7 ms·
In the photography community, taking street photos of people without their permission is a source of controversy. Some people on the extremes feel it’s never ac
by haswell 3y ago
In the photography community, taking street photos of people without their permission is a source of controversy. Some people on the extremes feel it’s never acceptable, but most photographers agree that being respectful is the key, as well as always deleting photos if someone asks.
One of my personal stances is that I’ll never photograph someone who is in a compromised position, e.g. a drunk person stumbling out of a bar, or a homeless person sleeping on the street. This seems like the bare minimum in terms of respect and human decency.
It’s pretty disheartening to see these kinds of TikTok trends just blow through these kinds of ethical concerns and norms. I’ve already worried at times that poorly behaving street photographers are going to make it harder for most photographers to continue their work. I don’t even know what to say about trends like this one. It’s one of the many reasons that I’m convinced humans are not capable of using certain forms of social media in a healthy way. Our brains are not equipped for it.
- robotnikman 3y agopeople will keep stooping to lower and lower levels for views, likes, etc. If it gets them money in the end there will be people who will try to grab it.
- hotstickyballs 3y agoWhat’s wrong about that if it brings more visibility to a social problem?
- tenebrisalietum 3y agoVisibility can help solve a problem, but once you are at a certain level of visibility and your problem is not solved, more visibility isn't going to solve it.
- HKH2 3y agoMaybe you need a higher level of visibility? Put it where the privileged have to see it?
- pjc50 3y agoThe current Palestinian situation is the ultimate demonstration of how this doesn't work. It's extremely visible and extremely unsolveable.
- mcosta 3y agoWell, I would say it is being solved right now.
- HKH2 3y agoIf that is so, then the problem is that people refuse to see that certain cultures are incompatible with each other, and so the solution is them coming to terms with that and adjusting their worldview accordingly.
- red-iron-pine 3y ago> and so the solution is them coming to terms with that and adjusting their worldview accordingly. when did that ever happen in history? genocide is a lot more likely, and there are a lot of historical examples of ethnic cleansing than not.
- HKH2 3y agoI think you've misread what I said. The "Why can't people play nicely?" people would just have to accept that certain cultures cannot play nicely with each other. To address your point: there are plenty of people in history that survived as tributaries or colonies.
- AlexandrB 3y agoJust like Logan Paul brought visibility to the problem of suicide in Japan by filming a recent suicide victim while wearing a Pikachu costume.
- madrox 3y agoThis was my first reaction as well, but after thinking about it more I wonder why my brain went to “these people need to stop” instead of “we should address what they’re filming.” Maybe because the problem feels unsolvable and difficult to assign blame, but it’s easy to blame tiktokers. There’s probably some fallacy in here somewhere.
- mschuster91 3y ago> I wonder why my brain went to “these people need to stop” instead of “we should address what they’re filming.” IMHO we should go for both at the same time. In a society that deems itself developed, there should not be homeless people shooting up drugs on the street, and in a society that deems itself civilized, there should not be internet-randoms filming and publicly showing people who are clearly suffering. The latter should be left to actual journalists who at least usually take care about some basic privacy-preserving mechanisms (e.g. blurring faces and identifiable tattoos).
- parentheses 3y agoAny content creator can treat their subjects with respect. These ones do not. While I agree that this is bad, I feel like we as a society have allowed the divergence of journalism and integrity. Anyone can proclaim themselves a journalist and that enables this. There's a complex issue at play here - the evolution of media and laws that have lagged behind. Laws should be doing something to address the reach of this type of media and the integrity of their creators.
- dotnet00 3y agoI think it's pretty straightforward, everyone knows those people need help, the government also likely has programs aiming to try to resolve the issue. On the other hand, these "tranq tourists" are just causing more trouble for the sake of social media clout.
- adolph 3y ago> "tranq tourists" are just causing more trouble What trouble do tranq tourists cause?
- yladiz 3y agoIf you’re doing some kind of documentary work, like showing how a city is being affected by a drug or a major homelessness problem, photographing someone in that group is basically necessary, but taking the photo just to take it does feel like it’s crossing a line, so it’s hard. This definitely feels like it’s crossing the line, and really reminds me of the movie Nope, making a spectacle of something that shouldn’t be.
- jolux 3y agoIf you’re doing documentary work I think it’s still best to ask in that case.
- hotstickyballs 3y agoIndeed, very good way to expose the mafia, drug lords and the like.
- jolux 3y agoThe post I was responding to was talking about homeless people and drug users.
- yladiz 3y agoI lean towards the point of view of "most photographers" in the original parent comment, in that you need to always be respectful of the subject but there are cases you can't get permission beforehand, and so yes I think in general you should ask for permission to take a photo of someone, but sometimes it's either not possible, for example if someone is high on Tranq, or will create the wrong conditions for the photo you want to take, like if you wanted a candid shot of someone on the street. My view is that in the former, you should have a legitimate reason to take the photo (like you're doing documentary work as mentioned), and in the latter you should ask for permission and delete if rejected, but it's fine to do it after the fact.
- haswell 3y agoYeah, documentary work is still really important and that’s one of the few exceptions that makes sense to me. Since I’m not doing that kind of work, I steer clear.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- thinkingemote 3y agoThe article seems to say that permission has been given and that the subjects are getting paid (as low as $5). It suggests that they might be too high/wasted to give consent which brings in the ethical angle. It's exploitation and is like many other things in society.
- hotstickyballs 3y agoOf course it’s up to third parties to determine if something is exploitation or not.
- haswell 3y agoI think act of asking for permission here is the problem, regardless of whether or not it’s been given. In other words, even if someone says yes (to say nothing of their capacity to consent, to your point), the act of asking in the first place is worthy of rebuke, IMO.
- lxgr 3y agoNot sure what the legal situation is in the US, but in many European countries, publishing a photo of anybody without their permission is not legal. There’s obviously exceptions, and it matters whether the person is incidental to the composition or the primary subject of it, but I think that’s a pretty good approach as a default.
- carlosjobim 3y agoWhich European country for example?
- lxgr 3y agoI'm most familiar with that in Germany, where it's completely prohibited to publish somebody's photograph without their consent (which can be implied, e.g. by receiving payment or posing for a photo, or explicitly given), for both the press and general public, whether for commercial, personal, or journalistic purposes. On a related note, it's still quite jarring for me to read the full name of perpetrators, victims, or witnesses involved in more or less newsworthy events in American media – the culture and (informed by that) law around what personal information is considered acceptable to be published is very different. On an EU level, this concept even goes as far as being explicitly confirmed as a "right to be forgotten", which has implications for e.g. web search engines.
- tomalbrc 3y agoFrance Spain Italy Germany Sweden just to name a few
- carlosjobim 3y agoIn Sweden it is completely legal to photograph and film people in public spaces, even in humiliating situations.
- tomalbrc 3y agoYou might want to read up on the GDPR laws.
- beeboobaa 3y agoEarning money, or trying to, off of other people without their consent is absolutely vile. Go take a picture of a flower or something.
- snoman 3y agoPhotography as an art form has a much longer history than short form video, and has had time for the back and forth on these kinds of issues. Short form video is still relatively new. I feel like this is a “give it time” situation. Society will push back and norms will emerge just like they have with photographers.
- Zambyte 3y agoIsn't the comment you're replying to the exact societal push back you mention...?
- snoman 3y agoMaybe. That’s not quite how I read it.
- piuantiderp 3y agoapropos. Regarding the Pain of Others, by Susan Sonntag
- ornornor 3y ago[flagged]
- brutusborn 3y agoMany nightclubs and parties have rules against photos to avoid embarrassment, and they can do this because they are private. But when people decide to behave indecently in public places, then I don’t think those sorts of norms should apply. An inebriated person on the street has decided to accept that people will see them in a compromising situation. Ofc publishing photos expands the scale of how many people see them in this situation, but that doesn’t change the fact that they choose to let people see them this way. It is good for society that people are aware of problems, and taking photos is the best way to communicate the reality of the problem. However I don’t think Paparazzi should be allowed to harass people, because they take photos of people living normal lives. There isn’t any benefit to society to share such photos.
- 15155 3y ago> and they can do this because they are private They can bar policy-breakers from reentry, nothing more, as the original photographer retains rights to the images they've captured.
- brutusborn 3y agoFor seriously private events, security confiscate the phone and/or beat the perpetrator until they delete photos. Talking about the photographers “rights” is an academic exercise. I’m not saying the reality is moral, I’m just explaining the reality as opposed to then ideal.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- 15155 3y agoThankfully iCloud, Dropbox, and a dozen similar services with automatic upload capability exist? 0.5kg or less drones with rotor guards are A-OK as well in most locales. Carry concealed where possible.
- haswell 3y ago> But when people decide to behave indecently in public places, then I don’t think those sorts of norms should apply. Why should they not apply? The more unfortunate aspects of the human condition haven't changed very much throughout history, and only recently is it possible to make a poor decision that may be the laughingstock of millions of people tomorrow. If anything, the social media landscape makes those sorts of norms more important than they’ve ever been. > An inebriated person on the street has decided to accept that people will see them in a compromising situation. An inebriated person by definition isn’t making that decision knowingly. And that’s the point of a stance towards decency. When someone is in a compromised state and unable to fully take care of themselves, it seems especially shitty to take advantage of them in that state. I’m not saying that being publicly intoxicated is something that deserves no concern. But taking photos/videos and/or publicly shaming people isn’t the answer. Picture yourself on your worst day. A day that you would strongly prefer never happened. And ask yourself if it’s helping anything if people record you and turn you into social media fodder. Theres a moral/ethical bankruptcy at the center of this.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- tomalbrc 3y ago... it really should be opt-in, not opt-out when someone asks.
- pjc50 3y agoReminded of https://news.yahoo.com/controversial-irl-streamer-returns-japan-203459998.html?guccounter=1 https://news.yahoo.com/controversial-irl-streamer-returns-ja... ; one does not simply violate social norms in Japan. It's not Singapore or China in terms of repression, but nor is it somewhere you want to come to the attention of the police.
- nox100 3y agoIn some countries, Japan for instance, it's illegal to film people without their permission. Exceptions are made for crowds and of course most people don't prosecute, especially if they don't notice, but it is illegal. Tangentially related, it's interesting to go to a Japanese trade show, a place where it would seem like their entire motivation is to show stuff off, and yet you'll see booths saying "no photography".