Hacker News Reader

If I understand correctly, the reason why public photography is considered protected speech is because we want citizens to be able to capture public events of interest. That is, protests, riots, cops using excessive force, or more happy events like celebrations, etc. When it comes to someone taking photos in those situations I have no problem with it.

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.

I dislike any ownership of the public space. I think there's a guarantee that will be used against you if you start to allow some people to own their public representations. Powerful people and corporations would love to own their public representation and limit what could be done with them. And the lines aren't going to be clear cut.

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 difference between a model and a random stranger is night and day. The reason the model gets paid is because they are professional and contribute roughly equally to the process. With [good] street photography, it's almost entirely the story that is told that brings the value, the subject just happens to be living their relatively ordinary life.

Every time I hear someone talk like you do, I think about this photo:

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/

Taking photos of homeless people is generally seen an unacceptable amongst street photographers. I think maybe you're focusing on a couple specific people?

It's not just taking pictures of homeless people. Look at what Cohen does in that video, and remember he's one of the most celebrated and beloved street photographers.

Street photography is for hacks. I've known a lot of them, they're never good people.

Mark Cohen is 78 years old. He is not remotely relevant to the scene today. Photogs celebrate the people who came before them like Cohen or Gilden but you just don't see that type of behaviour in the current generation. Same with anything else really, older sports athletes are celebrated and at the same time rightfully criticised, older musicians, celebrities, the list goes on.

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.

FWIW I agree that street photography is by and large not great. I know there are exceptions but mostly people don’t want to be photographed in public by a random stranger.

So you want to use my likeness to make money by selling it while simultaneously telling me that my life is too mundane to bother asking me if this is ok?

Most street photography that becomes popular is centered around people who are in distress. How is that not exploitation?

> Most street photography that becomes popular is centered around people who are in distress

Absolutely not true at all

"Public events of interest" is but one of many arguments, and your concern - Of being photographed on the street- Is in opposition to one of the other strongest arguments, that photography, even of random passers-by, is a form of art. That capturing life around you and the sights of your life are worth remembering.

Quite frankly, I suggest you take your argument to some frozen icy wastes.

Here, the trouble with HN up/down votes. I agree with the first part, but disagree with the snarky comment at the end.

I am honestly not sure what I just read, why it was written, or what it’s trying to say.

> “consent” implies permission, and the word permission implies some type of authority. In the case of photography in public there is no authority so no consent is needed.

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?

Does my authority over my own person extend to denying you permission to transmit photons into my retina?

I agree for figures in public places, but taking a years worth of pictures through a window (from a public place into a private place) is also protected by law (from the article).

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?

According to the article, deep IR would be illegal:

> Spying into someone's private space with specialized equipment or a drone is illegal.

But a 50MP sensor, with tripod and 800mm telephoto... not specialized. At some point intent has to play a roll.

Yes, the law is clear on this and case law evolved back when photography was expensive and relatively uncommon. People want to reconsider now that everyone has a camera all the time and it is very easy. This is a common pattern with tech.

Nobody needed laws about automobiles before they were invented, and it took quite a few years before those laws became settled and close to universal.

(E.g. every jurisdiction will require you to drive either on the left or the right side of the road, but they differ. Nearly all the world now uses red stop signs and lights.)

Laws change in response to technological changes; this is normal. The spirit of a law is often more important than the wording, in deciding what changes to the law are appropriate.

Don't forget that laws about automobiles were shaped by years of intense lobbying and shaping public opinion with campaigns, all financed by car companies.

> In the case of photography in public there is no authority so no consent is needed.

In the US.