:58:00 AM · #51

Originally posted by PW321:

I don't really want to argue this issue with a bunch of people who have a vested in interest in proving me wrong. All I'm saying is that even though I am a photographer myself I am also an individual with rights. And no matter what you think I DO have rights! It would benefit the entire photographic community if instead of defending your right to take intrusive photos that you all learned to be aware that those "candid" shots you are taking secretively in the street, hiding your camera, using a tilting view finder to hide the fact that you are taking photo, may not be welcomed by the person you are photographing and that they may not be too happy with you sticking their face all over the internet, where again, no matter what you think, art or not, you are putting their image at risk.

there are always risks in every freedom we enjoy. the truth is there are always going to be a small percentage who will try to be nefarious and we can't let our fear of that small minority affect how we live our lives and enjoy doing what we do or lets other enjoy doing what they do.

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

12/29/2012 11:08:24 AM · #52

Originally posted by PW321:

this thread is titled "ethics of street photography" now I would think that giving proper consideration to how people feel about being photographed and how you should react when they object is part of the ethics and yet all I'm hearing is just how little regard there is.

You are indeed right about the title of the thread, but you will note that it was you that started lecturing us about the legalities of such undertakings and as such you got a response in respect to your musings.

While I may agree with the "Ethics" issue, you are absolutely wrong relative to the rights of an individual with regards to taking photographs within a public domain. You might want to read up on some of the legal issues as they have been tested on multiple occasions ... and with the exception of Quebec, I personally know of no court case where the person being photographed ever won a case before the courts.

Ray

Message edited by author 2012-12-29 11:10:19.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

12/29/2012 11:49:41 AM · #53

Originally posted by PW321:

And yes I do think it's past time that this was put to the test in court. You don't have a right to put some one in harm's way with your stolen 'candid' picture.

It's been tested and has become well established legally. Being identified for something you did in public is not being put in harm's way unless you're an undercover agent and the pic ID's you as such. Then look at all the celebrities suing photographers. They've won by suing them for other things, but not for taking pictures of people in public. If you don't want to be photographed when you go out in public, I suggest wearing a head to toe covering or just staying indoors where you have an expectation of privacy.

If you think you have a right to privacy in public, you're a fool.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

12/29/2012 11:51:28 AM · #54

Originally posted by PW321:

Originally posted by Venser:

Originally posted by PW321:
I hear what you are saying however I have noticed that there is a level of aggressive protection of the "right" of the photographer to take photos which tends to ignore or stomp all over the rights of the person being photographed. We live in a world where the rights of the individual to do sonething are ever increasingly upheld over the rights of a person who would prefer you not to. We also live in a world where the right to privacy is increasingly being eroded as well. I'm very protective of.ky right not to have my rights infringed.
That's cool and all, but none of rights are being infringed upon if I take your photo in while your in public.

What rights are being stomped all over? None.

thanks for illustrating my point perfectly. Being in "public" does not ipso facto deprive deprive me of my right to privacy and my right to choose whether I want to be photographed or not. It does not give you the right supercede my right not.to have some stranger take my picture and do who knows what with it and especially not publish it on the web. And I will defend those rights ferociously whether you recognise them or not.

Yes it does.

Give us a call from jail when you get busted for defending your imaginary rights.

12/29/2012 12:40:07 PM · #55

Originally posted by IAmEliKatz:

Pw321 have you ever taken a photo of a stranger on the street and posted it online?

Nope not ever not once. I don't take pictures of people at all not even unrecognisable ones.

Mike

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

12/29/2012 12:42:18 PM · #56

Originally posted by Spork99:

If you think you have a right to privacy in public, you're a fool.

Originally posted by Spork99:

Give us a call from jail when you get busted for defending your imaginary rights.

comments like this aren't helping the situation.

PW321 is clearly unaware regarding his/her rights of public privacy or lack of, there is no point is throwing gasoline on the fire. its a picky situation for a lot of people and instead of calling them fools on such a sensitive issue, simply explaining the law is the best course of action and also as photographers who enjoy street photography its better for all to respect the subjects wishes of not be photographed.

ruining someones day shouldn't be a goal or consequence of getting a picture. far too often we only look at our rights and don't care that others have opposing opinions on whether those rights are fair or not.

Message edited by author 2012-12-29 12:43:25.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

12/29/2012 02:47:32 PM · #57

Originally posted by mike_311:

Originally posted by Spork99:

If you think you have a right to privacy in public, you're a fool.

Originally posted by Spork99:

Give us a call from jail when you get busted for defending your imaginary rights.

comments like this aren't helping the situation. PW321 is clearly unaware regarding his/her rights of public privacy or lack of, there is no point is throwing gasoline on the fire. its a picky situation for a lot of people and instead of calling them fools on such a sensitive issue, simply explaining the law is the best course of action and also as photographers who enjoy street photography its better for all to respect the subjects wishes of not be photographed.

ruining someones day shouldn't be a goal or consequence of getting a picture. far too often we only look at our rights and don't care that others have opposing opinions on whether those rights are fair or not.

On the contrary, I think he's being intentionally obtuse and seeing things through his own distorted perception of how he thinks the world should work. Plenty of people have pointed out (politely) the real deal and he doesn't care.

It doesn't really matter what we say though, because he's a true believer in his way of seeing the world. Nothing anyone says will change his mind because he's not interested in any possibility that his worldview might be wrong.

I've seen this many times (and the moral implications of street photography seem to attract this type of person), and the thread will go on forever with no changes in opinion.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

12/29/2012 02:53:45 PM · #58

The situation has been explained.

PW321 has persisted in their assertion that they have rights they don't rather than trying to learn what the situation really is. That's being a fool. "Defending" those imaginary rights, ala Sean Penn, will indeed land them in jail.

That's not to say that taking pictures of people the way a paparazzi would do is polite or should not be questioned. It isn't illegal however and certainly not cause for "defense".

Originally posted by mike_311:

Message edited by author 2012-12-29 15:00:55.

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

12/29/2012 03:17:02 PM · #59

Originally posted by alohadave:

Yeah but those are great things to have in rant.

DrAchoo is getting old and

Cory can't possibly continue his maniac pace forever so he could very well be the next heir apparent.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

12/29/2012 03:58:18 PM · #60

There seems to some confusion between what is polite and what is legal. You can be all sorts of rude, before you cross over into what is illegal.

I do find it interesting that PW will not take recognisable imagery of willing models. I assume if a friend wanted a portrait for their business card, or for a gift for grandma the photographer would be unwilling to cross that line. That is rare position for a photographer to take, but a personal one. Your personal ban on the recordation of people is not expandable to the rest of us.

On a wider question, have you seen those little "no photos" lapel stickers for conferences. They tell people not to record their images or voices, and are a bit of a PITA because once the sticker is on, you have to honor it even though they are in the background/ out of focus ect. But the thing that kills me is working around these little people so worried about my stealing their picture, while the conference room in the hotel had a CCTV camera mounted in every corner. They are fine with some anonymous entity stealing their picture, but they can't trust another person.

Scott McNealy (Founder of Sun Microsystems) famously said "Privacy is over, get over it. The only question is can we spy on big business as well as they can spy on us."

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

12/29/2012 03:59:28 PM · #61

Hey. Don't go lump me with the crazies Richard. Although I am getting old.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

12/29/2012 04:24:50 PM · #62

I'll stand with the 321 guy to this extent: I understand what he means. He's a human being and he feels he has a right to control certain things that affect him. He's not talking about legal rights, but moral ones, at least as he sees it. He's making a moral statement; "You've got no right to do this to me!" How many of us have NEVER confronted somebody for a behavior which we wanted them to stop and yet was a legal behavior? Heck, it happens all the time. We depend on certain social niceties, "unwritten rules", to glide us through life. We depend on people doing their best NOT to make others uncomfortable. LOTS of us will stop doing something we actually have a right to do, if it becomes clear to us it is causing someone else stress or harm.

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

12/29/2012 05:05:17 PM · #63

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I'll stand with the 321 guy to this extent: I understand what he means. He's a human being and he feels he has a right to control certain things that affect him. He's not talking about legal rights, but moral ones, at least as he sees it. He's making a moral statement; "You've got no right to do this to me!"

Ah but you see my dear friend, that is exactly what he did.

This gentleman came in and explicitly said that undertakings such as this were illegal. He may be focusing on the morality at this junction, but he most certainly did not start with that premise and was taken to task for it.

It is only in the last few posts that he made mention of the "Ethical" aspects of the situation.

Ray

Message edited by author 2012-12-29 17:05:47.

Pentax DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6ED AL [IF] WR DC

12/29/2012 05:11:39 PM · #64

What are the rules for being yanko'd again?

tnun

Ricoh GR III

12/29/2012 07:31:10 PM · #65

I think we have discussed this before in threads about street photography. There are indeed two issues; legal and ethical/moral/civilized/even religious. I think we are mostly up to speed on what is legal in most places, with small variations. But a broader view of images and image making might help with the latter: I wonder how many times we need to be reminded that some groups of people believe that their souls are being stolen when we take their pictures? Or that some religions are averse to graven images/any representations of living things? Even some dogs object to having their pictures took. Is it just possible that there is a reason for that, if not necessarily the reason the OP offers?

And I don't think it hurts to be reminded how little privacy people have become used to, and how much we are assaulted by immodest displays of what is normally (so one might think) private.

And yet, for me, the most interesting subjects in all the visual arts are people. The line is thin.

12/29/2012 11:44:15 PM · #66

Actually I am not unaware of what is legal and what is not. On photography websites there is a general perception that goes like this "If you're in public and I have a camera I can do what I like and there isn't a thing you can do about it" Swop over to legal websites discussing the same issues with lawyers and you get a different picture entirely. From a legal standpoint there is a distinction made between the press and joe public with camera. If you are assuming you have the same freedoms as the press you are wrong. The people who have said that no-one has ever sucessfully sued over photographs misrepresenting them, being distributed on the net etc without permission are also incorrect. And yes there is also the moral/ethical aspect. Some people have personal, religious, and cultural reasons for not wanting to be photographed and photographers would do well to be more mindful of that because I see a distinct disregard for it amongst "street photography". Some small minority might be more aware than others but my overwhelming impression is that street togs basically don't care.

And from a personal POV that attitude gets my back up. When you do what you want with no regard for how some one else feels about it you are not just being a self-centered jerk but being abusive as well.

And whether you guys want to admit it or not it is getting harder to take photos in public. Try hanging around kids with a camera these days for starters. A larger number of places you think are public are banning photography - malls, buildings, playgrounds. Certain landmarks can't be photographed without permission and paying a fee. And it's not going to get better.

And yes I am unhappy about the level of intrusion into my privacy in the interest of "safety".

12/30/2012 12:00:20 AM · #67

Originally posted by PW321:

. From a legal standpoint there is a distinction made between the press and joe public with camera. If you are assuming you have the same freedoms as the press you are wrong.

I feel like I've seen court decisions that disagree. What's the distinction between a "journalist" and a "blogger"? I am unaware of any freedom or right granted to the "press" and anybody else. Can you give an example and maybe some citations?

EDIT: I should be clear that any court cases I've heard about lack of distinction between public and press has nothing to do with photography. I have never heard of a distinction made on that count, but welcome examples.

Message edited by author 2012-12-30 00:23:02.

12/30/2012 01:38:02 AM · #68

//www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2004/12/30/2003217310 even the press can't simply do as they please

//www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7327701 not only are you not allowed to post pictures on the net without permission but not taking them down is also a problem.

//www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11338126 Police instructed not to publish photos of rioters - now if the police are being told not to do it ... what do you think your chances are of getting away with it?

I don't have time right now to search out more.

Pentax DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6ED AL [IF] WR DC

12/30/2012 01:43:15 AM · #69

Originally posted by PW321:

Citation needed. If you are going to claim legal distinctions, you need to back it up.

Originally posted by PW321:

If you are assuming you have the same freedoms as the press you are wrong. The people who have said that no-one has ever sucessfully sued over photographs misrepresenting them, being distributed on the net etc without permission are also incorrect.

Freedom of the Press is covered under the First Amendment, the same amendment that covers Freedom of Speech. You do have the same rights as the press. What you don't have is access and credibility.

Posting a picture of a person who is in public is not defamation. In addition, unless you are using the pictures for advertising, permission is not required. It may be prudent and courteous, but not a requirement.

Originally posted by PW321:

And yes there is also the moral/ethical aspect. Some people have personal, religious, and cultural reasons for not wanting to be photographed and photographers would do well to be more mindful of that because I see a distinct disregard for it amongst "street photography". Some small minority might be more aware than others but my overwhelming impression is that street togs basically don't care.

Keep in mind that what people say in forums is not necessarily how they will act in the real world. When you lead off with threatening language, bombastic claims and generally acting like an asshole (not so much differently from the behavior that you are decrying of other people), expect people to respond in kind.

tnun

Ricoh GR III

12/30/2012 01:54:02 AM · #70

I object to being called "you guys." But I do tend to identify with the posters who have tried to elucidate any real issues the OP has raised.

I want to say something like Grow Up Already. Maybe that is the brandy I have rewarded myself with after a day spent helping 2 amateurs hang some french doors and realizing that my help/advice was perhaps necessary. Very scary so.

Well yes. I also want to say anything worth doing is bound to involve risks and fine distinctions. And anything worth becoming involves accepting that there are stupid inconsiderate jerks in the world (and sometimes one is one of them) and that our lives are eternally at risk.... OK. Back to grow up.

12/30/2012 01:54:47 AM · #71

Originally posted by PW321:

//www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2004/12/30/2003217310 even the press can't simply do as they please

Has nothing to do with pictures taken in public.

Originally posted by PW321:

//www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7327701 not only are you not allowed to post pictures on the net without permission but not taking them down is also a problem.

Also has nothing to do with pictures taken in public.

Originally posted by PW321:

//www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11338126 Police instructed not to publish photos of rioters - now if the police are being told not to do it ... what do you think your chances are of getting away with it?

It's the closest one that makes your point, but only because of the chances of people under 18 years old being in the pictures. AFAICT, it says nothing of adults having their pictures taken and published by police in Ireland.

Originally posted by PW321:

I don't have time right now to search out more.

Keep trying.

12/30/2012 02:00:12 AM · #72

Studies show that 88% of 'explicit' material posted online ends up on porn sites

//www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/oct/22/parasite-porn-websites-images-videos

And a lot of it isn't even 'sexual' to start off with.

With images being taken off social networking sites and being used by social networking sites in advertising and so on .. tell me why I can't make a strong case against you posting any recognisable picture of me online without my permission?

12/30/2012 02:07:58 AM · #73

Originally posted by PW321:

Briefly...

#1. The lawsuit involved whether the AP obtained the pictures lawfully (ie. did they hack a private account?). It has nothing to do with taking and posting your own pictures. Plus, the article is from 2004. Was the lawsuit successful?

#2. From my reading, Yahoo is only possibly in trouble because they said they would take the photos down. Had they not said this, there would be no case. Note that the boyfriend, who posted the nude photos in the first place, wasn't being named in the lawsuit. Again, was the suit successful?

#3. This is your best link, but I think the police are being told not to do it because they are police. The rules for obtaining and questioning suspects is apparently different for adult suspects and for those who are minors. If you found something saying nobody should post photos of the riot, then you'd have a case.