[HN Gopher] The sticky issue of consent in street photography
___________________________________________________________________
The sticky issue of consent in street photography
Author : LordAtlas
Score : 124 points
Date : 2021-11-24 15:33 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (dinalitovsky.bulletin.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (dinalitovsky.bulletin.com)
| [deleted]
| cmaggiulli wrote:
| I'm willing to be swayed on this issue but to me the word
| "consent" implies permission, and the word permission implies
| some type of authority. In the case of photography in public
| there is no authority so no consent is needed. I personally
| believe that, for the most part, ethics and legality align here.
| I don't think it is unethical to photograph and publish a picture
| of someone in public. However, I think there may be an ethical
| dilemma if the picture is unintentionally sexually suggestive. I
| still don't believe it should be legislated. The societal and
| personal benefits guaranteed by the right which allows us to
| photograph in public is worth more than the protection that would
| come through legislation.
|
| Additionally the picture in question is not sexual to me at all.
| I don't even understand how anyone could construe it as sexual.
| To me it's a raw, emotional photograph that perfectly describes
| what it's like to mother children in a large city. It's an
| amazing moment
| kurthr wrote:
| 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?
| sudobash1 wrote:
| According to the article, deep IR would be illegal:
|
| > Spying into someone's private space with specialized
| equipment or a drone is illegal.
| IgorPartola wrote:
| 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.
| golemotron wrote:
| Yes, the law is clear on this and case law evolved back when
| photography was expensive and relatively uncommon. People want
| to reconsider now that everyone has a camera all the time and
| it is very easy. This is a common pattern with tech.
| dsr_ wrote:
| Nobody needed laws about automobiles before they were
| invented, and it took quite a few years before those laws
| became settled and close to universal.
|
| (E.g. every jurisdiction will require you to drive either on
| the left or the right side of the road, but they differ.
| Nearly all the world now uses red stop signs and lights.)
|
| Laws change in response to technological changes; this is
| normal. The spirit of a law is often more important than the
| wording, in deciding what changes to the law are appropriate.
| scotty79 wrote:
| 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.
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| > "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?
| kayodelycaon wrote:
| > In the case of photography in public there is no authority so
| no consent is needed.
|
| In the US.
| kebman wrote:
| But when you're informed about cookies when entering the site,
| the only option is "I accept". Not unlike walking in a public
| space, where it's is, and should be, legal to photograph anyone.
| (And no, the back button is _not_ a meaningful other option.)
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| > _But when you 're informed about cookies when entering the
| site, the only option is "I accept"._
|
| Not true in the EU. (Legally, anyway.)
| rlpb wrote:
| People conflate clicking on a button that says "I accept" with
| some kind of moral or legal obligation or agreement. One
| doesn't necessarily mean the other. In the EU, for example, if
| there wasn't the option to decline, then no permission is being
| given even if you click on "I accept".
| dymk wrote:
| Your other option is the back button.
| kebman wrote:
| I'll tell you what is the other option: Digging through the
| code and extracting the information without accepting the
| blood contract, because people who are stupid enough to put
| something in the public sphere on the internet don't deserve
| respect when they treat their visitors with only one viable
| alternative.
| [deleted]
| ThinkBeat wrote:
| This bit me hard.
|
| I love street photography and have been active for a number of
| years. I have done some good work.
|
| I never appreciated the freedom I had as a photographer in the
| US.
|
| A while ago I moved to Norway.
|
| I kept taking pictures. Working on two different concepts /
| series.
|
| I got some good shots, the cultural differences in behavior,
| fashion, what is considered polite etc was inspiring.
|
| I shared some shots with friends back in the states including my
| mentor. I got some food and valuable reviews, and one series was
| well liked. I had put 4- 5 month of effort into it. (not all day
| every day)
|
| I was starting to wonder about how to go about publishing them.
|
| Now I hate social media. I do not put my photos on Instagram,
| Twitter, or wherever else. This turned out to be a blessing.
|
| I was visiting a few galleries to learn about the local scene and
| dip my toes in the water and see what it takes to get a few
| photos up.
|
| I dont take along an iPad with photos, I stick to an old
| portfolio with printed photos.
|
| I got a couple of stern lectures about Norwegian law, and that
| all my photos were to be considered illegal esp. if I were to
| show them anywhere.
|
| It was fortuitous that I dont share my work.
|
| I admit I was pissed off for a while and I have had to put Street
| Photography out of my mind.
|
| I am left with two folders on a harddrive with work that I cannot
| display. I have not yet been able to delete all of them. I have
| thought about showing them in the US, the legality of which I
| have not been able to establish so that is off as well.
| ppeetteerr wrote:
| It's surprising that this is allowed in the US at all. For a
| country that values personal freedoms, the legalization of
| being photographed against one's will is unexpected.
|
| 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.
| gnopgnip wrote:
| >If a photographer is to make money off of my appearance, I
| want to make sure it's done with consent.
|
| 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.
| randombits0 wrote:
| The basis of privacy rights in the US is the expectation of
| privacy. No one can claim an expectation of privacy in
| public. That image may be of you but you have no claim to it,
| as you didn't take it.
| ppeetteerr wrote:
| That's what I mean. It's very surprising that exposing
| oneself to the public (as is unavoidable to do most things
| in life) warrants a loss of freedom to privacy.
| Effectively, the only people who get anonymity and a
| semblance of public privacy are those who can afford it,
| and not just anyone.
|
| 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 ;)
| haswell wrote:
| > _It 's very surprising that exposing oneself to the
| public ... warrants a loss of freedom to privacy._
|
| 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.
| mcguire wrote:
| Do you _really_ want to force everyone around you to wear
| blindfolds? Or maybe you would prefer wearing a burka?
| haswell wrote:
| > _It 's surprising that this is allowed in the US at all._
|
| 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.
| ppeetteerr wrote:
| If a photo of someone's kid includes a recognizable photo
| of me, and the photo is for private use then it's a
| different matter than someone exhibiting that photo for
| public use.
|
| 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.
| haswell wrote:
| The point though is that the current state of things is
| neither surprising nor unexpected, which is what you were
| originally saying.
|
| 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.
| scotty79 wrote:
| Are you sure you need to delete them? I don't know Norwegian
| law specifically, but it might be the case that you are allowed
| to take photos in public and you just can't publish them
| without subjects consent.
| ThinkBeat wrote:
| This is for the most part true yes.
|
| It is late and I do not have the exact phrasing, but
|
| "You are not allowed to take a photo of a person who is in a
| vulnerable position"
|
| The problem there is what constitutes a vulnerable position.
|
| A man urinating, a drunk person, a beggar, a homeless person,
| children, someone crying are all examples of things that
| -can- be illegal. (Unless you have written release) (which is
| not enough in all cases).
|
| There is also a part about clothing, like the story above
| mentioned. Most people (I think) look at the photo in the
| story and everything seems kosher as far as clothing goes.
| some disagree as the story indicates.
|
| The big problem is the ambiguity of some of these terms and
| what the person you are taking a photo of would interpret
| said terms.
| lovelyviking wrote:
| Looks like Norwegian law is terrible. It doesn't respect
| freedom of art expression. Isn't it a right of any person
| to see the world the way this person want to see it and
| express it in any art form that is available?
|
| 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.
| vmception wrote:
| Pretty sure that's the point, they have no use for them but
| haven't resolved to delete them due to their lack of utility.
| They function as a memory just as everyone else has photos,
| its not the reason they took the photos though
| yosito wrote:
| I studied video production in college. For one project, I did a
| documentary on a non-profit that was working in a high-crime
| area. We drove down the street with a video camera pointed out
| the window * As we drove by a house with some young men on the
| porch, one of them saw the camera and yelled angrily, "Yo, what
| the fuck!" and started chasing us. After that experience, I've
| never been able to point my camera at someone without getting
| their verbal consent first. I worked for awhile as a
| photographer/videographer for a school, and struggled to get good
| footage of students because of that.
|
| * (With the documentary, we hadn't intended to record and people
| without consent, and when we finally published it, we had signed
| consent forms for everyone who appeared in it.)
| kebman wrote:
| It is generally a smart idea to get consent first, especially
| if the imagery is intended for monetized use, such as ads and
| posters, especially since such use can result in law suits if
| done without consent. The one thing that might outweigh this
| general rule, is if something newsworthy happens, or something
| that would be deemed important for the public to see, such as a
| crime. Where I'm from (Norway) the general rule is that a
| person cannot take up the focus or majority of an image without
| prior consent. This makes it possible to video or take pictures
| of public events without needing to ask everyone on the
| stadium, for instance.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| > The one thing that might outweigh this general rule, is if
| something newsworthy happens, or something that would be
| deemed important for the public to see, such as a crime.
|
| It actually sounds like that isn't required in the US.
|
| https://dinalitovsky.bulletin.com/590041038798261
| morphicpro wrote:
| The root of the issue with street photography has a whole lot
| less to do with the photograph and more to do with the ever
| present issue of male sexual abuse towards women.
|
| No one would even give a crap about these photos if not for that
| root cause.
|
| This is why intent is at the root of these issues. We won't
| likely address these issues of public domain vs privacy unless we
| address the root of why anyone really cares about the issues in
| the first place. I don't think people are saying I don't like
| art. I think people are saying "I'm sick of being sexually
| objectified"
|
| I say all this as street photographer myself.
|
| Also food for thought. Would this have been as big of an issue
| had the photographer been a woman? Would it had gotten the same
| push back? These are question that dig more the root cause of why
| this has less to do with the photo and more to do with who is
| taking the photo and why.
| [deleted]
| btilly wrote:
| Data point.
|
| 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.
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| This will be an unpopular opinion but I feel someone taking a
| photo with me as the subject without my permission is almost on
| par with assault
|
| It feels like a huge invasion of my personal space, regardless of
| whether or not the photographer is in my face or not.
| lovelyviking wrote:
| >taking a photo with me as the subject without my permission is
| almost on par with assault
|
| Why would you wish to give 'permission' to art expression of
| someone else? Isn't that an assault to the freedom of other
| person?
|
| >It feels like a huge invasion of my personal space
|
| It feels this way until there is understanding that public
| space means that you are part of that public and public can be
| photographed by anyone interested to preserve the moment.
|
| Some people feel uncomfortable and find it hard to respect
| basic freedom of other person for art expression. It is a small
| price to pay though considering the alternative of living in
| society where disrespect to the freedom of art expression is a
| norm. Such society is doomed to be oppressive and living in
| oppression could be much more uncomfortable.
|
| Look at this attitude:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29332188
| remus wrote:
| Would you feel the same way if someone did a painting of the
| same scene from memory? What if they were particularly adept at
| creating photorealistic paintings? How about if someone wrote a
| very vivid description of the same scene? Would you feel the
| same way?
|
| I'm genuinely interested and not trying to make any particular
| point.
| [deleted]
| blowfish721 wrote:
| Who will build a SaaS that replaces the people in the pictures
| with "this person does not exist"? Keeping facial expressions etc
| the same.
| phreeza wrote:
| It's a neat idea, but take the second photo in the article for
| example: The guy gawking (well who knows, but it could be
| construed that way) at the women doesn't even have his face
| visible. Yet just from the clothing and context, his friends
| and colleagues would probably be able to identify him.
|
| That said, if it works, your suggestion would probably cover
| >90% of cases.
| Bokanovsky wrote:
| I always find it fascinating as there's also an aspect of
| documentation with certain street photography. If you look at
| stuff from the 1980's and see how much things have changed, the
| fashion the shops and so on, but also how certain things are
| still the same.
|
| Certain cameras are marketed with the whole concept of being good
| for street photography and like to play with the historic aspect.
| Like most marketing it's aspirational. Will you be able to
| capture the decisive moment like Henri Cartier-Bresson?
|
| There are various famous street photographers and their books are
| always popular with enthusiasts.
| [deleted]
| hereforphone wrote:
| Can I take your picture in a public space? A picture of your
| kids? Your kids in their bathing suits at the pool? Everyone
| draws the line, and at a different point. It's not boolean.
| EvanAnderson wrote:
| It absolutely is boolean for some people.
|
| If I'm in a public space w/o an expectation of privacy you have
| every right to photograph me. Same goes for my daughter,
| bathing-suit or street-clothes.
|
| I value the right of others to make photos in public spaces and
| I recognize that it applies to me as a subject.
| macintux wrote:
| Would you be ok with a drone someone programs to follow you
| every time you're in public, taking photographs and recording
| everything you do?
|
| An extreme example, but I suspect there are very few people
| for whom this is a Boolean issue.
| agentdrtran wrote:
| This stops being street photography then.
| aeternum wrote:
| I'm still not convinced it's boolean. How about pictures
| taken from a public space like the street or sidewalk into
| your house or yard, how about pictures like this:
| https://www.itsnicethat.com/articles/arne-svenson-the-
| neighb...
|
| What about if a neighbor decided to take pics of your
| daughter walking to school every day? What if that neighbor
| starts a blog?
| nickthegreek wrote:
| I am pro public photography but it is never boolean. Everyone
| has a limit. Maybe your bend over to pick something up and
| they photograph your breasts or they continually follow you
| with a camera in your face for blocks. At some point a line
| can be crossed for even the most open minded.
| lovelyviking wrote:
| >Maybe your bend over to pick something up and they
| photograph your breasts
|
| 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?
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| That's a separate topic and beside the point. It's not a
| question of rights. I want everyone to have the right to say
| all sorts of shit that I also think it's immoral for them to
| say.
| stackedinserter wrote:
| I don't think you'd be ok with someone that would come to
| your house every morning to take pictures of your daughter
| that goes to school. You'll call police on day two if that
| happened.
| watwut wrote:
| Upskirt photos are typically done at public places.
| [deleted]
| lovelyviking wrote:
| While people are constantly under surveillance of street cameras.
|
| While people are constantly under surveillance by their own
| phones and all kinds of apps.
|
| While people are constantly under surveillance during any
| internet activity .
|
| While most people agree to have computers that are not completely
| open which means no complete inspection of firmware and software
| including OS which means zero privacy by definition.
|
| While most people gladly give up any privacy for big corporations
| and store in their clouds what ever one can imagine .
|
| The same people seriously discuss if it is ok for photographer
| standing openly in the street to take some pictures?
|
| I should check the dictionary for definition of _insanity_
| because it can help to describe the situation.
|
| How about freedom of art expression? What have happened with
| respecting that?
|
| Isn't it a right of any person to see the world they way this
| person perceive it and express it in _any_ art form including
| photography?
|
| Isn't the alternative is toward oppressive society? Would people
| disrespecting street photography prefer to live in oppressive
| society where all art is under complete control?
|
| Or they mean all art can be free except photography? Well also
| except drawing because who knows what one would draw. And songs
| because who knows what one could sing about. And sculpture. And
| movies. And computer games. And books. And music creating wrong
| emotions. And dancing which should be proper. And may Web sites.
| And well with current tools of surveillance ... anything is fine
| except 'wrong' dreaming?
| hkon wrote:
| I have a feeling the people who will confront a photographer
| taking their picture, will be very quick on the draw to film
| the whole ordeal with their own camera. Regardless of consents.
| SMAAART wrote:
| Of course! It's the "Do as I say, not as I do" Doctrine aka
| "Rules apply to everyone else but me".
| dillondoyle wrote:
| Not street photography but I'm bringing up a different context,
| which I think is perhaps an even more important ethical
| conversation to have.
|
| Consent of photographic subjects, specifically BIPOC, being used
| by for profit companies in marketing.
|
| My recent example is in Climbing. gyms require waivers that also
| contain text granting the company rights to take your photo and
| use it however they want throughout the universe in perpetuity
| lol.
|
| Now, there are BIPOC speaking out because they feel used.
|
| Context: BIPOC are _very_ underrepresented in the sport.
|
| There was a recent IG post (sorry I can't find) from a women of
| color who climbs (I think at Brooklyn boulders). She had her
| photo taken, she didn't notice it was. Then she saw it used to
| promote the gym.
|
| One complaint is mentioned in the article: not being approached
| or asked about taking photos and feeling this invisible, targeted
| white male gaze.
|
| With corporations it goes further than public space art
| photography: - giving away of rights - for free with zero
| compensation - hidden in legal docs - then being used in
| marketing to sell stuff - companies are just doing 'woke
| slacktivism marketing' without doing anything to support these
| communities. Remember all those black squares on IG?! Then going
| back to buy this shoe without taking any action whatsoever
|
| Props to the gym which did actually take action, changed their
| waiver, said they wouldn't take photos without permission AND
| provide compensation/recognition in any marketing.
|
| This article says: - The people who get the most worked up over
| the ethics of certain images are NOT themselves the subjects of
| the photo. - This example did care and spoke out. Many other
| examples across industries too. - "palpable, real-world harm
| resulting from it." - A bit more nuanced. But she argued that the
| gym was pretending to be a safe space with more climbers of
| color. Even though it's still like almost every other gym, super
| white, with a history of loud male chauvinism/racism. -
| "intention" is important I agree.
|
| I think the intention of a lot of these companies is to make
| money on the backs of creators & communities without giving
| compensation or even just basic support.
|
| Outside of climbing there is also a huge history of stealing art,
| imagery, creativity from minority cultures without giving any
| compensation or even mention/nod to the original creators.
|
| In art & fashion you can find some specific incidents that have
| been called out by Diet Prada on IG.
| tomcam wrote:
| I always read every contract I sign, but I may not be
| representative. However, the woman you were talking about could
| have crossed out the offending paragraphs in the contract in
| the gym probably would have gone along.
|
| That said, I think contracts like that where you have to opt
| out of what you would think of to be normal behavior shitty.
| dillondoyle wrote:
| They are almost all on ipads at climbing gyms. Yeah it would
| be cool to have like mini check boxes for each major
| provision, especially ones that aren't safety critical (they
| wouldn't let you climb if you didn't check those)
| ngokevin wrote:
| IMO, street photography is a low art form. It's walking around
| without a plan, snapping random snapshots of people and expect
| some meaning to come out on its own. The creation process is
| regulated to pressing a button and some minor processing. Perhaps
| similar to throwing buckets of paint at a canvas and seeing what
| comes out.
|
| It's usually derivative. Someone alone looking sad because that's
| their resting face. A black and white high contrast photo of an
| old person. A homeless person. Political street art (that someone
| else created).
|
| Some exceptions of course, like Humans of NY where arguably the
| main part is the backstory and writing behind the people they
| capture with permission, but that's more portrait photography
| than street.
| kolanos wrote:
| Public photography (at least in the U.S.) isn't just
| constitutionally protected because it is a form of expression
| (art), but also because it is an exercise in free press. In the
| U.S., anyone can be free press, and as such can document any
| goings on in public, including photography.
| todd8 wrote:
| I respectively disagree. I think people are attractive, in
| general, and in particular I like looking at people. For me,
| seeing a photo that captures a memorable or unusual moment in
| sports, in a performance, or even in a park or on the sidewalk
| is worth viewing. I agree with the original article that there
| is a creepiness to voyeuristic photos, and in the case of the
| woman on the bus photo I would be more comfortable with it if
| she had agreed to its use, but I do think it's a "good" photo.
|
| When at a museum we frequently look at pictures or sculptures
| of people. Our viewing of these works of art are totally
| outside the context of the original subject's goal for the
| artwork. Is it inappropriate to look at these works of art?
|
| I agree that there are too many black and white photos of the
| old, sad, and homeless. These don't usually speak to me as art.
| If I was a photographer that wanted to do street photography, I
| would take advantage of the capabilities that new cameras have
| and show the resulting photos to the subjects and ask for their
| permission to use the photos. One could even offer to send them
| a copy of the photos by giving them business card with an
| annotation of the frame numbers so that they could request them
| via email.
| [deleted]
| bigdubs wrote:
| You're obviously allowed to feel what you feel but if you've
| ever seen a "good" body of work taken on the street, and a
| "bad" body of work taken on the street, the skill of the
| photographer matters, and it expresses art.
|
| The low vs. high debate is old as time, with sculptors looking
| down on painters, with painters looking down on photographers.
|
| The camera is a canvas and the photographer paints with what
| they put in front of the lens and when they close the shutter.
| Street photography takes it an extra step further and removes a
| ton of control over what you're photographing and leaves you
| creating art out of what is happening before you.
| vmception wrote:
| OP's example of the people in the fire escape in NYC being fine
| with the photo because they have no expectation of privacy is
| something that relies on people already knowing that.
|
| Its not really the best representation of an opinion. There are
| plenty of people in plenty of places that are not aware of that.
| cheeze wrote:
| Good article but the "share this on facebook" popup when I
| highlight text is _incredibly annoying_
| dheera wrote:
| Yes. Especially when I scroll by selecting.
| jasonhansel wrote:
| As a rather privacy-conscious person, I find this argument rather
| troubling:
|
| > asking for [consent] afterwards almost guarantees you will be
| turned down.
|
| In other words: I can't ask for people's consent because they
| might not _give_ consent.
|
| > Even I, as a photographer, would feel suspicious if a stranger
| came up to me saying they just took my photo and would like some
| kind of retroactive permission.
|
| The fact that most people would not explicitly consent to being
| photographed is (prima facie) a pretty strong argument against
| taking such photographs.
|
| It's worth noting that some people have particularly strong
| reasons not to want to be photographed. Among them: some
| religious traditions forbid photography, and some people (e.g.
| closeted LGBTQ people) need to keep aspects of their lives
| private.
| bijant wrote:
| It may be, that the legal issues, surrounding (commercial)
| YouTube Video production, require getting the explicit consent of
| the subjects. But this has quite a disturbing effect on the very
| meaning of what we consider Street Photography to be. Many
| "Photography Influencers" that show their process on tiktok or
| YouTube ask all the subjects of their pictures for explicit
| consent before taking pictures that I would consider to be more
| in the realms of fashion or model photography than in the true
| spirit of street photography. Street Photography is, to me, an
| art form that requires capturing unstaged moments and not just
| staged shots outside of the studio. It is the more artisticly
| inclined cousin of photojournalism, at times prefering form over
| function and serendipitous beauty over obvious significance and
| timely message.
|
| BTW It's notable that YouTube in particular seems to steer
| viewers to channels that celebrate hobbies which if they don't
| require expensive purchases can at least benefit from them. The
| "Photography Influencers" are a niche that owes its growth to the
| massive advertisement Dollars surrounding the space. The more
| people watch photography content, the bigger the audience
| Alphabet can sell to Sony, Canon and thousands of accessoire
| makers. So there is an incentive to push their almighty
| recommendation algorithm to steer users into this niche and grow
| demand. At the same time on the supply side, content producers,
| are incentivized to go into this niche by the higher availability
| of niche adjacent sponsorship deals for their videos. This
| dynamic obviously plays out in other niches as well, whether it
| be cars, gardening or golf. Potential sponsors and advertisers
| for math youtubers like blackpenredpen however are more limited
| so google is disincentivized to grow their niche. Does this, over
| the long term, push peoples preferences toward more materialistic
| pursuits ? I guess we'll find out.
| marysnovirgin wrote:
| Advertising, social media, even personal photos are highly
| edited, overly polished, artificially perfected representations
| of the world. Not only should we celebrate the breathtaking photo
| that is the centerpiece of this article, we should encourage more
| of it. As a species, it's important that we allow these portraits
| of our lives, behaviors, and quirky interactions to be made as,
| if not art, then simply a more accurate representation of what it
| means to be human at this moment in time. I understand these
| types of photographs can offend, or cross the line, or cause
| debate. That's what Art is for. We are better for it.
| biglost wrote:
| Curious about " And asking for it afterwards almost guarantees
| you will be turned down. " She seems to know most people wont
| approve it, so the solution is to not ask. I imagine my daughter:
| "Dad, i didnt ask for permission because you would say no, so i
| not asked for it and Im safe for being grounded." Weird thinking
| Ma8ee wrote:
| I think it very much depends on the circumstances. If people
| are sitting down and are in an environment where they feel
| safe, you can walk over with a friendly smile, chat a little,
| show them the camera and btw, I took some pictures of you that
| I hope will turn out really nice. I hope you don't mind, I'll
| be happy to send you a copy. Few people say no.
|
| On he other hand, people who are in a hurry or feel vulnerable
| mostly say no just by default. Does it reflect their true
| feelings about the matter if they had time to reflect? Hard to
| know.
|
| In the US the situation should be simple. The first amendment
| must trump any right to any expectation of privacy in a public
| space.
| agentdrtran wrote:
| It's becuase people will assume a different intent, it sounds
| like a scam that way.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| Yes, "I didn't ask to kiss you because I knew you'd say no.
| It's better for society if I just go ahead."
| actually_a_dog wrote:
| It's also empirically wrong in my experience. I take a lot of
| photos of my dog, particularly at the dog park or around my
| neighborhood when we're out walking. I put the best ones up on
| Instagram. Some of those photos have people in them. I never
| post a photo with an identifiable person in it without showing
| them the photos and asking the person first. Not once have I
| been turned down.
|
| I did once take a photo of my dog with two cute little twin 8
| year old girls who live in my neighborhood. I told them to tell
| their parents, and that I wasn't going to put that one up
| online, and I didn't. Later, I met their father when my dog and
| I were out on a walk, after I introduced myself, I made sure to
| tell him explicitly that I had taken the photo. I just don't
| think it's fair to put kids' photos online like that.
| abeppu wrote:
| There are so many bad takes in this. But mostly, I think the
| author is internally inconsistent on multiple fronts.
|
| In one paragraph she argues that the subjects of photos aren't
| upset by having their photo taken and then
| shared/promoted/published whatever.
|
| > Over the years, many people I've photographed have found
| themselves either in publications or on Instagram. Almost
| everyone asked me to send them a copy, thanking me for the
| captured moment.
|
| But later she says she fully expects that if she asked for
| consent after a photo is taken, it wouldn't be given.
|
| > And asking for it afterwards almost guarantees you will be
| turned down. Even I, as a photographer, would feel suspicious if
| a stranger came up to me saying they just took my photo and would
| like some kind of retroactive permission.
|
| This to me highlights that she's cherry-picking. Some subjects
| are fine with their picture being taken and shared. Great! But
| clearly this doesn't imply that all subjects are fine with it,
| and she knows this. If you're going to explicitly disregard some
| subject's "strong personal preferences" when they disagree with
| you, you don't get to use other subjects' acquiescence as any
| kind of evidence of an absence of harm.
|
| She highlights a photographer who spent a year photographing a
| family through their windows, and say that though it was legal,
| "the ethics of what he was doing are certainly up for debate."
| But later she says "But for an action to transcend individual
| discomfort and enter the netherworld of immorality there has to
| be both a strong societal consensus as well as palpable, real-
| world harm resulting from it." So ... if the family didn't
| experience a "palpable, real-world harm", the photographer wasn't
| being unethical? Who gets to decide whether the harm was 'real-
| world'? Does she think that only if a domestic abuser is able to
| hunt down their ex or something that a subject has experienced
| any "harm"?
|
| The author jumps from a lack of "palpable" harm to conclude
| "there is nothing inherently dangerous in the mere act of
| photographing people, children included, in the anonymity of a
| public space." "Unethical" and "inherently dangerous" are not the
| same, and a harm, which may or may not be "palpable" is that
| photography coupled with social media and instant sharable
| publishing can totally destroy the "anonymity of a public space"
| that she takes as a given. Have you experienced stage fright? If
| in a public space someone builds a stage around you, and places
| you before a digital audience, have you experienced harm? Have
| you fastidiously curated and cropped and tweaked images of
| yourself before putting them into particular public contexts? Do
| you experience a 'harm' if a photographer with a large following
| decides that the candid shot of you which they think will get the
| greatest audience response is not one that's flattering? Is that
| harm 'palpable'?
|
| I think the understanding of "ethics" in this context has to
| switch from being about trying to establish "harm", and instead
| look a equity and power. The photographer sees an opportunity to
| benefit. Taking the photo followed by sharing and promotion may
| bolster the photographer's reputation, build their audience, even
| lead to financial benefit later. The photographer gets to
| exercise choice and control throughout the process -- which shot
| to use, how to crop it and manipulate it, in what context to show
| it. The subject has no control, likely enjoys no share in any
| benefit, and has the possibility to see various perhaps
| immaterial harms. It's unethical in part because it's
| inequitable; it's arranging one's own benefit at another person's
| possible expense -- and arguing then that the detriment to others
| isn't "palpable" or "real-world" is just minimizing so she can
| keep doing what she wants to do.
|
| Yes it's legal. Often harms will be negligible. I'm not saying
| that street photographers are monsters. But as with any behavior
| with concentrated benefits (in this case to photographers) and
| diffuse costs (to subjects), of course the party that stands to
| gain is going to say they're doing nothing wrong -- and they're
| the least credible judge exactly because they have the most to
| gain.
| rctec wrote:
| I think this is the best take.
|
| 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.
| hirundo wrote:
| Sometimes there is an engineering solution to a social problem.
| Rather than blurring faces software can now isolate them,
| downscale and then upscale them, such that they look like real
| people but don't actually exist. The photo doesn't look censored
| but the consent issue goes away. Then you just have to identify
| the faces that you want to keep. The same could be done with the
| brands and logos that randomly litter photos, creating other
| legal issues.
| Peritract wrote:
| I don't think that's actually a solution, just a way of making
| the same underlying problem harder to spot.
|
| In general, I am extremely distrustful of this as an idea:
|
| > Sometimes there is an engineering solution to a social
| problem.
| phkahler wrote:
| >> The photo doesn't look censored but the consent issue goes
| away.
|
| No it doesn't. What post-processing you do is up to you but
| that doesn't change how people feel about you taking the
| picture in the first place. They have no idea weather you're
| going to blur them, enhance them, throw the picture away, or
| what. Like the author said, it's legal and you don't need
| consent. The real trick is to not be creepy about it but that's
| not universally defined.
|
| I was at the marina one day and saw a dog chasing a stick in
| the water. Lots of splashing about. I stopped and took a
| picture with my big honking camera. I was careful to get just
| the dog and not the woman that was throwing the stick, but
| neither her nor her husband could have known exactly what I got
| a shot of. Nobody said a word and I moved on thinking how odd
| it could seem to do that. A friendly comment about what a great
| subject the dog is might have helped calm any discomfort they
| may have had but I didn't get the impression it was an issue.
| Was it to them? I dunno.
| kraftman wrote:
| I know thats the direction we're heading but do you have an
| example that's available now and realistic?
| 5040 wrote:
| Reminds me of this:
|
| https://granolashotgun.wordpress.com/2020/07/23/not-for-came...
| detcader wrote:
| I sympathize with the author but I would consider non-consensual
| street photography ill-advised at best, not necessarily immoral.
| It's an accessibility issue, and like with many accessibility
| issues, it helps to engage in a "thought experiment."
|
| Just like you would assume someone with a wheelchair may want to
| enter your public building, you should assume that when taking
| picture of strangers you are being invasive towards someone
| struggling with anxiety and body image. It doesn't mean you _are_
| being invasive whenever you take photos, just like a person with
| a wheelchair may never want to enter your building. I personally
| don't feel comfortable taking photos of strangers except if they
| are very far away in the shot. The author mentions the
| "possibility of sometimes making someone slightly uncomfortable"
| but from personal experience that's not the worst case scenario.
|
| And of course there are exceptions like emergencies where you
| should take photos.
|
| "But for an action to transcend individual discomfort and enter
| the netherworld of immorality there has to be both a strong
| societal consensus as well as palpable, real-world harm resulting
| from it." I can't really agree... does something need to have
| "strong societal consensus" of immorality to be immoral? Does a
| wheelchair-inaccessible public building need a disabled person
| sitting at the entrance to be immoral?
| throwawaygh wrote:
| Pointing your camera in the wrong direction at the wrong moment
| can also get you killed. I've heard stories like
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29331480 but which ended
| in tragedy.
| pessimizer wrote:
| I acknowledge that within a country, state, city, or on private
| property, I have no expectation for privacy from being recorded
| other than a few customary exceptions based on taboos against
| nudity, such as in the restroom or dressing rooms.
|
| I understand a necessity for sometimes being taped for security
| purposes when I am _near_ a country, state, city, or private
| property, and although I haven 't consented, I accept that it's
| within the material interests of their management to monitor
| potential dangers _nearby_. I, however, expect that these
| materials will be used only for those purposes, and destroyed
| after they are not useful for those purposes. I expect this
| because I haven 't consented to any use at all, but accept
| conditionally that socially, we think that this a legitimate
| usage.
|
| I extend this to personal space: if someone wants to wear cameras
| to tape around their own bodies _for security purposes_ i.e. to
| mitigate against the potential of someone committing a crime
| against their person, I accept that, but only for those reasons,
| and I expect no other use of the images, and for them to be
| destroyed after they have served that purpose. A person 's eyes
| operate in a similar fashion, and I certainly cannot demand that
| people not look at me.
|
| I also cannot demand that people not think about me, so I ask no
| control about the stories people tell about what they have seen
| (unless previously agreed), as those stories have been
| interpreted by a mind, are a significant transformation, and are
| really the essence of an individual and the most basic natural
| right if there is any such thing.
|
| If I don't verbally object, I accept that a photograph taken of
| me that I am clearly aware of (if I see the camera in operation)
| can be assumed to have been consented to.
|
| Outside of this, stay away from me. It's insane that
| photographers, people who completely make a living off of
| copyright because what they've done often takes very little
| creativity and can be reproduced trivially, are so cavalier about
| what other people can say no to.
|
| The article shows this same attitude clearly. It starts with a
| covert argument, made covert because it is obviously not good,
| but not left out because it functions as an attack on people who
| question displaying and selling creepshots that you've taken of
| women in the subway. It then moves to what it thinks are two
| clear arguments (although the second is essentially just a
| restatement of the covert argument, but with a philosophical
| _tone_ meant to make it sound more serious.) It then gish-gallops
| around, repeating itself with different rephrasings, and making
| declarations sound like observations.
|
| -----
|
| Covert Argument Zero: People who complain about a photograph
| taken without consent, in the author's experience, are not the
| ones in the photograph, but other people.
|
| Answer: This is a barely tarted up version of the universal
| "troublemakers and agitators" argument. I'd note that, in
| general, more people see a photo than are in that photo, so the
| vast majority of people questioning its ethics would be expected
| to be among the people who see the photo. The article itself
| cites a lawsuit from the subject of a photo, but only to say "the
| courts think I should be able to do this too, although I'm still
| going to make an ethical argument and not hide behind the law,
| but the law supports me, or people doing things even worse than
| me."
|
| -----
|
| One: If you ask for consent, the picture won't be candid, and I
| prefer a candid picture. Also, the subject may ask for some
| editorial control over their image, and I don't want to give it
| to them because they may not like a photo that I like.
|
| Answer: There is no part of ethical decision-making that requires
| preserving your business model.
|
| -----
|
| Two: a) What you like or don't like doesn't define what is right
| and wrong. In fact, "society" has agreed that I am right and you
| are wrong by not unanimously determining that I am wrong. Also,
| b) people cannot be harmed by photography which is anonymous[?],
| and in a public space[?].
|
| Answer: This starts with an immediate hypocrisy in a). After
| declaring that consent wasn't necessary because with consent, you
| can't get the photo you want and you don't get the editorial
| control you demand, the author continues with an argument that
| personal preferences don't define what is right or wrong. She
| then declares that all is allowed unless it is universally
| condemned, notes that the type of photography she wants to do is
| not universally condemned, and makes an arbitrary declaration
| about an example behavior being universally condemned. Even
| worse, the author does it tautologically: "inappropriate
| touching" has been "universally determined to be flat-out wrong."
| No shit. "Inappropriate photography" is the same. When you put
| the adjective "inappropriate" in front of something, you're
| limiting your discussion to what is "not appropriate." _This is a
| discussion about what is not appropriate_. If your answer is
| "things that are inappropriate," you're not being responsive.
|
| And b): is a simple declaration that photography cannot be
| harmful in the "anonymity of a public space." None of this
| discussion has been about people who are anonymous, all of it has
| been about people who are identifiable and who have not given
| consent. I'm going to guess that the "anonymity of a public
| space" being referred to here is the fact that since the
| photographer hasn't asked for consent, the subject is anonymous
| to the photographer. This is unbelievably solipsistic. It's just
| impossible for the author to escape the perspective of someone
| who is making a living from this, and the confidence that the
| subject is only important from the photographers' point of view
| (and always really desires this relationship although
| troublemakers are trying to get in the way.) No matter how
| anonymous I am to you, I guarantee that there exist other people
| that recognize me, whether or not I'm sharing a public space with
| you.
|
| -----
|
| The remainder are statements posing as arguments:
|
| Q1: You are being photographed by other people outside.
|
| A1: That does not mean that I consent to be photographed by you.
| I have a different relationship to each of the entities
| photographing me which imply various levels of consent. Just
| because I have sex with everyone else does not mean I'm obligated
| to have sex with you.
|
| Q2: When you enter a public space, a lot of expectations for your
| privacy must be overridden.
|
| A2: Why should you in particular be one of the people allowed to
| override them? Other people have administration and security
| considerations that may override my personal preferences. You
| have nothing but the desire to photograph me.
|
| Q3: The difference between a surveillance camera and a
| photographer is intention.
|
| A3: This intentionally narrows the world to "surveillance camera"
| and artistic photography, in order to use an algorithmic defense.
| Algorithms are by nature fine, because they _don 't intend
| anything._ Obvious bullshit. Algorithms have the intention of the
| people who set them up. The intention of a security camera is
| _security_. Without that intention, it fails to be a security
| camera, and reverts to being a camera.
|
| Q4: If the intention of the photographer is to ridicule or expose
| the individual, this "veers dangerously close" to being
| unethical. If the intention of the photographer is to masturbate,
| or to help others masturbate, it's obviously unethical.
|
| A4: These are more personal declarations of universal
| condemnation disguised as deep ethical truths. If anything, the
| law has made _more_ exceptions for photography meant to ridicule
| or expose individuals than photography that does not, because it
| becomes journalistic.
|
| Q5: To conflate what she does to photography that ridicules,
| exposes, or arouses sexually is reckless and creates fear. This
| fear may result in people not wanting to be photographed, and
| makes them think that a photographer should be bound by their
| personal preferences.
|
| A5: Tell me more about your problems, and why I'm a bad person
| for causing them.
|
| Q6: is a random list of statements about how, actually,
| everything is alright and good. 1) There's war, but everybody can
| win, 2) there is no human sacrifice, 3) We are already protected
| from photographers doing what they want to do with an image [are
| we?], 4) specialized spying equipment like drones are illegal
| [why?], 5) A photographer can be tried for libel if there is a
| will to misrepresent [why?], 6) you can't use an image for
| commercial purposes without a consent form [is exhibiting,
| posting on twitter, or selling an image commercial, or do you
| just mean ads and porn?], 7) You can't use an image for an an ad
| [ah, you left out porn.]
|
| Q7: "The law does its due diligence in safeguarding the subject"
|
| A7: This is not an argument, this is a conclusion. It was a
| conclusion obvious from every sentence from the first on.
| tobr wrote:
| Speaking of consent, can someone post a version that doesn't
| include a blocking cookie modal that offers no other option than
| to accept all cookies?
| coldpie wrote:
| Sure:
|
| https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/
|
| https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/blob/master/filters/...
|
| https://noscript.net/
| Tomte wrote:
| The legal situation is similar in Germany, but I wouldn't do
| street photography here, either.
|
| The article discusses morality and ethics versus personal
| preference, but that's just high-brow talk.
|
| The point is that today, once someone photographs you, you cannot
| possibly know where he will post or publish your photo. And yes,
| that's creepy.
|
| Decades ago photographers maybe showed your picture at a gallery
| or exhibition. Today everything goes to Instagram, and someone
| will probably ridicule me for some small thing (a stain on my
| shirt?), and maybe thousands will pile on, and maybe everyone in
| my social circle will see it? Embarrassing.
| mc32 wrote:
| In the US it's pretty well established that art is exempt from
| privacy laws. It gets muddy[1]when you try to use it
| commercially: so you can sell a photograph as art, but you
| can't use it without consent or permission if the art is for
| commercial purposes (to advertise, for example).
|
| A well known case is a Hasidic Jew suing photographer DiCorcia.
| New York State sided with the photographer:
| http://www.artistrights.info/nussenzweig-v-dicorcia
|
| [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?
| Valgrim wrote:
| Then you have to describe a legal definition of art, which is
| something artists spend their entire life trying to destroy.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)
| kolanos wrote:
| In the U.S., you can use a photo you have taken for
| commercial purposes without requiring the consent of the
| subjects in the photo as long as: 1) the subject didn't hire
| you to take the photo (thus making it their property), 2)
| there is no reasonable expectation of privacy (photo taken in
| a public place). [0]
|
| Any "muddy" aspects are purely a civil matter, and even then,
| public photography is a constitutionally protected activity
| under the first amendment.
|
| [0]: https://www.pixobo.com/photography-laws-can-a-
| photographer-u...
| mc32 wrote:
| Yes, however, I believe you cannot take a public photograph
| and use it as a basis for a commercial advertisement: to
| sell nappies, or cars, etc...
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Photographers have always had this obnoxious nature to them in
| many circumstances. Similar to journalists in many ways.
|
| I think the US approach ultimately makes the most sense.
| There's a societal benefit to being able to capture images and
| stories.
| [deleted]
| Vox_Leone wrote:
| She says: _`"Consent" seems like an easy concept, but it's really
| not, at least not on the street.`_
|
| Well, it`s funny how things get fuzzy when one`s direct interest
| is involved. The Weinsteins of the world keep saying that phrase.
| andrewfromx wrote:
| some trivia from
| https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0322802/trivia?item=tr0618399
| "Another reason for filming extensively in Japan is that laws
| requiring non-consenting participants to have their faces blurred
| out do not apply in Japan"
| SMAAART wrote:
| Here's a ripple question for the lawyers.
|
| While it's perfectly legal to take a photo of me in public, I own
| the "copyright" to my own image, can someone make money off it?
|
| And if not my image what if I am wearing clothing that are my own
| creation, my mugshot might be fair game, but is the copyright of
| my clothing "Fair use"?
| neom wrote:
| Tangential, but my fav case/story/art related to this.
|
| Article about the case :
|
| "Voyeuristic Photographer Arne Svenson Wins New York Appellate
| Court Case- Should New York revise its privacy laws?"
|
| https://news.artnet.com/market/arne-svenson-neighbors-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...
| rocqua wrote:
| As I understand the law "commercial use" as requiring a release
| form does not include 'advertising yourself as an artist, or
| selling your photos as art'.
|
| This is different from offering your pictures as stock
| photography, as PR materials, or in advertising of anything
| other than yourself.
| neom wrote:
| I think you're right, I only posted the links because I
| happened to find that art/artist/story particularly
| interesting/good.
|
| From another post on the same blog:
|
| "Publishing an image. Not only is it legal to photograph
| anyone from a public space, it is also legal to display,
| publish and sell the images in any context except commercial
| (meaning advertising). This could get a bit confusing to a
| non-photographer, as it did for Erno Nussenzweig, an
| unwitting subject of a Philip-Lorca diCorcia Heads project.
| Discovering that a photo of himself sold for thousands of
| dollars in a fine art gallery, Nussenzweig sued diCorcia in
| 1999, claiming that this published photograph violated his
| religion. He famously lost. Had the photographer sold the
| image to Coca-Cola to use in an ad, however, the verdict
| would have been entirely different.
|
| A slight, and fair, caveat to the rule is that you can't
| wildly and willfully misrepresent the subjects. If you
| photograph a bunch of teenagers hanging out in Washington
| Square and publish the image with an unfounded and damaging
| caption like "teenage junkies," you could be held accountable
| for defamation."
| Bokanovsky wrote:
| As a hobbyist photographer I once went on a street photography
| course in London. They did cover the ethics and morals of street
| photography, along with various techniques about what to do if
| challenged.
|
| UK law is a bit different than US law. From my understanding the
| US law allows any photography in a public space. While UK law
| does not allow street photography on private property (although
| if you're on public property photographing into private property
| that's OK), plus any photos of places where they'd expect a
| degree of privacy. So you can't stick your camera over walls etc.
|
| I also checked the laws around photography in the UK and there
| are general rules around nuisance photography (that wouldn't
| cover conventional street photography). Additionally I looked at
| rules around photographing children in the UK, and generally it's
| not permitted to take photos of other people's children without
| their parent's / guardians permission.
|
| The photo on the subway in the article wouldn't _technically_ be
| allowed in the UK, as the tube in London is private property
| (although everyone takes photos there) and photographing other
| people's children without permission isn't really allowed.
|
| At the other end of the spectrum, I've also been to events on
| private property in the UK like Comic Cons. They have a very
| comprehensive photo policy for both the photographers and the
| attendees. While photographing at these events I often switch to
| a kind of "pantomime" mode, where it's very clear that I'm taking
| a photo and the subject has clearly agreed to be photographed.
| Other times I point my camera lens downwards when checking the
| shots and show them to the subject or have the lens cap on. At
| these events I've spoken to cosplayers who have thanked me for
| working like this, as they have had trouble with photographers
| behaving inappropriately.
|
| I've only been challenged twice while doing street photography.
| Once while on the street photography course where I was taking a
| photo of a sandwich shop and a guy walked out while I was taking
| the photo. He politely challenged me and explained he was
| uncomfortable with me taking his photo. I showed him the photo
| and explained he wasn't in the shot. The second time I was
| challenged more aggressively, I was taking a photo of a long
| street with trams on near a tram station. Someone came up to me
| almost shouting asking if I took their photo. I explained I was
| taking a photo of the tram lines, and showed them a few shots.
| They seemed happier after that and left me to it. In truth when I
| got home and looked at my photos they were in the shot, but they
| were just one of many faces in the crowd. This shot was all about
| the lines of the tram station and how busy it was.
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| How is the topic of "well people are okay with this totally
| separate usage" such an issue? Obviously how an image is used
| matters. If you take a photo with a camera that automatically
| deletes it immediately, nobody cares. It's not the act of taking
| a photo that people care about, it's what you do with the picture
| afterwards.
|
| That's why consent is great. One person might think the photo of
| them in a bathing suit that you want to put on your instagram is
| creepy and another might be fine. Letting the subject decide is a
| great way to avoid the issue.
| chmod600 wrote:
| How do you get consent for a photo of a crowd?
| dheera wrote:
| Exactly, you generally don't. People tend not to care if
| they're in some picture with a hundred other random people.
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| I'm trying to arguing that a one size fits all approach
| doesn't work, because end use matters. So this question is
| more specific than I think is productive.
|
| But to answer it anyways, I'd say that for security tape you
| don't need it, but if you want to put it on the front page of
| your website, maybe you blur the identifying features of the
| people whose consent you haven't gotten and get consent of
| everyone else? Or just keep it low res enough that it's
| blurred by default. Or just don't use it that way. The point
| is that there are options, and they aren't one-size-fits-all.
| dan_mctree wrote:
| > If you take a photo with a camera that automatically deletes
| it immediately, nobody cares. It's not the act of taking a
| photo that people care about,
|
| If people are jumping in front of me paparazzi-style, pushing,
| gaping, pointing, flashing their cameras, I'd be bothered
| whether the camera deletes the image or not. I wouldn't even
| know whether it does. For me the act of photo taking, the
| unexpected attention in a public space is a bigger deal than
| the picture. Luckily, I'm not interesting enough
| bastardoperator wrote:
| Streets/Subways are public, you have no expectation of privacy in
| public. Consent is implied. If you go into publicly accessible
| areas you will be on camera.
|
| However, a professional photographer despite knowing this would
| have asked for additional consent given the nature and subjects
| of the photo and their intentions on how the photo will be used.
| detcader wrote:
| No one is confused about what the current norm is. The author
| and other commenters are curious about the arguments for the
| implications and improvement or replacement of it.
| bastardoperator wrote:
| This has been widely debated for years, photography is nearly
| 200 years old. Where we have landed is the probably the best
| place. 1. You have no privacy in public.
| 2. Individuals have a right to use a camera in public spaces
| recording whatever their eyes can see.
|
| Changing the above would require a modification to the 1st
| Amendment in the US which makes any argument almost
| completely moot.
| ivanstojic wrote:
| I always found this issue to be confusing. There are literally
| hundreds of cameras tracking me every day: in the parking lot, in
| front of the ATM, when I buy my groceries... I have no ability to
| know when I'm being recorded or what happens to those recordings.
|
| Yet some people are upset if they get photographed by a human
| photographer in a public space.
|
| Is the only difference that the photo was taken with intent?
| abeppu wrote:
| I don't think the issue is solely intent at the time the photo
| is taken. If I put up a CCTV camera in my brick and mortar
| business with the intent of having security footage in the
| event of a crime, but I subsequently review the footage, take
| some stills I think are funny, and put them on social media to
| build and entertain an audience, then I have pulled a kind of
| bait-and-switch. If people in or near my business reasonably
| assumed that the footage would be used specifically for
| security purposes, and are OK with being filmed for such a
| purpose, they may justifiably feel deceived.
|
| 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."
| watwut wrote:
| People who objects to being photographed in public object to
| those photos being put on internet or journals.
|
| Generally, the security camera pictures won't be published.
| Where they are published, they are still so boring that no one
| looks at them.
| arprocter wrote:
| Seems to me the objections come from assuming bad intent of the
| photographer
|
| 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...
| monocasa wrote:
| As an aside, the times square kiss is kind of messed up. They
| didn't know each other, and the woman didn't want the kiss.
| It's kind of weird that such an iconic image of celebration
| here is an image of sexual assault.
| arprocter wrote:
| Yikes. It was just the first 'candid historic photo' that I
| thought of
| b3morales wrote:
| > 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
|
| 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.
| arprocter wrote:
| Like most things it's a double-edged sword - would the
| protests last year have happened without publicly shot
| video of the Floyd incident?
|
| Impossible to say yes or no, but it definitely seemed
| pivotal
| b3morales wrote:
| Sure, but those videos were taken deliberately for
| purpose A: to establish a public record of something
| related to official actions/accountability. I don't think
| they can be put under "random videographer".
| karaterobot wrote:
| Is it so unbelievable? You listed hidden cameras. When you
| don't see a camera, and don't know you're being recorded, you
| don't object to it as strenuously as when a stranger points a
| camera at you. Even if you remember reading somewhere that
| cameras are in the store, you can easily forget that because
| you don't see them. Instead, imagine if grocery stores had
| employees follow customers around recording with cameras while
| they were in the store, and on the way back to their cars:
| would you expect more complaints, or the same amount?
| b3morales wrote:
| It's a very good point. This whole debate is semi-consciously
| influenced by an semi-conscious quirk of our human brains:
| watching for apparent agency in the world and ascribing more
| weight to things that seem to have it.
| criddell wrote:
| Is _intent_ just another way of distinguishing between active
| and passive recording?
| Tomte wrote:
| CCTV footage doesn't go viral, and my social circle won't see
| it.
|
| I find it hard to understand that people in this thread see no
| problem there.
|
| You can still believe that photographers should have every
| right to take photos (and legally they do, so there's nothing
| to discuss about the status quo), but you need to address this
| point, even if only by summarily dismissing it.
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| > CCTV footage doesn't go viral, and my social circle won't
| see it.
|
| It's available to LEO - and they come with a history of
| leveraging surveillance in ways that profoundly damage lives.
| rocqua wrote:
| What situations of a photo going viral do you consider bad
| enough to consider blanket banning? Are those nit already
| illegal as libel or whatever it is that makes upskirt photos
| illegal?
| Tomte wrote:
| I haven't said a single word about making anything illegal.
| I simply point out that people have every right to feel
| uncomfortable with being photographed by strangers. And all
| "I don't mind" won't change that many people do mind.
| shikoba wrote:
| >and legally they do
|
| It depends of the country.
| kolanos wrote:
| > CCTV footage doesn't go viral, and my social circle won't
| see it.
|
| 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.
| watwut wrote:
| Being willing to accept risk that if crime happens at the
| same place, the CCTV might go viral still can dislike idea
| of photographer making I intentional photo of him and make
| it viral. Those are very different situations.
|
| Your second point does not address comment you respond to.
| petepete wrote:
| > CCTV footage doesn't go viral
|
| Unless you trip over, get mugged or your pants fall down.
| underwater wrote:
| That feels like it's just looping around to the same
| problem. If you use an image or video of a other person for
| ridicule or profit, and it is likely to bring them unwanted
| attention, that is exploitation of that person. In my
| opinion it's ethically wrong.
| bambax wrote:
| I am strongly in favor of the right to photograph anything and
| anybody in public places, but from a moral/ethical/legal point
| of view, "intent" is indeed everything.
|
| 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.
| sam0x17 wrote:
| > 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.
|
| 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.
| b3morales wrote:
| > storing a database of millions ... any possible malintent
| a human photographer could have
|
| 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.
| jerry1979 wrote:
| Part of the issue is that modern cameras are very high
| definition. For example, they can capture your skin in detail
| which is unnerving.
|
| 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.
| mannykannot wrote:
| One should not assume that those who are not keen on being
| photographed in public are unconcerned by the high level if
| institutional snooping, or that they have always felt this way.
| What has changed is the environment.
|
| 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.
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| _People who don 't want their image taken by a stranger often
| confuse strong personal preferences with ethics. But for an
| action to transcend individual discomfort and enter the
| netherworld of immorality there has to be both a strong societal
| consensus as well as palpable, real-world harm resulting from
| it._
|
| Working from the real-world harm angle I find non-consensual,
| bulk surveillance to be an active threat to individuals and
| society. One primary reason is it's increasing purpose as a tool
| for those in power to exert control over those who aren't.
|
| Conversely the potential harms from candid photography are far
| less concerning. There have been times when a publicized photo is
| subject to bad choices by the public. Even that worst case
| scenario illustrates that individual photographers don't compare
| with the countless, coordinating agencies that impact millions of
| lives.
| codr7 wrote:
| Awareness of the photo being taken ruins it, what I like about
| street photography is that it's alive.
|
| I have plenty more issues with security cameras...
| goldcd wrote:
| This made me think - and I've still not managed to produce a
| coherent viewpoint.
|
| Closest I can come up with is that there's some sort of
| asymmetric 'value' that sometimes appears from nowhere and this
| throws us off a bit.
|
| As people have mentioned, security cameras are filming me all the
| time - and I've no issue with that. My image has no value. It's
| one amongst billions of frames taken, that will be ultimately
| wiped, unseen and uncared about. I don't care about the image as
| I know the owner doesn't - there's a balance.
|
| If one of these frames was taken by a photographer deliberately -
| then suddenly I care more. Why did he take it? What was I doing?
| Where will it be shown? To whom will it be shown? What will they
| think of me, based upon it etc etc.
|
| By taking that image, they've assigned value to it - but where's
| the value been taken from?
|
| Maybe it's like the wind and there's 'value' going to waste all
| around us and the photo is just like putting up a turbine or a
| sail to capture it?
|
| Maybe it's like somebody mining for diamonds under my house -
| they've found some value in something I didn't know I had, but I
| now want my share.
|
| Maybe it's the concept of part of your soul being captured in the
| photo. That photo can be shown and might provoke a response to
| me, but I no longer have any control over it.
|
| Maybe it's the flip side of social media, where you can choose
| the thoughts and images you wish to push to the world as your
| representation - except you didn't choose it and you don't have a
| reply or delete button next to it.
| FalconSensei wrote:
| Thinking about the security-cameras vs photographer thing:
|
| - 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.
| lovelyviking wrote:
| Are we talking about rights or your convenience? Does a
| person has a right to freely express himself in any art form
| including photography?
| robbedpeter wrote:
| The problem with surveillance is that law enforcement is not
| acting in your interests as an individual. Your image, captured
| on camera near a crime scene, becomes evidence of your guilt.
| It puts the onus on you to prove your innocence, and if law
| enforcement is lazy, fallible, stupid, or you just get unlucky,
| you're going to prison for a crime you didn't commit. Or you're
| going to get tangled up in a legal defense that could cost you
| years worth of paychecks to prove your innocence.
|
| "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. )
|
| https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE
|
| 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.
| whiddershins wrote:
| Value can be created without it being "taken" from anywhere.
| kazinator wrote:
| Right; with the notable exception of value provided by
| governments, which largely comes out of the pockets of the
| working class.
| kube-system wrote:
| "Money coming out of pockets" isn't evidence that value is
| "taken" from anywhere. The more cooperative exchanges of
| value we have, the more valuable and prosperous our
| economies are.
| em-bee wrote:
| i do take issue with security cameras filming me. it bothers
| me, because yes, maybe the images get wiped unseen, but maybe
| not. how secure are those cameras? who gets access to the feed?
|
| on the other hand, if a photographer takes a photo of me, i
| don't care as long as the photo doesn't get published.
|
| i take photos myself, and in general my attitude is that
| publishing one of my photos requires the permission of all
| subjects in it. when i put photos on my own website then i
| explicitly add a license that allows a subject in the photo to
| use it for their own purposes as they see fit.
|
| so as a photographer i explicitly give control back to the
| subjects in the photo, because that is how i believe this
| should be handled.
| detcader wrote:
| "Racy Photos Were Often Shared at N.S.A., Snowden Says" - New
| York Times (July 20, 2014)
|
| 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)
| stevesearer wrote:
| When entering stores with security cameras, I wonder how many
| use facial recognition tools and then how that information is
| being used / aggregated / sold.
|
| It would be good to know whether facial recognition is being
| used before entering a business.
| mdorazio wrote:
| This is probably an unpopular opinion, but I'm in the same boat
| as em-bee - I am not ok with security cameras in public[1], or
| with public-facing doorbell cameras, either. My thought is
| basically: if a camera is recording the public, the public
| should have access to the recording. That isn't generally the
| case, so I'm not ok with it.
|
| [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.
| renewiltord wrote:
| The article addresses this. What you are okay with is not the
| sole basis for determining what is ethical. For instance, I
| am not okay with you reading this text. I meant it for
| everyone except mdorazio. I demand you apologize.
| closeparen wrote:
| If you took this to a regulator they would probably laugh
| at you, but from what I can tell this statement is
| _technically_ enforceable under GDPR.
| foxfluff wrote:
| I guess I have similar feelings but it's not so much about
| whether the public can access it. It's about the fact that
| I'm not so comfortable with surveillance in general.
|
| 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.
| dheera wrote:
| I disagree with this.
|
| 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.
| heliodor wrote:
| If you're going to make a high level argument, you should
| base it on something higher than two particular laws that
| have been passed by the government.
| boardwaalk wrote:
| We're living in the present, not some cybernetic future. To
| say all this when it's not relevant to the present is a
| little silly in my view.
|
| 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.
| dheera wrote:
| > We're living in the present, not some cybernetic
| future.
|
| 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.
| snarf21 wrote:
| It is a difficult subject. A store security camera that cycles
| every weeks is no big deal. But what if there are cameras on
| every street corner run by the government and saved for 5
| years? What about Ring footage of your neighborhood/building
| being saved for 5 years? The tough question is how do we
| separate what the data _could_ be used for and what it is
| likely to be used for. And if we aren 't vigilant now, could we
| just wake up one day and it is too late?
| shadowgovt wrote:
| > Maybe it's like somebody mining for diamonds under my house -
| they've found some value in something I didn't know I had, but
| I now want my share.
|
| And this is one of the harder parts of assigning value to
| something like this... What _is_ a person 's share when someone
| exploits a resource that the first party had some kind of
| nominal claim to (i.e. "my land," even though really you live
| above that 3D region of space, not within it) but zero ability
| / opportunity / inclination to exploit?
|
| There's volumes and volumes of legal precedent on this topic
| for tangibles, let alone the increasingly-intangibles that we
| can monetize online.
| xmprt wrote:
| My worry about it is how street photographers are able to
| convey meaning through context, captions, etc. I don't mind
| someone taking a photo of me if they get permission afterwards
| to post it and I'm able to ask them to take it down. However, I
| don't like losing control over my image.
| randombits0 wrote:
| But it's not yours. You don't own your "image", just like you
| don't own your DNA.
|
| 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.
| DanBC wrote:
| > But if you do not, i.e. you are in public,
|
| 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
| mcguire wrote:
| " _The House of Lords held MGN liable by majority vote,
| with lords Nicholls and Hoffmann dissenting. Baroness
| Hale, Lord Hope and Lord Carswell held that the picture
| added something of 'real significance'. The court engaged
| in a balancing test, firstly determining whether the
| applicant had a reasonable expectation of privacy (thus
| determining whether Art.8 ECHR was involved). It then
| considered whether, if the claimant was successful, this
| would result in a significant inference with freedom of
| expression (balancing Art. 8 with Art. 10). It was held
| that Campbell's right to privacy (ECHR, Sch 1, Part I,
| Art 8) outweighed MGN's right to freedom of expression
| (ECHR Art 10)._"
|
| So there is a specific legal cutout for those cases.
|
| The legal system is not usually made up of complete
| idiots.
| lovelyviking wrote:
| >I don't mind someone taking a photo of me if they get
| permission afterwards to post it and I'm able to ask them to
| take it down. However, I don't like losing control over my
| image.
|
| 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?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-11-24 23:00 UTC)