24 ms·

The sticky issue of consent in street photography

• Tomte 5y ago
  The legal situation is similar in Germany, but I wouldn't do street photography here, either. The article discusses morality and ethics versus personal preference, but that's just high-brow talk. The point is that today, once someone photographs you, you cannot possibly know where he will post or publish your photo. And yes, that's creepy. Decades ago photographers maybe showed your picture at a gallery or exhibition. Today everything goes to Instagram, and someone will probably ridicule me for some small thing (a stain on my shirt?), and maybe thousands will pile on, and maybe everyone in my social circle will see it? Embarrassing.
  • Spooky23 5y ago
    Photographers have always had this obnoxious nature to them in many circumstances. Similar to journalists in many ways. I think the US approach ultimately makes the most sense. There’s a societal benefit to being able to capture images and stories.
  • mc32 5y ago
    In the US it’s pretty well established that art is exempt from privacy laws. It gets muddy[1]when you try to use it commercially: so you can sell a photograph as art, but you can’t use it without consent or permission if the art is for commercial purposes (to advertise, for example). A well known case is a Hasidic Jew suing photographer DiCorcia. New York State sided with the photographer: http://www.artistrights.info/nussenzweig-v-dicorcia http://www.artistrights.info/nussenzweig-v-dicorcia [1]Whats the rule if you have an exhibit and the gallery or whatever wants to advertise they have an exhibit by the artist. Can they put up big banners with the art? Is that commercial use?
    • kolanos 5y ago
      In the U.S., you can use a photo you have taken for commercial purposes without requiring the consent of the subjects in the photo as long as: 1) the subject didn't hire you to take the photo (thus making it their property), 2) there is no reasonable expectation of privacy (photo taken in a public place). [0] Any "muddy" aspects are purely a civil matter, and even then, public photography is a constitutionally protected activity under the first amendment. [0]: https://www.pixobo.com/photography-laws-can-a-photographer-use-my-photos-without-my-permission/ https://www.pixobo.com/photography-laws-can-a-photographer-u...
      • mc32 5y ago
        Yes, however, I believe you cannot take a public photograph and use it as a basis for a commercial advertisement: to sell nappies, or cars, etc…
    • Valgrim 5y ago
      Then you have to describe a legal definition of art, which is something artists spend their entire life trying to destroy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)
    • NineStarPoint 5y ago
      I think people are more discussing what the law should be in the modern age than what the law currently is.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • biglost 5y ago
    Now I must use dark glasses as turning my head could mean “I am a sexual ofender on internet for life”, but I was turning my head! Yes, i’m going to far, but maybe, just maybe, with enough bad luck…
• blowfish721 5y ago
  Who will build a SaaS that replaces the people in the pictures with ”this person does not exist”? Keeping facial expressions etc the same.
  • phreeza 5y ago
    It's a neat idea, but take the second photo in the article for example: The guy gawking (well who knows, but it could be construed that way) at the women doesn't even have his face visible. Yet just from the clothing and context, his friends and colleagues would probably be able to identify him. That said, if it works, your suggestion would probably cover >90% of cases.
• andrewfromx 5y ago
  some trivia from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0322802/trivia?item=tr0618399 https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0322802/trivia?item=tr0618399 "Another reason for filming extensively in Japan is that laws requiring non-consenting participants to have their faces blurred out do not apply in Japan"
• ivanstojic 5y ago
  I always found this issue to be confusing. There are literally hundreds of cameras tracking me every day: in the parking lot, in front of the ATM, when I buy my groceries… I have no ability to know when I’m being recorded or what happens to those recordings. Yet some people are upset if they get photographed by a human photographer in a public space. Is the only difference that the photo was taken with intent?
  • criddell 5y ago
    Is intent just another way of distinguishing between active and passive recording?
  • Tomte 5y ago
    CCTV footage doesn't go viral, and my social circle won't see it. I find it hard to understand that people in this thread see no problem there. You can still believe that photographers should have every right to take photos (and legally they do, so there's nothing to discuss about the status quo), but you need to address this point, even if only by summarily dismissing it.
    • colanderman 5y ago
      YouTube is full of "look what my Ring camera recorded" videos.
    • petepete 5y ago
      > CCTV footage doesn't go viral Unless you trip over, get mugged or your pants fall down.
      • underwater 5y ago
        That feels like it's just looping around to the same problem. If you use an image or video of a other person for ridicule or profit, and it is likely to bring them unwanted attention, that is exploitation of that person. In my opinion it's ethically wrong.
    • 5y ago
• cmaggiulli 5y ago
  I’m willing to be swayed on this issue but to me the word “consent” implies permission, and the word permission implies some type of authority. In the case of photography in public there is no authority so no consent is needed. I personally believe that, for the most part, ethics and legality align here. I don’t think it is unethical to photograph and publish a picture of someone in public. However, I think there may be an ethical dilemma if the picture is unintentionally sexually suggestive. I still don’t believe it should be legislated. The societal and personal benefits guaranteed by the right which allows us to photograph in public is worth more than the protection that would come through legislation. Additionally the picture in question is not sexual to me at all. I don’t even understand how anyone could construe it as sexual. To me it’s a raw, emotional photograph that perfectly describes what it’s like to mother children in a large city. It’s an amazing moment
  • golemotron 5y ago
    Yes, the law is clear on this and case law evolved back when photography was expensive and relatively uncommon. People want to reconsider now that everyone has a camera all the time and it is very easy. This is a common pattern with tech.
    • dsr_ 5y ago
      Nobody needed laws about automobiles before they were invented, and it took quite a few years before those laws became settled and close to universal. (E.g. every jurisdiction will require you to drive either on the left or the right side of the road, but they differ. Nearly all the world now uses red stop signs and lights.) Laws change in response to technological changes; this is normal. The spirit of a law is often more important than the wording, in deciding what changes to the law are appropriate.
      • scotty79 5y ago
        Don't forget that laws about automobiles were shaped by years of intense lobbying and shaping public opinion with campaigns, all financed by car companies.
• yosito 5y ago
  I studied video production in college. For one project, I did a documentary on a non-profit that was working in a high-crime area. We drove down the street with a video camera pointed out the window * As we drove by a house with some young men on the porch, one of them saw the camera and yelled angrily, "Yo, what the fuck!" and started chasing us. After that experience, I've never been able to point my camera at someone without getting their verbal consent first. I worked for awhile as a photographer/videographer for a school, and struggled to get good footage of students because of that. * (With the documentary, we hadn't intended to record and people without consent, and when we finally published it, we had signed consent forms for everyone who appeared in it.)
  • kebman 5y ago
    It is generally a smart idea to get consent first, especially if the imagery is intended for monetized use, such as ads and posters, especially since such use can result in law suits if done without consent. The one thing that might outweigh this general rule, is if something newsworthy happens, or something that would be deemed important for the public to see, such as a crime. Where I'm from (Norway) the general rule is that a person cannot take up the focus or majority of an image without prior consent. This makes it possible to video or take pictures of public events without needing to ask everyone on the stadium, for instance.
    • Wowfunhappy 5y ago
      > The one thing that might outweigh this general rule, is if something newsworthy happens, or something that would be deemed important for the public to see, such as a crime. It actually sounds like that isn’t required in the US. https://dinalitovsky.bulletin.com/590041038798261 https://dinalitovsky.bulletin.com/590041038798261
• hirundo 5y ago
  Sometimes there is an engineering solution to a social problem. Rather than blurring faces software can now isolate them, downscale and then upscale them, such that they look like real people but don't actually exist. The photo doesn't look censored but the consent issue goes away. Then you just have to identify the faces that you want to keep. The same could be done with the brands and logos that randomly litter photos, creating other legal issues.
  • kraftman 5y ago
    I know thats the direction we're heading but do you have an example that's available now and realistic?
  • phkahler 5y ago
    >> The photo doesn't look censored but the consent issue goes away. No it doesn't. What post-processing you do is up to you but that doesn't change how people feel about you taking the picture in the first place. They have no idea weather you're going to blur them, enhance them, throw the picture away, or what. Like the author said, it's legal and you don't need consent. The real trick is to not be creepy about it but that's not universally defined. I was at the marina one day and saw a dog chasing a stick in the water. Lots of splashing about. I stopped and took a picture with my big honking camera. I was careful to get just the dog and not the woman that was throwing the stick, but neither her nor her husband could have known exactly what I got a shot of. Nobody said a word and I moved on thinking how odd it could seem to do that. A friendly comment about what a great subject the dog is might have helped calm any discomfort they may have had but I didn't get the impression it was an issue. Was it to them? I dunno.
  • Planktonne 5y ago
    I don't think that's actually a solution, just a way of making the same underlying problem harder to spot. In general, I am extremely distrustful of this as an idea: > Sometimes there is an engineering solution to a social problem.
• tobr 5y ago
  Speaking of consent, can someone post a version that doesn’t include a blocking cookie modal that offers no other option than to accept all cookies?
  • coldpie 5y ago
    Sure: https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/ https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/ https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/blob/master/filters/annoyances.txt https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/blob/master/filters/... https://noscript.net/ https://noscript.net/
  • bellyfullofbac 5y ago
    Developer Tools, find the overlay DIV, hit delete...
• kebman 5y ago
  But when you're informed about cookies when entering the site, the only option is "I accept". Not unlike walking in a public space, where it's is, and should be, legal to photograph anyone. (And no, the back button is not a meaningful other option.)
  • dymk 5y ago
    Your other option is the back button.
    • kebman 5y ago
      I'll tell you what is the other option: Digging through the code and extracting the information without accepting the blood contract, because people who are stupid enough to put something in the public sphere on the internet don't deserve respect when they treat their visitors with only one viable alternative.
      • deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  • rlpb 5y ago
    People conflate clicking on a button that says "I accept" with some kind of moral or legal obligation or agreement. One doesn't necessarily mean the other. In the EU, for example, if there wasn't the option to decline, then no permission is being given even if you click on "I accept".
  • wizzwizz4 5y ago
    > But when you're informed about cookies when entering the site, the only option is "I accept". Not true in the EU. (Legally, anyway.)
• hereforphone 5y ago
  Can I take your picture in a public space? A picture of your kids? Your kids in their bathing suits at the pool? Everyone draws the line, and at a different point. It's not boolean.
  • EvanAnderson 5y ago
    It absolutely is boolean for some people. If I'm in a public space w/o an expectation of privacy you have every right to photograph me. Same goes for my daughter, bathing-suit or street-clothes. I value the right of others to make photos in public spaces and I recognize that it applies to me as a subject.
    • aeternum 5y ago
      I'm still not convinced it's boolean. How about pictures taken from a public space like the street or sidewalk into your house or yard, how about pictures like this: https://www.itsnicethat.com/articles/arne-svenson-the-neighbors-190516 https://www.itsnicethat.com/articles/arne-svenson-the-neighb... What about if a neighbor decided to take pics of your daughter walking to school every day? What if that neighbor starts a blog?
    • watwut 5y ago
      Upskirt photos are typically done at public places.
      • deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    • macintux 5y ago
      Would you be ok with a drone someone programs to follow you every time you’re in public, taking photographs and recording everything you do? An extreme example, but I suspect there are very few people for whom this is a Boolean issue.
      • agentdrtran 5y ago
• biglost 5y ago
  Curious about “ And asking for it afterwards almost guarantees you will be turned down. ” She seems to know most people wont approve it, so the solution is to not ask. I imagine my daughter: “Dad, i didnt ask for permission because you would say no, so i not asked for it and Im safe for being grounded.” Weird thinking
  • mixmastamyk 5y ago
    Yes, “I didn’t ask to kiss you because I knew you’d say no. It's better for society if I just go ahead.”
  • agentdrtran 5y ago
    It's becuase people will assume a different intent, it sounds like a scam that way.
  • actually_a_dog 5y ago
    It's also empirically wrong in my experience. I take a lot of photos of my dog, particularly at the dog park or around my neighborhood when we're out walking. I put the best ones up on Instagram. Some of those photos have people in them. I never post a photo with an identifiable person in it without showing them the photos and asking the person first. Not once have I been turned down. I did once take a photo of my dog with two cute little twin 8 year old girls who live in my neighborhood. I told them to tell their parents, and that I wasn't going to put that one up online, and I didn't. Later, I met their father when my dog and I were out on a walk, after I introduced myself, I made sure to tell him explicitly that I had taken the photo. I just don't think it's fair to put kids' photos online like that.
  • Ma8ee 5y ago
    I think it very much depends on the circumstances. If people are sitting down and are in an environment where they feel safe, you can walk over with a friendly smile, chat a little, show them the camera and btw, I took some pictures of you that I hope will turn out really nice. I hope you don’t mind, I’ll be happy to send you a copy. Few people say no. On he other hand, people who are in a hurry or feel vulnerable mostly say no just by default. Does it reflect their true feelings about the matter if they had time to reflect? Hard to know. In the US the situation should be simple. The first amendment must trump any right to any expectation of privacy in a public space.
• neom 5y ago
  Tangential, but my fav case/story/art related to this. Article about the case : "Voyeuristic Photographer Arne Svenson Wins New York Appellate Court Case- Should New York revise its privacy laws?" https://news.artnet.com/market/arne-svenson-neighbors-photographs-supreme-court-286916 https://news.artnet.com/market/arne-svenson-neighbors-photog... And a talk by the photographer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePjeX6IiSTQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePjeX6IiSTQ And an article with more of the photos: https://www.itsnicethat.com/articles/arne-svenson-the-neighbors-190516 https://www.itsnicethat.com/articles/arne-svenson-the-neighb...
  • rocqua 5y ago
    As I understand the law "commercial use" as requiring a release form does not include 'advertising yourself as an artist, or selling your photos as art'. This is different from offering your pictures as stock photography, as PR materials, or in advertising of anything other than yourself.
    • neom 5y ago
      I think you're right, I only posted the links because I happened to find that art/artist/story particularly interesting/good. From another post on the same blog: "Publishing an image. Not only is it legal to photograph anyone from a public space, it is also legal to display, publish and sell the images in any context except commercial (meaning advertising). This could get a bit confusing to a non-photographer, as it did for Erno Nussenzweig, an unwitting subject of a Philip-Lorca diCorcia Heads project. Discovering that a photo of himself sold for thousands of dollars in a fine art gallery, Nussenzweig sued diCorcia in 1999, claiming that this published photograph violated his religion. He famously lost. Had the photographer sold the image to Coca-Cola to use in an ad, however, the verdict would have been entirely different. A slight, and fair, caveat to the rule is that you can't wildly and willfully misrepresent the subjects. If you photograph a bunch of teenagers hanging out in Washington Square and publish the image with an unfounded and damaging caption like "teenage junkies," you could be held accountable for defamation."
• ngokevin 5y ago
  IMO, street photography is a low art form. It's walking around without a plan, snapping random snapshots of people and expect some meaning to come out on its own. The creation process is regulated to pressing a button and some minor processing. Perhaps similar to throwing buckets of paint at a canvas and seeing what comes out. It's usually derivative. Someone alone looking sad because that's their resting face. A black and white high contrast photo of an old person. A homeless person. Political street art (that someone else created). Some exceptions of course, like Humans of NY where arguably the main part is the backstory and writing behind the people they capture with permission, but that's more portrait photography than street.
  • bigdubs 5y ago
    You're obviously allowed to feel what you feel but if you've ever seen a "good" body of work taken on the street, and a "bad" body of work taken on the street, the skill of the photographer matters, and it expresses art. The low vs. high debate is old as time, with sculptors looking down on painters, with painters looking down on photographers. The camera is a canvas and the photographer paints with what they put in front of the lens and when they close the shutter. Street photography takes it an extra step further and removes a ton of control over what you're photographing and leaves you creating art out of what is happening before you.
  • kolanos 5y ago
    Public photography (at least in the U.S.) isn't just constitutionally protected because it is a form of expression (art), but also because it is an exercise in free press. In the U.S., anyone can be free press, and as such can document any goings on in public, including photography.
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  • todd8 5y ago
    I respectively disagree. I think people are attractive, in general, and in particular I like looking at people. For me, seeing a photo that captures a memorable or unusual moment in sports, in a performance, or even in a park or on the sidewalk is worth viewing. I agree with the original article that there is a creepiness to voyeuristic photos, and in the case of the woman on the bus photo I would be more comfortable with it if she had agreed to its use, but I do think it's a "good" photo. When at a museum we frequently look at pictures or sculptures of people. Our viewing of these works of art are totally outside the context of the original subject's goal for the artwork. Is it inappropriate to look at these works of art? I agree that there are too many black and white photos of the old, sad, and homeless. These don't usually speak to me as art. If I was a photographer that wanted to do street photography, I would take advantage of the capabilities that new cameras have and show the resulting photos to the subjects and ask for their permission to use the photos. One could even offer to send them a copy of the photos by giving them business card with an annotation of the frame numbers so that they could request them via email.
• bijant 5y ago
  It may be, that the legal issues, surrounding (commercial) YouTube Video production, require getting the explicit consent of the subjects. But this has quite a disturbing effect on the very meaning of what we consider Street Photography to be. Many "Photography Influencers" that show their process on tiktok or YouTube ask all the subjects of their pictures for explicit consent before taking pictures that I would consider to be more in the realms of fashion or model photography than in the true spirit of street photography. Street Photography is, to me, an art form that requires capturing unstaged moments and not just staged shots outside of the studio. It is the more artisticly inclined cousin of photojournalism, at times prefering form over function and serendipitous beauty over obvious significance and timely message. BTW It's notable that YouTube in particular seems to steer viewers to channels that celebrate hobbies which if they don't require expensive purchases can at least benefit from them. The "Photography Influencers" are a niche that owes its growth to the massive advertisement Dollars surrounding the space. The more people watch photography content, the bigger the audience Alphabet can sell to Sony, Canon and thousands of accessoire makers. So there is an incentive to push their almighty recommendation algorithm to steer users into this niche and grow demand. At the same time on the supply side, content producers, are incentivized to go into this niche by the higher availability of niche adjacent sponsorship deals for their videos. This dynamic obviously plays out in other niches as well, whether it be cars, gardening or golf. Potential sponsors and advertisers for math youtubers like blackpenredpen however are more limited so google is disincentivized to grow their niche. Does this, over the long term, push peoples preferences toward more materialistic pursuits ? I guess we'll find out.
• WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
  People who don't want their image taken by a stranger often confuse strong personal preferences with ethics. But for an action to transcend individual discomfort and enter the netherworld of immorality there has to be both a strong societal consensus as well as palpable, real-world harm resulting from it. Working from the real-world harm angle I find non-consensual, bulk surveillance to be an active threat to individuals and society. One primary reason is it's increasing purpose as a tool for those in power to exert control over those who aren't. Conversely the potential harms from candid photography are far less concerning. There have been times when a publicized photo is subject to bad choices by the public. Even that worst case scenario illustrates that individual photographers don't compare with the countless, coordinating agencies that impact millions of lives.
• bastardoperator 5y ago
  Streets/Subways are public, you have no expectation of privacy in public. Consent is implied. If you go into publicly accessible areas you will be on camera. However, a professional photographer despite knowing this would have asked for additional consent given the nature and subjects of the photo and their intentions on how the photo will be used.
  • _bfhp 5y ago
    No one is confused about what the current norm is. The author and other commenters are curious about the arguments for the implications and improvement or replacement of it.
    • bastardoperator 5y ago
      This has been widely debated for years, photography is nearly 200 years old. Where we have landed is the probably the best place. 1. You have no privacy in public. 2. Individuals have a right to use a camera in public spaces recording whatever their eyes can see. Changing the above would require a modification to the 1st Amendment in the US which makes any argument almost completely moot.
      • _bfhp 5y ago
        I fear we are conflating morality with legality
• btilly 5y ago
  Data point. The most reproduced photo of the 20th century is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-J_Day_in_Times_Square https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-J_Day_in_Times_Square. It raises multiple issues of consent. The photographer didn't know who was being photographed. The woman didn't consent to the kiss, and didn't realized she had been photographed until many years later. Under current law, it was a sexual assault. Indeed in another frame on the same camera, she was fighting back. But it gets better. A man who claimed to have been the kisser later sued for a share of the proceeds. (George Mendonsa dropped the suit later citing costs.) And there we have it. One of the most iconic photos of all time has lack of consent written all over it. And yet, I'm very glad that the photographer took the picture.
  • calderwoodra 5y ago
    I wonder if they know they've been immortalized in National Harbor, MD. https://maps.app.goo.gl/KnGhdR5gvGLtvq3v6 https://maps.app.goo.gl/KnGhdR5gvGLtvq3v6
  • estaseuropano 5y ago
    Counterpoint: If this photo hadn't been taken or the photographer had felt shame at its content and not put it forward for print, nothing would be lost. There are thousands of photos taken the same day that could have become iconic instead. It's an artistically and emotionally good photo, but it holds no special significance outside the fame it gathered. If it hadn't become famous you wouldn't miss this photo and instead maybe some 5 year old waving to her dad coming home, or a mother hugging her son would have become famous.
    • CRConrad 5y ago
      Or just simply some other homecoming soldier kissing his consenting girlfriend.
    • shard 5y ago
      I'm not sure if I buy that counterfactual. Taken to its logical conclusion, you can say that about any piece of art, or anyone you meet, or any event in your life. I don't believe that these are such interchangeable items. Taking your example of an alternate photo of a 5yo waving to her dad, or a mother hugging her son, they express different things compared with the photo in question, with the original photo giving me a sense of the joy of returning to a youthful life full of promise, while the 5yo waving photo would be of the relief of a father knowing that he will be able to raise his daughter, and the last would be of a dutiful son returning.
• goldcd 5y ago
  This made me think - and I've still not managed to produce a coherent viewpoint. Closest I can come up with is that there's some sort of asymmetric 'value' that sometimes appears from nowhere and this throws us off a bit. As people have mentioned, security cameras are filming me all the time - and I've no issue with that. My image has no value. It's one amongst billions of frames taken, that will be ultimately wiped, unseen and uncared about. I don't care about the image as I know the owner doesn't - there's a balance. If one of these frames was taken by a photographer deliberately - then suddenly I care more. Why did he take it? What was I doing? Where will it be shown? To whom will it be shown? What will they think of me, based upon it etc etc. By taking that image, they've assigned value to it - but where's the value been taken from? Maybe it's like the wind and there's 'value' going to waste all around us and the photo is just like putting up a turbine or a sail to capture it? Maybe it's like somebody mining for diamonds under my house - they've found some value in something I didn't know I had, but I now want my share. Maybe it's the concept of part of your soul being captured in the photo. That photo can be shown and might provoke a response to me, but I no longer have any control over it. Maybe it's the flip side of social media, where you can choose the thoughts and images you wish to push to the world as your representation - except you didn't choose it and you don't have a reply or delete button next to it.
  • shadowgovt 5y ago
    > Maybe it's like somebody mining for diamonds under my house - they've found some value in something I didn't know I had, but I now want my share. And this is one of the harder parts of assigning value to something like this... What is a person's share when someone exploits a resource that the first party had some kind of nominal claim to (i.e. "my land," even though really you live above that 3D region of space, not within it) but zero ability / opportunity / inclination to exploit? There's volumes and volumes of legal precedent on this topic for tangibles, let alone the increasingly-intangibles that we can monetize online.
  • em-bee 5y ago
    i do take issue with security cameras filming me. it bothers me, because yes, maybe the images get wiped unseen, but maybe not. how secure are those cameras? who gets access to the feed? on the other hand, if a photographer takes a photo of me, i don't care as long as the photo doesn't get published. i take photos myself, and in general my attitude is that publishing one of my photos requires the permission of all subjects in it. when i put photos on my own website then i explicitly add a license that allows a subject in the photo to use it for their own purposes as they see fit. so as a photographer i explicitly give control back to the subjects in the photo, because that is how i believe this should be handled.
• abeppu 5y ago
  There are so many bad takes in this. But mostly, I think the author is internally inconsistent on multiple fronts. In one paragraph she argues that the subjects of photos aren't upset by having their photo taken and then shared/promoted/published whatever. > Over the years, many people I’ve photographed have found themselves either in publications or on Instagram. Almost everyone asked me to send them a copy, thanking me for the captured moment. But later she says she fully expects that if she asked for consent after a photo is taken, it wouldn't be given. > And asking for it afterwards almost guarantees you will be turned down. Even I, as a photographer, would feel suspicious if a stranger came up to me saying they just took my photo and would like some kind of retroactive permission. This to me highlights that she's cherry-picking. Some subjects are fine with their picture being taken and shared. Great! But clearly this doesn't imply that all subjects are fine with it, and she knows this. If you're going to explicitly disregard some subject's "strong personal preferences" when they disagree with you, you don't get to use other subjects' acquiescence as any kind of evidence of an absence of harm. She highlights a photographer who spent a year photographing a family through their windows, and say that though it was legal, "the ethics of what he was doing are certainly up for debate." But later she says "But for an action to transcend individual discomfort and enter the netherworld of immorality there has to be both a strong societal consensus as well as palpable, real-world harm resulting from it." So ... if the family didn't experience a "palpable, real-world harm", the photographer wasn't being unethical? Who gets to decide whether the harm was 'real-world'? Does she think that only if a domestic abuser is able to hunt down their ex or something that a subject has experienced any "harm"? The author jumps from a lack of "palpable" harm to conclude "there is nothing inherently dangerous in the mere act of photographing people, children included, in the anonymity of a public space." "Unethical" and "inherently dangerous" are not the same, and a harm, which may or may not be "palpable" is that photography coupled with social media and instant sharable publishing can totally destroy the "anonymity of a public space" that she takes as a given. Have you experienced stage fright? If in a public space someone builds a stage around you, and places you before a digital audience, have you experienced harm? Have you fastidiously curated and cropped and tweaked images of yourself before putting them into particular public contexts? Do you experience a 'harm' if a photographer with a large following decides that the candid shot of you which they think will get the greatest audience response is not one that's flattering? Is that harm 'palpable'? I think the understanding of "ethics" in this context has to switch from being about trying to establish "harm", and instead look a equity and power. The photographer sees an opportunity to benefit. Taking the photo followed by sharing and promotion may bolster the photographer's reputation, build their audience, even lead to financial benefit later. The photographer gets to exercise choice and control throughout the process -- which shot to use, how to crop it and manipulate it, in what context to show it. The subject has no control, likely enjoys no share in any benefit, and has the possibility to see various perhaps immaterial harms. It's unethical in part because it's inequitable; it's arranging one's own benefit at another person's possible expense -- and arguing then that the detriment to others isn't "palpable" or "real-world" is just minimizing so she can keep doing what she wants to do. Yes it's legal. Often harms will be negligible. I'm not saying that street photographers are monsters. But as with any behavior with concentrated benefits (in this case to photographers) and diffuse costs (to subjects), of course the party that stands to gain is going to say they're doing nothing wrong -- and they're the least credible judge exactly because they have the most to gain.
• 5040 5y ago
  Reminds me of this: https://granolashotgun.wordpress.com/2020/07/23/not-for-camera-view/ https://granolashotgun.wordpress.com/2020/07/23/not-for-came...
• Vox_Leone 5y ago
  She says: _`"Consent" seems like an easy concept, but it's really not, at least not on the street.`_ Well, it`s funny how things get fuzzy when one`s direct interest is involved. The Weinsteins of the world keep saying that phrase.
• _bfhp 5y ago
  I sympathize with the author but I would consider non-consensual street photography ill-advised at best, not necessarily immoral. It's an accessibility issue, and like with many accessibility issues, it helps to engage in a "thought experiment." Just like you would assume someone with a wheelchair may want to enter your public building, you should assume that when taking picture of strangers you are being invasive towards someone struggling with anxiety and body image. It doesn't mean you _are_ being invasive whenever you take photos, just like a person with a wheelchair may never want to enter your building. I personally don't feel comfortable taking photos of strangers except if they are very far away in the shot. The author mentions the "possibility of sometimes making someone slightly uncomfortable" but from personal experience that's not the worst case scenario. And of course there are exceptions like emergencies where you should take photos. "But for an action to transcend individual discomfort and enter the netherworld of immorality there has to be both a strong societal consensus as well as palpable, real-world harm resulting from it." I can't really agree... does something need to have "strong societal consensus" of immorality to be immoral? Does a wheelchair-inaccessible public building need a disabled person sitting at the entrance to be immoral?
  • throwawaygh 5y ago
    Pointing your camera in the wrong direction at the wrong moment can also get you killed. I've heard stories like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29331480 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29331480 but which ended in tragedy.
    • weird-eye-issue 5y ago
      They were in a high crime area pointing a video camera (which I'm assuming was larger than your typical camera) at some people sitting on their porch. That's completely different from typical street photography
      • throwawaygh 5y ago
        The story I'm thinking of that ended in tragedy involved park photography.
• pessimizer 5y ago
  I acknowledge that within a country, state, city, or on private property, I have no expectation for privacy from being recorded other than a few customary exceptions based on taboos against nudity, such as in the restroom or dressing rooms. I understand a necessity for sometimes being taped for security purposes when I am near a country, state, city, or private property, and although I haven't consented, I accept that it's within the material interests of their management to monitor potential dangers nearby. I, however, expect that these materials will be used only for those purposes, and destroyed after they are not useful for those purposes. I expect this because I haven't consented to any use at all, but accept conditionally that socially, we think that this a legitimate usage. I extend this to personal space: if someone wants to wear cameras to tape around their own bodies for security purposes i.e. to mitigate against the potential of someone committing a crime against their person, I accept that, but only for those reasons, and I expect no other use of the images, and for them to be destroyed after they have served that purpose. A person's eyes operate in a similar fashion, and I certainly cannot demand that people not look at me. I also cannot demand that people not think about me, so I ask no control about the stories people tell about what they have seen (unless previously agreed), as those stories have been interpreted by a mind, are a significant transformation, and are really the essence of an individual and the most basic natural right if there is any such thing. If I don't verbally object, I accept that a photograph taken of me that I am clearly aware of (if I see the camera in operation) can be assumed to have been consented to. Outside of this, stay away from me. It's insane that photographers, people who completely make a living off of copyright because what they've done often takes very little creativity and can be reproduced trivially, are so cavalier about what other people can say no to. The article shows this same attitude clearly. It starts with a covert argument, made covert because it is obviously not good, but not left out because it functions as an attack on people who question displaying and selling creepshots that you've taken of women in the subway. It then moves to what it thinks are two clear arguments (although the second is essentially just a restatement of the covert argument, but with a philosophical tone meant to make it sound more serious.) It then gish-gallops around, repeating itself with different rephrasings, and making declarations sound like observations. ----- Covert Argument Zero: People who complain about a photograph taken without consent, in the author's experience, are not the ones in the photograph, but other people. Answer: This is a barely tarted up version of the universal "troublemakers and agitators" argument. I'd note that, in general, more people see a photo than are in that photo, so the vast majority of people questioning its ethics would be expected to be among the people who see the photo. The article itself cites a lawsuit from the subject of a photo, but only to say "the courts think I should be able to do this too, although I'm still going to make an ethical argument and not hide behind the law, but the law supports me, or people doing things even worse than me." ----- One: If you ask for consent, the picture won't be candid, and I prefer a candid picture. Also, the subject may ask for some editorial control over their image, and I don't want to give it to them because they may not like a photo that I like. Answer: There is no part of ethical decision-making that requires preserving your business model. ----- Two: a) What you like or don't like doesn't define what is right and wrong. In fact, "society" has agreed that I am right and you are wrong by not unanimously determining that I am wrong. Also, b) people cannot be harmed by photography which is anonymous[?], and in a public space[?]. Answer: This starts with an immediate hypocrisy in a). After declaring that consent wasn't necessary because with consent, you can't get the photo you want and you don't get the editorial control you demand, the author continues with an argument that personal preferences don't define what is right or wrong. She then declares that all is allowed unless it is universally condemned, notes that the type of photography she wants to do is not universally condemned, and makes an arbitrary declaration about an example behavior being universally condemned. Even worse, the author does it tautologically: "inappropriate touching" has been "universally determined to be flat-out wrong." No shit. "Inappropriate photography" is the same. When you put the adjective "inappropriate" in front of something, you're limiting your discussion to what is "not appropriate." This is a discussion about what is not appropriate. If your answer is "things that are inappropriate," you're not being responsive. And b): is a simple declaration that photography cannot be harmful in the "anonymity of a public space." None of this discussion has been about people who are anonymous, all of it has been about people who are identifiable and who have not given consent. I'm going to guess that the "anonymity of a public space" being referred to here is the fact that since the photographer hasn't asked for consent, the subject is anonymous to the photographer. This is unbelievably solipsistic. It's just impossible for the author to escape the perspective of someone who is making a living from this, and the confidence that the subject is only important from the photographers' point of view (and always really desires this relationship although troublemakers are trying to get in the way.) No matter how anonymous I am to you, I guarantee that there exist other people that recognize me, whether or not I'm sharing a public space with you. ----- The remainder are statements posing as arguments: Q1: You are being photographed by other people outside. A1: That does not mean that I consent to be photographed by you. I have a different relationship to each of the entities photographing me which imply various levels of consent. Just because I have sex with everyone else does not mean I'm obligated to have sex with you. Q2: When you enter a public space, a lot of expectations for your privacy must be overridden. A2: Why should you in particular be one of the people allowed to override them? Other people have administration and security considerations that may override my personal preferences. You have nothing but the desire to photograph me. Q3: The difference between a surveillance camera and a photographer is intention. A3: This intentionally narrows the world to "surveillance camera" and artistic photography, in order to use an algorithmic defense. Algorithms are by nature fine, because they don't intend anything. Obvious bullshit. Algorithms have the intention of the people who set them up. The intention of a security camera is security. Without that intention, it fails to be a security camera, and reverts to being a camera. Q4: If the intention of the photographer is to ridicule or expose the individual, this "veers dangerously close" to being unethical. If the intention of the photographer is to masturbate, or to help others masturbate, it's obviously unethical. A4: These are more personal declarations of universal condemnation disguised as deep ethical truths. If anything, the law has made more exceptions for photography meant to ridicule or expose individuals than photography that does not, because it becomes journalistic. Q5: To conflate what she does to photography that ridicules, exposes, or arouses sexually is reckless and creates fear. This fear may result in people not wanting to be photographed, and makes them think that a photographer should be bound by their personal preferences. A5: Tell me more about your problems, and why I'm a bad person for causing them. Q6: is a random list of statements about how, actually, everything is alright and good. 1) There's war, but everybody can win, 2) there is no human sacrifice, 3) We are already protected from photographers doing what they want to do with an image [are we?], 4) specialized spying equipment like drones are illegal [why?], 5) A photographer can be tried for libel if there is a will to misrepresent [why?], 6) you can't use an image for commercial purposes without a consent form [is exhibiting, posting on twitter, or selling an image commercial, or do you just mean ads and porn?], 7) You can't use an image for an an ad [ah, you left out porn.] Q7: "The law does its due diligence in safeguarding the subject" A7: This is not an argument, this is a conclusion. It was a conclusion obvious from every sentence from the first on.
• ThinkBeat 5y ago
  This bit me hard. I love street photography and have been active for a number of years. I have done some good work. I never appreciated the freedom I had as a photographer in the US. A while ago I moved to Norway. I kept taking pictures. Working on two different concepts / series. I got some good shots, the cultural differences in behavior, fashion, what is considered polite etc was inspiring. I shared some shots with friends back in the states including my mentor. I got some food and valuable reviews, and one series was well liked. I had put 4- 5 month of effort into it. (not all day every day) I was starting to wonder about how to go about publishing them. Now I hate social media. I do not put my photos on Instagram, Twitter, or wherever else. This turned out to be a blessing. I was visiting a few galleries to learn about the local scene and dip my toes in the water and see what it takes to get a few photos up. I dont take along an iPad with photos, I stick to an old portfolio with printed photos. I got a couple of stern lectures about Norwegian law, and that all my photos were to be considered illegal esp. if I were to show them anywhere. It was fortuitous that I dont share my work. I admit I was pissed off for a while and I have had to put Street Photography out of my mind. I am left with two folders on a harddrive with work that I cannot display. I have not yet been able to delete all of them. I have thought about showing them in the US, the legality of which I have not been able to establish so that is off as well.
  • scotty79 5y ago
    Are you sure you need to delete them? I don't know Norwegian law specifically, but it might be the case that you are allowed to take photos in public and you just can't publish them without subjects consent.
    • ThinkBeat 5y ago
      This is for the most part true yes. It is late and I do not have the exact phrasing, but "You are not allowed to take a photo of a person who is in a vulnerable position" The problem there is what constitutes a vulnerable position. A man urinating, a drunk person, a beggar, a homeless person, children, someone crying are all examples of things that -can- be illegal. (Unless you have written release) (which is not enough in all cases). There is also a part about clothing, like the story above mentioned. Most people (I think) look at the photo in the story and everything seems kosher as far as clothing goes. some disagree as the story indicates. The big problem is the ambiguity of some of these terms and what the person you are taking a photo of would interpret said terms.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• bluefirebrand 5y ago
  This will be an unpopular opinion but I feel someone taking a photo with me as the subject without my permission is almost on par with assault It feels like a huge invasion of my personal space, regardless of whether or not the photographer is in my face or not.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • lovelyviking 5y ago
    >taking a photo with me as the subject without my permission is almost on par with assault Why would you wish to give 'permission' to art expression of someone else? Isn't that an assault to the freedom of other person? >It feels like a huge invasion of my personal space It feels this way until there is understanding that public space means that you are part of that public and public can be photographed by anyone interested to preserve the moment. Some people feel uncomfortable and find it hard to respect basic freedom of other person for art expression. It is a small price to pay though considering the alternative of living in society where disrespect to the freedom of art expression is a norm. Such society is doomed to be oppressive and living in oppression could be much more uncomfortable. Look at this attitude: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29332188 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29332188
    • bluefirebrand 5y ago
      > It feels this way until there is understanding that public space means that you are part of that public and public can be photographed by anyone interested to preserve the moment I understand this and also disagree with it. It may be the way things are but that doesn't mean I have to like it. > Some people feel uncomfortable and find it hard to respect basic freedom of other person for art expression You are asking me to care more about people's artistic freedom than my own peace of mind. That is never going to happen. > Such society is doomed to be oppressive and living in oppression could be much more uncomfortable I don't see how asking for a good faith effort to ask permission to take or publish photos of an individual is trampling the ability of artists to express themselves. When people photograph you, they can then do anything they want with that photo. They can delete it, or store it indefinitely, or post it online, turn it into a meme, whatever. Forgive me if I don't think someone else should have that kind of control over something that could affect me deeply.
• codr7 5y ago
  Awareness of the photo being taken ruins it, what I like about street photography is that it's alive. I have plenty more issues with security cameras...
• 6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
  How is the topic of "well people are okay with this totally separate usage" such an issue? Obviously how an image is used matters. If you take a photo with a camera that automatically deletes it immediately, nobody cares. It's not the act of taking a photo that people care about, it's what you do with the picture afterwards. That's why consent is great. One person might think the photo of them in a bathing suit that you want to put on your instagram is creepy and another might be fine. Letting the subject decide is a great way to avoid the issue.
  • chmod600 5y ago
    How do you get consent for a photo of a crowd?
    • dheera 5y ago
      Exactly, you generally don't. People tend not to care if they're in some picture with a hundred other random people.
    • 6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
      I'm trying to arguing that a one size fits all approach doesn't work, because end use matters. So this question is more specific than I think is productive. But to answer it anyways, I'd say that for security tape you don't need it, but if you want to put it on the front page of your website, maybe you blur the identifying features of the people whose consent you haven't gotten and get consent of everyone else? Or just keep it low res enough that it's blurred by default. Or just don't use it that way. The point is that there are options, and they aren't one-size-fits-all.
  • dan_mctree 5y ago
    > If you take a photo with a camera that automatically deletes it immediately, nobody cares. It's not the act of taking a photo that people care about, If people are jumping in front of me paparazzi-style, pushing, gaping, pointing, flashing their cameras, I'd be bothered whether the camera deletes the image or not. I wouldn't even know whether it does. For me the act of photo taking, the unexpected attention in a public space is a bigger deal than the picture. Luckily, I'm not interesting enough
• cheeze 5y ago
  Good article but the "share this on facebook" popup when I highlight text is _incredibly annoying_
  • dheera 5y ago
    Yes. Especially when I scroll by selecting.
• Bokanovsky 5y ago
  As a hobbyist photographer I once went on a street photography course in London. They did cover the ethics and morals of street photography, along with various techniques about what to do if challenged. UK law is a bit different than US law. From my understanding the US law allows any photography in a public space. While UK law does not allow street photography on private property (although if you're on public property photographing into private property that's OK), plus any photos of places where they'd expect a degree of privacy. So you can't stick your camera over walls etc. I also checked the laws around photography in the UK and there are general rules around nuisance photography (that wouldn't cover conventional street photography). Additionally I looked at rules around photographing children in the UK, and generally it's not permitted to take photos of other people's children without their parent's / guardians permission. The photo on the subway in the article wouldn't _technically_ be allowed in the UK, as the tube in London is private property (although everyone takes photos there) and photographing other people's children without permission isn't really allowed. At the other end of the spectrum, I've also been to events on private property in the UK like Comic Cons. They have a very comprehensive photo policy for both the photographers and the attendees. While photographing at these events I often switch to a kind of "pantomime" mode, where it's very clear that I'm taking a photo and the subject has clearly agreed to be photographed. Other times I point my camera lens downwards when checking the shots and show them to the subject or have the lens cap on. At these events I've spoken to cosplayers who have thanked me for working like this, as they have had trouble with photographers behaving inappropriately. I've only been challenged twice while doing street photography. Once while on the street photography course where I was taking a photo of a sandwich shop and a guy walked out while I was taking the photo. He politely challenged me and explained he was uncomfortable with me taking his photo. I showed him the photo and explained he wasn't in the shot. The second time I was challenged more aggressively, I was taking a photo of a long street with trams on near a tram station. Someone came up to me almost shouting asking if I took their photo. I explained I was taking a photo of the tram lines, and showed them a few shots. They seemed happier after that and left me to it. In truth when I got home and looked at my photos they were in the shot, but they were just one of many faces in the crowd. This shot was all about the lines of the tram station and how busy it was.
• Bokanovsky 5y ago
  I always find it fascinating as there's also an aspect of documentation with certain street photography. If you look at stuff from the 1980's and see how much things have changed, the fashion the shops and so on, but also how certain things are still the same. Certain cameras are marketed with the whole concept of being good for street photography and like to play with the historic aspect. Like most marketing it's aspirational. Will you be able to capture the decisive moment like Henri Cartier-Bresson? There are various famous street photographers and their books are always popular with enthusiasts.
• vmception 5y ago
  OP’s example of the people in the fire escape in NYC being fine with the photo because they have no expectation of privacy is something that relies on people already knowing that. Its not really the best representation of an opinion. There are plenty of people in plenty of places that are not aware of that.
• marysnovirgin 5y ago
  Advertising, social media, even personal photos are highly edited, overly polished, artificially perfected representations of the world. Not only should we celebrate the breathtaking photo that is the centerpiece of this article, we should encourage more of it. As a species, it's important that we allow these portraits of our lives, behaviors, and quirky interactions to be made as, if not art, then simply a more accurate representation of what it means to be human at this moment in time. I understand these types of photographs can offend, or cross the line, or cause debate. That's what Art is for. We are better for it.
• dillondoyle 5y ago
  Not street photography but I'm bringing up a different context, which I think is perhaps an even more important ethical conversation to have. Consent of photographic subjects, specifically BIPOC, being used by for profit companies in marketing. My recent example is in Climbing. gyms require waivers that also contain text granting the company rights to take your photo and use it however they want throughout the universe in perpetuity lol. Now, there are BIPOC speaking out because they feel used. Context: BIPOC are very underrepresented in the sport. There was a recent IG post (sorry I can't find) from a women of color who climbs (I think at Brooklyn boulders). She had her photo taken, she didn't notice it was. Then she saw it used to promote the gym. One complaint is mentioned in the article: not being approached or asked about taking photos and feeling this invisible, targeted white male gaze. With corporations it goes further than public space art photography: - giving away of rights - for free with zero compensation - hidden in legal docs - then being used in marketing to sell stuff - companies are just doing 'woke slacktivism marketing' without doing anything to support these communities. Remember all those black squares on IG?! Then going back to buy this shoe without taking any action whatsoever Props to the gym which did actually take action, changed their waiver, said they wouldn't take photos without permission AND provide compensation/recognition in any marketing. This article says: - The people who get the most worked up over the ethics of certain images are NOT themselves the subjects of the photo. - This example did care and spoke out. Many other examples across industries too. - "palpable, real-world harm resulting from it." - A bit more nuanced. But she argued that the gym was pretending to be a safe space with more climbers of color. Even though it's still like almost every other gym, super white, with a history of loud male chauvinism/racism. - "intention" is important I agree. I think the intention of a lot of these companies is to make money on the backs of creators & communities without giving compensation or even just basic support. Outside of climbing there is also a huge history of stealing art, imagery, creativity from minority cultures without giving any compensation or even mention/nod to the original creators. In art & fashion you can find some specific incidents that have been called out by Diet Prada on IG.
  • tomcam 5y ago
    I always read every contract I sign, but I may not be representative. However, the woman you were talking about could have crossed out the offending paragraphs in the contract in the gym probably would have gone along. That said, I think contracts like that where you have to opt out of what you would think of to be normal behavior shitty.
• jasonhansel 5y ago
  As a rather privacy-conscious person, I find this argument rather troubling: > asking for [consent] afterwards almost guarantees you will be turned down. In other words: I can't ask for people's consent because they might not give consent. > Even I, as a photographer, would feel suspicious if a stranger came up to me saying they just took my photo and would like some kind of retroactive permission. The fact that most people would not explicitly consent to being photographed is (prima facie) a pretty strong argument against taking such photographs. It's worth noting that some people have particularly strong reasons not to want to be photographed. Among them: some religious traditions forbid photography, and some people (e.g. closeted LGBTQ people) need to keep aspects of their lives private.
  • MrStonedOne 5y ago
    > In other words: I can't ask for people's consent because they might not give consent. I think you missed the point. If somebody came up to me and asked permission to do something they already did, i'd say no out of "what the fuck" factor even if i would have said yes if they asked before. Implying they were suggesting otherwise is stretching the truth.
  • zuminator 5y ago
    I understand that people may have particularly strong reasons no not wanting to be photographed in public, but the strength of their conviction is not in itself necessarily a reason to respect those reasons. For example, lots of people strongly think that Bill Gates is using vaccines to insert microchips for surveillance purposes. Should we respect those ideas? And yes, the surveillance state is a real thing, so I wouldn't go so far as to say that everyone's concerns are completely unfounded, but at least some of the time, the overall logic and philosophical underpinnings of their reasoning are not well considered. Do they really want to restrict the rights of others in a way that may end up harming them? Wouldn't they in fact be grateful if (without consent) a villain was caught on video attacking them, or if a kidnapper (without signing a release) was caught on video putting a child in a van? Some might conclude that only well-behaved people have a right to public privacy, and think no further about the full implications of that. But, technology has created this problem, and may very well soon solve it. First, the increasing spread of deepfakes enables people to at least facially deny that the image in a photo is theirs. Second, the rise of deep learning means that it's becoming increasingly possible for photographers to alter photos of real people so that the faces in street photos are replaced with realistic GAN-generated faces that are distinct from the original face, but the expressions and everything else stay the same. It's not hard to imagine that that may become standard etiquette, another decade or two down the line. What a time to be alive.
• lovelyviking 5y ago
  While people are constantly under surveillance of street cameras. While people are constantly under surveillance by their own phones and all kinds of apps. While people are constantly under surveillance during any internet activity . While most people agree to have computers that are not completely open which means no complete inspection of firmware and software including OS which means zero privacy by definition. While most people gladly give up any privacy for big corporations and store in their clouds what ever one can imagine . The same people seriously discuss if it is ok for photographer standing openly in the street to take some pictures? I should check the dictionary for definition of insanity because it can help to describe the situation. How about freedom of art expression? What have happened with respecting that? Isn't it a right of any person to see the world they way this person perceive it and express it in any art form including photography? Isn't the alternative is toward oppressive society? Would people disrespecting street photography prefer to live in oppressive society where all art is under complete control? Or they mean all art can be free except photography? Well also except drawing because who knows what one would draw. And songs because who knows what one could sing about. And sculpture. And movies. And computer games. And books. And music creating wrong emotions. And dancing which should be proper. And may Web sites. And well with current tools of surveillance ... anything is fine except 'wrong' dreaming?
  • hkon 5y ago
    I have a feeling the people who will confront a photographer taking their picture, will be very quick on the draw to film the whole ordeal with their own camera. Regardless of consents.
    • SMAAART 5y ago
      Of course! It's the "Do as I say, not as I do" Doctrine aka "Rules apply to everyone else but me".
  • asiachick 5y ago
    I have a similar reaction to people that hate Google Glass, Spectacles by Snap, Ray-Ban Stories etc...
  • 5y ago
• SMAAART 5y ago
  Here's a ripple question for the lawyers. While it's perfectly legal to take a photo of me in public, I own the "copyright" to my own image, can someone make money off it? And if not my image what if I am wearing clothing that are my own creation, my mugshot might be fair game, but is the copyright of my clothing "Fair use"?
  • ilikejam 5y ago
    You _don't_ own the copyright of your own image in a photograph taken by a third party.
• morphicpro 5y ago
  The root of the issue with street photography has a whole lot less to do with the photograph and more to do with the ever present issue of male sexual abuse towards women. No one would even give a crap about these photos if not for that root cause. This is why intent is at the root of these issues. We won't likely address these issues of public domain vs privacy unless we address the root of why anyone really cares about the issues in the first place. I don't think people are saying I don't like art. I think people are saying "I'm sick of being sexually objectified" I say all this as street photographer myself. Also food for thought. Would this have been as big of an issue had the photographer been a woman? Would it had gotten the same push back? These are question that dig more the root cause of why this has less to do with the photo and more to do with who is taking the photo and why.
  • MrStonedOne 5y ago
    > The root of the issue with street photography has a whole lot less to do with the photograph and more to do with the ever present issue of male sexual abuse towards women. This is low effort sexism. You could remove the words "male" and "towards women" and you'd avoid be being sexist while sending the same message. > Also food for thought. Would this have been as big of an issue had the photographer been a woman? Would it had gotten the same push back? These are question that dig more the root cause of why this has less to do with the photo and more to do with who is taking the photo and why. Nobody is required to tolerate being stereotyped based on their gender.
    • morphicpro 5y ago
      Lol, I know for a fact you have never once done street photography. Everything you just said proves it. I didn't just make this shit up and my singling out men was my intent. I don't really give a shit if you believe me or think I'm biased, it the facts regardless if you can deal with it. For the record I considered myself male and yeah men fucked it up for everyone. Deal with it. Also I've been through this very thing after I took photos of people reading books from out on the street at Powell's books in Portland. The company seen the photos on Instagram and re promoted the photos. I was attacked senselessly by angry women who took issue with photos without consent claiming they were creepy and offensive. https://500px.com/photo/253650727/portland-street-photography-by-josh-chernoff https://500px.com/photo/253650727/portland-street-photograph... There was nothing wrong with anything I had done. I just fell victim to a valid concern by people who have been pushed to their breaking point because of other men who abuse the public domain. So I have a personal issue with these men as they have cause me and countless others problems and yeah they fucked it up for me. I know some of these men personally and I don't care for them one fucking bit. Oddly they placate the issue just the same as you, saying similar things as you. go figure. Low effort? No more than your butt hut response. By the way don't talk to me anymore cause I've had enough of your low effort.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• rkagerer 5y ago
  Asking for permission before a photo is taken immediately nullifies any possibility of a candid moment. And asking for it afterwards almost guarantees you will be turned down. If that last part is true then you are knowingly taking pictures of people who don't want to be photographed, which has ethics implications all by itself.
• _carbyau_ 5y ago
  FromTA: "there is nothing inherently dangerous in the mere act of photographing people, children included, in the anonymity of a public space" In times past public space anonymity was a thing. Now it isn't. In a world of social media, surveillance, face detection, viral topics, polarisation of debate - the effects of social chilling are very real. Street photography is but a victim of this social chilling, sad as it is. I am willing to bet, that if a person was aware of every camera as they walked down the street AND THEY COULD TURN THEM OFF/DELETE FOOTAGE they would absolutely do so. To put it another way, if I could wear a magical badge on my shirt that prevented such imagery of me, I would wear it all the time. Take away the ability to easily share an image of me with everyone in the world, and I would be less concerned about images of me.
• airstrike 5y ago
  People equating street photography with surveillance are missing a crucial difference between the two which pertains to what happens to the media after it has been recorded. Street photography exists for the purpose of displaying such photos to the public later on. Surveillance footage need not be seen until deemed necessary, which may or may not ever happen. I have no opinion on this either way, but thought that was important to point out.
  • Invictus0 5y ago
    I mean this is just not true at all. Here's Times Square live: https://www.earthcam.com/cams/newyork/timessquare/?cam=tsstreet https://www.earthcam.com/cams/newyork/timessquare/?cam=tsstr...
• imwillofficial 5y ago
  This isn’t sticky legally or morally. By law and by cultural acceptance we in the west have decided it’s cool in public places and have no expectation of privacy.
• sorethescore 5y ago
  Privacy, in a legal sense, only exists within a very narrow domain. Whenever you are in public, whether you are there to be seen or not, you are seen and therefore have no right to privacy in that domain.
• musicale 5y ago
  I usually don't like having my picture taken by anyone, machine or human. But it's probably less threatening to most people if it's just someone taking a picture of the area from a distance – or an amateur/tourist with a smartphone rather than a professional with an expensive camera. Women photographers might also be perceived as more benign.
• euske 5y ago
  Just FYI: this page doesn't load when you set Firefox's privacy protection to "strict".
• upwardbound 5y ago
  Relatedly: Since most people on this thread probably don't know this, we are often under surveillance from high-altitude aircraft. It's incredibly creepy. Book about this: https://www.amazon.com/Eyes-Sky-Secret-Gorgon-Stare-ebook/dp/B07FK9567C https://www.amazon.com/Eyes-Sky-Secret-Gorgon-Stare-ebook/dp... Video example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptSeU-OnI8E&t=7s&ab_channel=HarrisCorporation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptSeU-OnI8E&t=7s&ab_channel=...
• rootusrootus 5y ago
  The law needs to catch up. We were comfortable with the idea that a person is not entitled to privacy in public when we knew that the observation would simply be from other humans in close enough proximity to see us. But in the day when we can inexpensively put cameras everwhere, take pictures of everything you do, and effortlessly distribute it to the entire world ... maybe the idea of privacy, or at least anonymity, needs to be revisited. I'm not sure exactly where the compromise point is, though. We want photographers to be able to snap pictures of a crowd, and it is infeasible to gain permission of every member of the crowd. We may not want photographers taking close up shots of individuals, who will do things that they may not want photographed even when they're in public.
• dataflow 5y ago
  > For an action to transcend individual discomfort and enter the netherworld of immorality there has to be both a strong societal consensus as well as palpable, real-world harm resulting from it. If that's really the case, is it required that the harm be made known to other people? Is privacy not a factor here? What if someone's reason for not being photographed is literally "because I don't want others to even know that I'm here"? The underlying reason could be anything as minor as going to a job interview, surprising a loved one, etc. to something as major as avoiding/fleeing persecution in their home country—you have no idea. Is it not presumptuous to assume we should be able to know people's reasons for things? Do/should they have an obligation to explain their rationales to random street photographers trying to make money off them? Why should they even trust that they can safely tell the reason to a random photographer to begin with? If the photographer doesn't see a harm because 99% of people are OK with it, does that also make it moral toward the 1% left?
• igornadj 5y ago
  One thing I've found is that photographing strangers is a lot more widely accepted in places around the world with more community oriented culture, and less accepted in very individualistic cultures like in the West. I think this individualism considers the act of someone taking a photo of you as a transaction, where people stand to gain or lose from it, and quite frankly oversensitivity over how it could affect you personally. And this is in stark contrast to community oriented cultures where I think people assume good faith and fun and shared experiences. It's a breath of fresh air really, not everything needs to be analysed from a legalistic or moralistic viewpoint. It's incredibly unlikely that your image will end up on a billboard with spinach in your teeth. It can happen, sure, but it's so very unlikely, and so overwhelmingly more likely to be some kid's hobby or for an humble portfolio. And it's sad that modern life in the West has made people so paranoid and afraid of everyone around them, so they miss out on this shared experience.
  • krapp 5y ago
    I think you'll find that even in those "community oriented" cultures, many people don't like random strangers taking photographs of them, although unlike Westerners they may not be as forthcoming about it, especially to a foreigner.
    • igornadj 5y ago
      Yeah that's the thing, I don't find that. There are plenty of locals who shoot all over Asia for example and do just fine. I think maybe you're projecting.
• spoonjim 5y ago
  I think the laws need revising on the issue of “visible from a public space” because of the technology available today. I’m OK with people being photographed on the street but not through their bedroom window with a 600mm lens from half a mile away 1000 feet off the ground on a drone.
• mediumsmart 5y ago
  I would have read that article but I could not get past the sticky 'consent or go away' cookie banner.
  • bellyfullofbac 5y ago
    Yeah, somehow the author/site still thinks it's a good idea to use Facebook's integration (there are FB comments under the article). But on desktop, the Developer Tools helps, just open it, find the cookie overlay (div with class "__fb-light-mode"), and delete it. I didn't need to consent to whatever Zuck wanted...
• boublepop 5y ago
  If I met this person on the subway, I think it would be a good lesson to go over to them and tell them that they are a complete piece of shit in my opinion and spend a considerable time doing so. Why? Well it’s not illegal to do so, and since I’m just sharing my opinion it’s not really unethical to do so. I don’t even have to care about consent. At the end of the day it is just rude, and apparently that doesn’t matter the least bit to this person. Honestly it’s surprising that a photographer would even think about ethics of consent when faced with a shitstorm online cause by being rude to a mother and her two children. Imagine if the response to the woman throwing a cat in the garbage had been an article detailing the ethics and legalities of doing so. Would that be suppose to convince anyone that she wasn’t being an asshole? Incidentally that situation was captured on video in public, but for some unexplainable reason people weren’t discussing the ethics or legalities of the video taping someone in public, and instead focused on the subject being a human piece of garbage.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]