The sticky issue of consent in street photography
dinalitovsky.bulletin.com
dinalitovsky.bulletin.com
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.
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.
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.
In 2021, to take a photo with a smartphone is to publish it, worldwide and forever.
(Of course I still take plenty of pictures of myself and friends. It's just not a clear line anymore what we get to control when social media and corporate/government leaks are everywhere)
It would be good to know whether facial recognition is being used before entering a business.
- Security cameras: At least in theory, security camera footage is mostly private, and recorded with a specific, 'good' goal: if something happens, they have the security footage. It can be useful to me if someone robs me and they can get identified because they were filmed.
- Photographer: absolutely no use to me, and possibly going to share that picture on instagram, facebook, whatever, making 'everyone' knows that I was at there at that point.
> As people have mentioned, security cameras are filming me all the time - and I've no issue with that.
> 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.
I was just expanding on that. But go ahead and read my reply without thinking about what I was replying to
Yes you were just explaining on that but you 'were explaining on that' purely from the convenience and point of view while if you think about right for the free speech it is frequently not so much convenient when you hear criticism. That is why I asked the question and the question stands.
[1] Note that by "public" I mean cameras facing streets, sidewalks, etc. I can always choose not to go into a store if I don't want to be on its cameras.
I consider the human eye a camera. It also saves videos in a storage medium that doesn't permit deletion. I don't distinguish between a silicon-based camera and a carbon-based camera. To me they're just different rows of the periodic table.
In fact I even hope to think that one day silicon-based cameras can be used to restore vision to carbon-based beings that have non-functioning carbon-based cameras. To that extent even if I have functioning carbon-based cameras, having a silicon-based camera attached to my body is just an extension of my body and you most certainly do not have the right of access to the memories it records, regardless of whether those memories are stored in neurons or in an SD card (even that detail is not your right to know; I could have had a flash memory implant in my brain and it would be a HIPAA violation if you demanded to know what implants I have).
To ban silicon-based cameras is a gross ADA violation. To demand to know exactly by what mechanism videos are stored is a HIPAA violation. If you want to ban recording you might as well blindfold everyone while you're at it.
We don’t have cameras and flash embedded in ourselves, someone’s recollections are not the same as an video file in terms of evidence, and there’s a substantial difference between someone actively on the street corner watching and security camera you can set and forget which will record 24/7.
Maybe you aren't, that doesn't mean everyone chooses that lifestyle or should be forced into that mode of thinking.
I for one choose to think in terms of the future.
> We don’t have cameras and flash embedded in ourselves
Oh you bet I do happen to have a piece of flash storage embedded in my body, for a reason I choose to not disclose here. Although mine is not wired into an imaging device, it's only a matter of time before someone else's flash implant IS wired to an imaging device, and they have every right to.
Personally I see little to no difference between human eyes and film eyes when one is standing in the middle of the street 50 years ago, let alone now with some implied cybernetics that make the difference actually zero.
If the argument is that a snapshot can not be observed as a collection of light wa eves hitting cellulose, or a digital sesnsor then one has to ask the question if allow the receptors in the human eyeball to detect the reflections of light is acceptable either.
For example, if surveying a person in the 1970s cost $300k per year to have them constantly followed, the cops needed few other limits as the cost alone means it won’t become pervasive.
But if you can get almost the same surveillance in 2021 for $10 per annum, nothing qualitative has changed - but the primary control on overreach has gone.
The key distinction is that the human eye and its storage system doesn't meaningfully support duplication and distribution of the picture.
What someone saw is not going to show up in Clearview's biometric surveillance database years later, and while this one human may remember me, the inherent limitations of humans mean that the impact is vastly different from what is possible with technology.
That isn't necessarily true. Just because your eye doesn't doesn't mean mine doesn't. How do you know I wasn't born blind and retrofitted with a silicon eye that gives me both the ability to see and record/duplicate more easily than other humans?
"Hypothetical" is an assumption. You don't know what I have, and what I'm experimenting with.
It exists, albeit only B&W and at a very low resolution. However as we all know, technology can advance very quickly, and high resolution cameras are not inconceivable for this application.
I would also feel uncomfortable if they had street corners full of watchmen hired to just stare and keep track of everyone. I would feel uncomfortable at work if they had people or cameras positioned to stare over my shoulder. It's not the camera, it's the surveillance.
And by that token, I'm ok with street photography. I love street photography. It's completely different from surveillance.
Given how cheap and ubiquitous internet-connected security cams are now, this seems like a distinction without a difference. Unless you expect the “free market” to deliver a brand of “proudly webcam-free” businesses (don’t hold your breath), this is just going to mean that you can’t go in any stores.
It’s not reasonable to expect to require permission for someone to use your image that they captured. What if it’s for news purposes? What if it’s related to, say, and insurance fraud investigation? If you keep trying to draw the line, it gets harder and harder to draw.
So what’s reasonable? If you have an expectation of privacy that’s violated, that seems far. But if you do not, i.e. you are in public, you have no such expectation.
Now, photographs shot through a window? Close your blinds or shut up. It’s all up to you.
What if you're on the street outside an HIV clinic? Or an abortion clinic? Or an STI clinic? Or a substance misuse clinic? Or a narcotics anonymous meeting?
What if you're on the street, but have clearly just exited the door from that clinic?
This isn't idle noodling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v_MGN_Ltd
So there is a specific legal cutout for those cases.
The legal system is not usually made up of complete idiots.
Certainly not. There is the “evil asshole” contingent as well, but I expect a bit of overlap between the two.
You didn’t create it, it’s not original, and yours is 99.9% identical to mine. You cannot copyright or patent it. And you’re pretty sloppy with it, leaving a trail of it everywhere you go.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights#United_Stat...
News coverage is a common exception.
A fraud investigation is not commercial exploitation.
> If you keep trying to draw the line, it gets harder and harder to draw.
You're not qualified to make statements like this.
Maybe, maybe not. Who the f*ck are you? (See how that works?)
Perhaps you do not like loosing control over photographer and art expression of others? Perhaps 'control over image' is just an excuse for that?
Would you like to control all forms of arts? Just imagine the possibilities... They will publish what you allow. They would draw what you permit. They will beg you to forgive them if they did not satisfy your taste. You will have complete control over you image and not only photo image the public image too. Think about press. If they have something critical to say about you they would need your permission before they publish. Would you like all that?
"I've got nothing to hide" is not a valid opinion to have with regards to surveillance - the two options are "I have information to share with the state" and "I do not wish to share information with the state. " Since the state is almost universally in an adversarial relationship with citizens, it never makes sense for a citizen to share information with the state unless compelled to (the processes of state compulsion have stricter rules and precedents that have higher levels of protections against casual abuse. A lawyer can recommend 5th amendment if necessary when compelled to testify. )
I think the side of private photography is much simpler. If you're in public you should expect to be seen and/or recorded. Public places are places where you have zero expectation of privacy. We should celebrate the art that comes from public photography.
I think we're long overdue for a sweeping, constitutional level reform of information privacy rights that protect citizens from abuses and reinforce modern norms around recording in public. It's obvious that we're living under the panopticon, so we need a system that accounts for that.
This is literally just FUD, albeit you're as much a victim of it as you are a vector.
As someone who was recently on a jury for a criminal trial that was based almost entirely on copious video camera surveillance footage (no, not that trial), a jury that acquitted the defendant of all charges (almost immediately, save for a few hangers on, including myself), your fears seem largely unfounded. Both the law and the judgement of humans heavily emphasize intent and motivation, and camera footage is neutral in that regard.
Admittedly, it's no picnic being subject to state-sponsored prosecution. But that was always the case, and despite all the FUD rooted in an unhealthily extreme anti-authoritarian sentiment (partially a product of our victim culture) that leaves little room for civil society to function, there's still conspicuously few claims, let alone evidence, that camera footage will result in a greater prevalence of false prosecutions, particularly for non-traffic offenses.
"A surprising number of people retain from childhood the idea that there is a fixed amount of wealth in the world."
First, "any act of data collection […] is the starting point of various information privacy concerns” (p. 338).
Second, privacy can be defined as “the degree to which a person is concerned about the amount of individual-specific data possessed by others relative to the value of benefits received” (p. 338)
This explains why we are so sensitive if random people take pictures of us, without our consent. Usually, there is nothing we can gain, but a lot to loose, under some circumstances. In Social Media, it is necessary to acknowledge both sides of the trade - users also gain something, which is why they/we are more willingly to give up some part of their/our privacy. This is also the case, to some degree, in public street surveillance. It is not the case, however, in random street photography.
[1] Malhotra, N.K.; Kim, S.S.; Agarwal, J. Internet users’ information privacy concerns (IUIPC): The construct, the scale, and a causal model. Inf. Syst. Res. 2004, 15, 336–355.
I don't care if my image is taken in public, I have no expectation of privacy in the moment.
But I do care about subsequent analysis of, and storage of linked metadata about those images.
A random street photographer or member of the public is unlikely to be connected to a permanent, secret, and searchable database of facial recognition, gait analysis, or whatever else linked to bluetooth/phone signals to identify people in the images.
I cannot say that about the many, many CCTV cameras that seem to be everywhere.
Some people may think that's paranoid, but that's exactly what they would have said about mass surveillance pre-Snowden, and when you look at how much data they were storing and analyzing back then, think about what they're probably doing now...
Such scary things are possible now that couldn't have been imagined even 20 years ago.
If it's CCTV, it's just one company that manages the photos, under local regulations.
It's not like a fixed CCTV camera that is continuously recording and being constantly analyzed and stored forever, and can detect regular patterns of behavior, and thereby able to automatically tag things that are "out of the ordinary".
>If it's CCTV, it's just one company that manages the photos, under local regulations.
How could you possibly know that? There is nothing to say that the information is not being shared. TBH, it's extremely naive to think that information stays inside the building, or that the three-letter agencies haven't already connected those thousands of cameras.
It's interesting that you use the word "photos" too, what I'm worried about is much more than photos, it's a permanent historical record of dates/times/movement patterns that can be linked over thousands of cameras, creating a continuous historical record of everyone's movements, all linked to those photos. They can track a single person's movements over years. It can also correlate with other people to detect who may be connected to who. Bigdata tracking everyone at all times.
Give me a random person snapping street photos any day.
Any way you cut it, fixed cameras are more worrisome.
The subject, just as with the value may have no real way of knowing the cost and risk. most will assume there is no value, cost or risk like virtually every other photo and have no problem with it. Or they will think of those ever so rare photos that they see all the time at the top of their feed and either want far to much in compensation or never allow any photos they cant control taken.
The problem isnt really consent its that the photographer and subject cant predict the future. If the photographer knew the photo would never see general public viewing, win any prizes be seen by the subject or anyone they know. both the photographer and subject wouldn't care about consent. on the other hand if the photographer knew exactly how popular, how much value would be derived from it and the cost it would have on the subject they wouldn't hesitate to get consent and maybe offer some compensation based on the cost the photo would have on the subjects life.
it is however so rare a single photo has significance on anything, that everyone just assumes its not worth getting consent. only photo's where someone expects privacy is it assumed the cost to the subject is usually too high and requires consent.
The most reproduced photo of the 20th century is 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.
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.
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
(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.
Is it OK to video/telephoto photograph from a rooftop through a window above the curtains into a shower of a naked person (over 18) and sell those on the internet along with the person's name and address? What about using deep IR to see through sheer curtains? Is it OK for the police to do the same with radar and sonar inside people's homes?
How far do you have to go to have some expectation of privacy?
> Spying into someone's private space with specialized equipment or a drone is illegal.
However I really dislike the commercial street photographers as a concept. Basically instead of paying models to work for you, you go out to use random people as models and then sell your photos as art. That to me is exploitation. I understand that legally speaking it would be incredibly hard to separate the two types of street photography so it must all remain legal, but at the same time I strongly dislike the latter category, especially for the photogs who act like entitled assholes about it.
Quite frankly, I suggest you take your argument to some frozen icy wastes.
https://i.imgur.com/1p0GS9R.png
Street photographers are universally terrible people, and people who defend them are defending some of the more mundane scum of the earth.
This is made worse by their worship of people like Mark Cohen, who was an absolute creep: https://www.reddit.com/r/AnalogCommunity/comments/qxmjb4/
Street photography is for hacks. I've known a lot of them, they're never good people.
It seems you've had some bad experiences, that's a shame. But that's a hell of a broad brush you're painting with there, when there's so much good street out there telling beautiful stories from people we would never have heard from.
Most street photography that becomes popular is centered around people who are in distress. How is that not exploitation?
Absolutely not true at all
There's a conflict between the ability to document the public sphere and any right to privacy in the public sphere. And the need to be able to document the public sphere I think takes precedence. And just like you don't like all the speech in the public sphere, but it needs to be protected, you don't have to like all the documentation of the public sphere, but it needs to be protected.
The authority is over their own person. If I'm in public you don't get to touch grab my ass because "in the case of ass-grabbing in public there is no authority so no consent is needed."
> However, I think there may be an ethical dilemma if the picture is unintentionally sexually suggestive.
Think about why there's a dilemma. Can that same reasoning apply to other kinds of photos? And who should get to decide what's sufficiently suggestive? You or the subject?
In the US.
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.
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.
They wish to control pictures photographer produce and they take no shame in that. It is absolutely terrible. They basically oppress photographer who wish to show reality with all imperfections. They make illegal any photography that tries to show reality as it is or as photographer perceive it instead of some polished idealistic BS that has nothing to with what is really going on.
Separately but this (photography/recording in public, and sharing/publishing of said material) is one of those cases where law and praxis varies widely between otherwise similar jurisdictions.
As a non-photographer, I absolutely don't consent to having my photo taken for public display. For a private collection, that's a different matter, provided care is taken to make that photo inaccessible to the public. If a photographer is to make money off of my appearance, I want to make sure it's done with consent.
Writing this out, it makes a lot more sense. The US is known for allowing certain rights and privileges to those who can afford them ;)
Again, I understand your personal desire for privacy (and even share it), but this argument doesn't make sense. "Public" is literally an antonym of "Private" - the reason one loses privacy in public is baked into the very definition of the words we're using to describe the situation.
I’m curious - why do you find this surprising?
> For a country that values personal freedoms, the legalization of being photographed against one's will is unexpected.
And what of the personal freedoms of the person holding the camera?
To make this more complex, what if that person is holding an iPhone, and the subject of their photo is their kid? And what if you happen to be in that shot?
While I completely understand the spirit of your concern, it shouldn’t surprise anyone familiar with US freedoms.
As for general freedoms, a person's freedom ends when it infringes on the freedoms of another. We can debate the nuance of that sentiment (that's what courts are for) but the freedom of anyone to privacy should exceed the freedom of some to make money.
There is a spectrum of use between "private display" and "purely for commercial benefit" that is nearly impossible to legislate effectively. The acceptable use of photography equipment and fair use of the resulting photos can't be boiled down to privacy vs. profit, and that's why this particular subject is so controversial and difficult to resolve.
US law is more specific than just whether it makes money. You can't control how your likeness is used in fine art, or for editorial or education purposes with limited exceptions for things like defamation. But you can control and entirely prevent your image from being used commercially, generally to advertise a product. And commercial use is more about the relationship implied than just about making money.
Like a newspaper can use your photo in an article about a newsworthy event that you were part of, even though the newspaper makes money selling newspapers. Or a street photographer can sell a limited number of prints in a gallery for tens of thousands of dollars as in Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia. But it would be commercial use and an infringement of your personality rights to print your face on t shirts or mugs even if they are a non profit giving them away.
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?
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.
Unless you trip over, get mugged or your pants fall down.
It's available to LEO - and they come with a history of leveraging surveillance in ways that profoundly damage lives.
It depends of the country.
It absolutely can and has. Such as if the CCTV captured footage of a crime or a suspect of a crime.
Additionally, if the CCTV is government controlled, it is subject to freedom of information laws (FOIA), which means anyone can get a copy of the footage for any reason and use it for any purpose. It is in effect public domain.
Your second point does not address comment you respond to.
A little apples to oranges, but I get the feeling the same folks who are against being photographed in public are probably pro police bodycams
And how far and widely do they apply this? Sailor kiss in Times Sq comes to mind. Shots of the crowd at a sporting event?
And then there's war photography...
The reasoning is not contradictory as you imply at the end; it is indeed apples and oranges. The "pro police bodycam" position is for capturing the actions of the person wearing it, protecting the camera's subject by adding accountability. The point is for the recording to be available as a public record in case of a problem, not for the officer to be able to use it.
A random videographer on the street does not have anything like the same relationship with their captured subjects, and is probably not making a record that is positive for the recorded person (or the public).
And that's to say nothing of private surveillance cameras; the difference there should be obvious.
Impossible to say yes or no, but it definitely seemed pivotal
You make it sound like it would be secondary and not really relevant, but for example, intent is the difference between murder and involuntary manslaughter.
In candid street photography, I think what people fear is exactly that: bad intent, a willingness of the photographer to exploit the images in order to show ridicule or maybe even obtain sexual gratification.
And it's also an easy way to do some virtue signalling. It's striking that in the article, it's not the people being photographed who object, but complete strangers to the scene, who know absolutely nothing about the specific circumstances of how the image was taken and whether or not consent was granted.
Of course, intent lies not just in the pressing of a shutter; one can also select stills from security footage with intent to ridicule. And indeed, as a general rule, access to security footage is limited and controlled, probably for that reason.
That cuts both ways though -- I would be much more worried about the "intent" of someone looking up my face in particular and/or storing a database of millions of face-recognized surveillance videos than any possible malintent a human photographer could have. The former has much more potential for sinister outcomes originating from sinister intents.
Then again, as a sibling comment pointed out, there's a decent chance these days that the individual human photographer casually puts the image of your face into Facebook/Instagram(/Google?)'s database.
Until relatively recently, there was comparatively little institutional snooping going on, and most of that was not disseminated: for the most part, it stayed where it was taken for a couple of weeks, then the tapes were overwritten. These days, it is likely to last forever, and make its way into the hands of those companies that have made it their business to find out everything about us.
Similarly, when someone takes a snapshot on the street, it is very likely to be sucked up into the cloud. Even though I have no account with Facebook, I have little doubt that it can recognize me in the background of other people's pictures, and has a file on my whereabouts and activities.
Therefore, the issue is not the taking of the pictures per se, but the use they are put to by third parties. While I do not spend much time worrying about what could happen as a consequence, I sure do not like it, and I don't think I should have to justify that dislike.
Generally, the security camera pictures won't be published. Where they are published, they are still so boring that no one looks at them.
I can be on-board with the arrangement that "You're on camera. We'll see you if you shoplift. But hopefully you're in a store where others are also weakly dissuaded away from shoplifting."
I might choose not to frequent a business where the deal is "Don't shoplift. But also, if you trip and fall maybe we'll cut a clip of you for the internet to laugh at."
They can also capture what you are reading which means that they dance very closely to the idea of recording audio in public without consent. This could be especially bad if the photographer captures images of communications used by people with disabilities such as braille or signs.
A third issue could be having your photograph taken while doing something private in public such as pooping in the woods.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
* (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.)
It actually sounds like that isn’t required in the US.
Well, it`s funny how things get fuzzy when one`s direct interest is involved. The Weinsteins of the world keep saying that phrase.
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.
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.
I think the US approach ultimately makes the most sense. There’s a societal benefit to being able to capture images and stories.
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
[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?
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-u...
Not true in the EU. (Legally, anyway.)
It feels like a huge invasion of my personal space, regardless of whether or not the photographer is in my face or not.
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
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.
No, I am not going to forgive you for that. Not you nor any one else with such views. It sounds like you are ready to deny to other people their basic freedoms just because it "could affect you deeply". This way any oppression really work. To avoid repeating myself I'll direct you to my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29335887
>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.
Of course it doesn't mean you have to like it. You may not like it as long as you do not convert it to aggressive actions that I have observed many times in the streets.
>You are asking me to care more about people's artistic freedom than my own peace of mind. That is never going to happen.
I am not asking you anything it is your responsibility to care about things that could lead to loosing freedom in society.
I am claiming it is a right of an artist to have freedom of thoughts and art expression and if you really mean what you say it seems like you are ready step over it. From my perspective you are crossing the line there with severe consequences.
>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.
Street photography doesn't work this way at all which means zero ability for artist to express themselves in that way. If you ask permission then you already lost the moment you wanted to picture. If you have to ask permissions you are not free to do what you really wanted because the subject who is sometimes unable to grasp what was in your mind due to the lack of education or any other reason would have the ability to block your work just because to his uneducated or corrupted or super enlightened mind it is not what photographer should picture. Why to bother then if someone else in full censorship over your work? It is zero freedom for art expression. And it influences the mood of photographer thus not allowing him to feel free and make pictures of what is really going on according to his perception. So instead of work of art you'll get glamour stupid pictures. Artificial demo instead of quality observation by the artist. Thanks to the attitude you've perfectly described it makes it in some countries absolutely impossible to do proper street photography and even harder to publish due to a lot of hassle. This leads to the situation where I simply do not publish my street photography and this is exactly: "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.
It is not exactly like that, there are nuances in each case of usage and they vary in different countries. But in general freedom of other person means that it is choice of that person and yes it can affect you deeply. Does it mean you should prohibit everything that affects you deeply? again there are other things that affect you much more deeply: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29335887
Would you also be in favor of prohibiting a free speech? After all some of it could be unpleasant and affect you deeply? Just keep in mind that once you do that the society looses ability to discuss hard issues thus unable to face real issues thus separating itself from reality and together with inability for the artist to deliver different perspective on things would exactly be moving toward doomed oppressed society that is unable to deal with real world. If you wish to see live example you can look toward Russia and Belarus. Would you prefer to live there?
Trying to paint me as some kind of jackboot who is ready to trample all over everyones freedom because I happen to disagree with how consent around public photography is handled is nonsense.
Here's an anecdote from my local paper: A woman is on a public bus with her baby. A man starts taking photographs of her baby. She asks him to stop because it makes her uncomfortable. He doesn't stop, insisting that he's perfectly allowed because it's a public space.
He's right of course. But I have a huge problem with that and think it shouldn't be allowed.
I guess that makes me a fascist. Like how dare I think that guy should have to ask permission.
And surely if he wasn't allowed to do that it would mean the absolute end of freedom in the world. Those baby photos are critical to maintain our rights.
Get outta here.
This is not what I was saying. I was talking about freedom of the artist in general and how it is not respected in street photography in particular. Street photography is just an example where people can put own little discomfort and feelings above principles designed to keep society free.
Freedom of speech and many other things could make us uncomfortable but not all of them should be taken more seriously than values protecting freedom. In a society with freedom of speech we are not trying to avoid discomfort we are intentionally ignore certain discomfort for the sake of a greater good: discuss freely serious issues and see the different perspective on things provided by artists of all kinds. Some serious issues cannot be discussed without hurting some feelings and this is by design. Certain discomfort is accepted for the sake of freedom. On the other hand person can learn that doesn't have to hurt own feelings.
If you explore how some societies ended up in totalitarianism you see the common pattern that they are happy to accept laws protecting some discomfort without thinking about consequences and those consequences come faster then they expect. Unfortunately those consequences deliver much more discomforts then the first laws were trying to avoid.
>Trying to paint me as some kind of jackboot who is ready to trample all over everyones freedom
I have no interest to paint you anyhow. My interest is the point of view you describe at the moment and I am trying to explain where such view leads in a long run.
When you say "But I have a huge problem with that and think it shouldn't be allowed." it is indeed shows that the view you possibly hold at the moment leads to readiness to trample at least on freedom of photographer. I do not know the details of the story but women doesn't have to be offended by photography by the way and some women are even proud and happy in such situations and can take it with smile. I mean it is a decision of a person how to take it isn't it?
Here is another anecdote from my personal experience: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29342547 and another one when I was making video of bush: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29339707 and I have many more stories like that ...
>I guess that makes me a fascist. Like how dare I think that guy should have to ask permission.
The problem here with the word "should". If you use it it means you are ready to trample over freedom of photographer if I am not mistaken here?
>And surely if he wasn't allowed to do that it would mean the absolute end of freedom in the world. Those baby photos are critical to maintain our rights.
This statement is manipulative. I was not talking about particular photos I was talking about principle of readiness to step over freedom of an artist and where it leads. As I was saying above : Street photography is just an example where people can put own little discomfort and feelings above principles designed to keep society free.
>Get outta here.
I do not think I am willing to satisfy your feeling here because people with the view you've described need learn to respect freedom of artists and see the benefit for the society in doing so.
And together with "Get outta here." you are saying: " Trying to paint me as some kind of jackboot who is ready to trample all over everyones freedom ..."
I am not sure how to properly interpret that. But I guess people who are ready to step over freedom of photographer to avoid own feeling of discomfort are not very active in protecting feelings of photographers from discomfort for merely doing their job.
I just hope you can learn the other side from the anecdote I've provided to see the whole picture.
I'm genuinely interested and not trying to make any particular point.
Actually it's probably happened to a ton of people. It happens all the time. Usually in verbal form, along with "remember that one time...?"
But in my case someone actually wrote a NaNoWriMo story with me as one of the central characters. It was science fiction and no one could ever mistake it for being a true story. I still did not super like being included in such a way.
Someone looking at you doesn't produce an artifact that they can profit off of, for one.
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.
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.
In general, I am extremely distrustful of this as an idea:
> Sometimes there is an engineering solution to a social problem.
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.
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.
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.
> HONY presents photographs derived from this tradition but divorced from its vast potential for social import. Its brand of “humanity” requires no scrutiny, for it is designed to do what photography’s critics have accused the medium of doing at its worst: to capture, to possess, and to provoke in the viewer unprocessable, useless emotion.
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.
What about if a neighbor decided to take pics of your daughter walking to school every day? What if that neighbor starts a blog?
An extreme example, but I suspect there are very few people for whom this is a Boolean issue.
In that case wasn't it your choice if you wear something like that in public perfectly knowing that you can "bend over" and thus who can say it wasn't your intention to show what you show. What it has to do with photographer who simply makes a picture of what you show in public by your own design in that example?
>or they continually follow you with a camera in your face for blocks.
If someone continually follow you may be the 'follow' is the problem, not the photography part? I mean if someone continually follow you for blocks without camera could it be worse? At least photographer presumably does it for pictures only and simply due to the poor skills didn't succeed with the first 10 tries. Again what it has to do with the photography by itself ?
So may be it is boolean? You are in public and that means someone have right to make pictures of what public looks like. Or you have other examples?
There's this pervasive attitude in the comments for this article that having your photo taken in public is some major affront. I see people equating it with assault, even. That feels very "Internet tough guy" to me.
I feel like I've made the "Internet tough guys" unhappy by not falling in line behind them. They simply can't conceive that I wouldn't be "outraged" at the same things they are. That, too, "outrages" them, apparently.
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.
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.
https://www.earthcam.com/cams/newyork/timessquare/?cam=tsstr...
That said, if it works, your suggestion would probably cover >90% of cases.
https://granolashotgun.wordpress.com/2020/07/23/not-for-came...
Book about this: 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=...
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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-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.
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.
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-photog...
And a talk by the photographer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePjeX6IiSTQ
And an article with more of the photos:
https://www.itsnicethat.com/articles/arne-svenson-the-neighb...
This is different from offering your pictures as stock photography, as PR materials, or in advertising of anything other than yourself.
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."
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.
The article really falls down at the end where the conclusion is basically, "I don't care about people's privacy concerns and discomfort because I like street photography and enjoy making it." With a hint of, "and other people like to look at it, too. (Ignoring the uncomfortable people who would immediately refuse to have their photograph displayed, if asked)". So the author is basically arguing that they know better than their subjects and think their favorite hobby is good for society. That's not a very convincing justification.
As others have mentioned, being surveilled for specific purposes which we can generally assume will be viewed by one or zero people is different than being frozen in time for many people to dissect and judge.
I have plenty more issues with security cameras...
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.
Its not really the best representation of an opinion. There are plenty of people in plenty of places that are not aware of that.
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...
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.
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.
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"?
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.
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.
That said, I think contracts like that where you have to opt out of what you would think of to be normal behavior shitty.
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?
Photography and consent here appear to be a logical example of what Umberto Eco called the hyper-real, the thing that is a supersaturated version of itself which draws the eye, thereby distracting from the ubiquity of the more discreet (yet totalizing) examples of the same thing in the environment–usually serving the interests of accumulated power. The shadow side of the McGuffin, with an operational adaptation: by being visible, they reassure the viewer of their ability to discern and mark their presence... and the viewer with false confidence overlooks the more pertinent examples everywhere else.
Versions of this bait-and-distract are everywhere in contemporary discourse. This is now a stock tactic of rhetoricians and demagogues, and there are dozen variations on it.
First, most people just don't know how much they are under surveillance, and it's not like the pushback against this data gathering isn't already there. Especially in Europe.
Second, the chance of the data, which is collected on you, to be seen by thousands (or maybe millions) of people is pretty small. Even in a case of a data breach, you will be drowned out in millions of datasets (Except if you're a vip). A photography which can easily be shared may ruin your life.
Those two aren't really comparable. I think a discussion is therefore warranted.
I should check the dictionary for definition of insanity because it can help to describe the situation.
You could consider the possibility that debates over this are a proxy issue for discomfort with surveillance in general, as a camera with a person behind it is easier to talk about than a camera erected and operated by some anonymous corporation or government department. Meeting people where they are to consider the issue from their perspective is often more effective than performative rudeness.
> The people who get the most worked up over the ethics of certain images are NOT themselves the subjects of the photo.
This is outrage culture.
People want to be angry. Here's something more for them to dogpile onto. Delivered by the Internet and amplified by engagement and sentiment detection algorithms.
We're fucking animals screaming about events we never witness, experiences we never feel, and people we never meet. We need to be angry to satisfy all of the issues and perceived lack of power in our own lives.
So you suggest to support avoiding real issue of surveillance and support redirection of concerns toward those who has nothing to do with it because for people it is easier? This is reminds me the attitude with which Jewish people in Nazi Germany where claimed to be the source of all problems.
I was literally faced questioning attempts with threats in the public street just because I was making test shots directed toward the bush and AWAY from any people or any private property. Talk to me about 'performative rudeness'...
Once I was questioned for making photo of parked old motorcycle. I had telephoto lens and had to take my distance from the motorcycle coming close to the the few stairs of some building directing my camera AWAY from that building staying in public street.
Turned out those stairs were leading to the backdoor of some restaurant where some local TV stars happens to be celebrating something in that very day. Of course I had no idea about any of that.
One of the tv stars was smoking outside and was very concerned and ready to attack me with security of the restaurant even though I have never directed camera toward him. He was attempting to question me aggressively while I was trying to be nice with him.
It was very hard for this local star to believe that I with my serious equipment was interested more in some old parked motorcycle rather then in His majesty amazing Him who I failed to recognize by the way because I simply did not watch TV at all for some years already. Now I regret that I was too nice with such bright individual.
Again talk to me about 'performative rudeness'...
Many people went far beyond 'performative rudeness' toward photographers. They treat photographers as criminals just in case and do not hold themselves from aggression quesioning attempts and yet you prefer/propose to discuss my 'performative rudeness' for paying attention to some obvious facts rather then discussing their attitude and the real issue of surveillance?
I was literally threatened by a man with the dog ready to attack for making test video shots of different color modes in the center of the city in the public space. I was directing my camera to the ... well to the bush. Intentionally away from the people walking on the paved road. Intentionally not directing my camera to any property. Just a public bush growing in the public bush. Did it help? No! There was literally no one alive in the shots except that very bush itself. No people around by the way. Just this one 'normal' man coming from behind or in your terminology 'boiled frog' that was ready to question me in the middle of the public street and was threatening me with his dog if I do not comply with his requests. So talk to me about rudeness.
You may think it is one rare example? It is not. If you do street photography for some time you'll see many 'interesting' aggressive things directed toward you even by people who you intentionally avoided to put into the frame. At this stage if you prefer to name my small 'call for sanity' a rudeness I could not accept it, sorry.
>You're acting like it's insane that the boiled frog is complaining about the water temperature.
It is insane if 'boiled frog' is complaining about photography which has nothing to do with the real issue while 'boiled frog' should really complain about 'the water temperature' and many other things.
>Meanwhile facebook just released sunglasses that can surreptitiously record everyone everywhere.
Exactly my point. Direct complains where they belong and leave photographers alone. Let them do their hard job and keep society respectful toward freedom of artists. Without it society doomed to failure.
Photography of public space is allowed, but if the subject is a specific person, you must obtain permission.
This also leaves an awkward gray area for things like dashcams, which can be considered unregistered surveillance cameras and as such are not allowed.
Sorry but then it is called 'Not allowed' If you need to ask any permission.
By the way it seems that it never occur to those people who adapted such laws to ask the basic question : Why right for artistic expression should be 'allowed' by them? Who are they to allow other person to perceive the world in a certain way and express it in some artistic form or another? The freedom of speech and freedom of artistic expression as part of it can and should be protected if society wish to flourish and be free. The nature of the right suggests that no majority or authority can take away your right.
>I live in a country where surveillance cameras can only be used, in most cases, to investigate crimes. (although the government is trying hard to change this, lately).
I especially loved this part : "in most cases"
If this country is full of people who cannot respect artistic freedom It would be foolish for the gov. not to abuse them further.
This is exactly what you pay when you disrespect artists. No surprise there. You pay with your own freedom and you sacrifice freedom of the society itself. Is that is such a difficult concept to grasp in your country?
By the way in one such country or presumably this very country I was almost attacked even for walking with camera. No pictures where taken at all. Talk to me about 'allowed'...
In Germany turns out people think that they are entitled to posses pictures they never made. They think it's their pictures failing to understand that it's never them on pictures it is what artist see in them or about them on artist's picture. When fools starting to dominate and take freedom of artist to express himself the payment will come and it will be much much worse then arguably such a little discomfort of someone taking picture with you on it.