Street Photography

Frank, It seems you think that everyone who practices street photography should always ask for permission before taking someone's photograph in public, which is ridiculous and for the most part, it is not how street photography works.

I shoot a lot of street and documentary stuff. I rarely ask for permission. Sometimes I do, it just depends on the situation. In all my years, I have only had a few people get upset or actually ask me not to take their picture or they ask if I will delete the photo of them I just shot, which I happily do. My intent while street shooting is very simple- to document everyday scenes as they appear to my eye- sometimes these scenes are fascinating, and then a lot of times, everyday life is just boring as hell. This is what makes street photography so challenging and insightful.
 
Rick Waldroup said:
Frank, It seems you think that everyone who practices street photography should always ask for permission before taking someone's photograph in public, which is ridiculous and for the most part, it is not how street photography works.
Click to expand...
Which is perhaps why there is push back in some quarters. Hence the Terms and Conditions on the StreetPhotography.com website.

Rick Waldroup said:
In all my years, I have only had a few people get upset or actually ask me not to take their picture or they ask if I will delete the photo of them I just shot, which I happily do.
Click to expand...
I appreciate your courtesy. It is a markedly different approach to the one put forward by JHutchins.
 
All of those privacy in public advocating talks are common on any internet thread where word "street" is.


ptpdprinter said:
...
And if the persons in the photographs didn't want to have their photographs taken is beside the point? How is that making their lives a little better?
Click to expand...

How about to be less paranoid about almost everything. How about going out and trying to take it. You'll surprised how many people are pleased with their picture taken.
 
ptpdprinter said:
My argument was not legal in nature. I recognize that in some, perhaps most, jurisdictions I would lose, though there are some in which I would win. It is an example of where law and ethics do not always coincide.

In a sense I do privatize the space as I pass through as I also expect people not to push me aside so that they may occupy the space I am occupying. It is a form of courtesy we mutually extend to one another. Why should not such courtesy extend to not photographing me without my consent?

So it is not arrogant that you think your desire to take my photograph trumps my desire that I not be photographed?
Click to expand...

I'm claiming something a little more than and a little different from that. It's a question of what it means to be in public and who we should allocate the right to use a public space to when alternative uses conflict. I actually don't have the right to push you aside so I can occupy the space you are occupying -- if I do that you have an action against me for battery. I do, on the other hand, have a right to photograph you. You are advocating for a social penalty to redistribute that allocation of rights away from distribution the legal system has accorded it. I don't like that proposed redistribution and I'm giving some examples of why -- some social benefits gained because of the existing distribution that would be lost under your proposed distribution. You're setting those against what you lose -- the ability to be free from the lack of irritation of being photographed on the off chance that you are and asking whether the gains I see are worth that cost to you and my answer is certainly yes because, honestly, your complacency and freedom from that particular irritation seems like a grumpy, petty thing that's not worth protecting. And I'll give you more examples of why I think that.

A non-photographic example. I often sit in public places (mostly bars) and read. I'm often interrupted when doing that and I don't always like it -- in fact I often don't. On the other hand, sometimes I do -- sometimes I'm interrupted by someone I like and am glad to talk to or someone I don't know but find, by the end of the conversation, that I'm glad I got to know them. The interruption is an imposition on me and sometimes it's an imposition that I never benefit from, but sometimes I do. As a result, I wouldn't like to see "never approach someone in a public place and start a conversation unless they give you some sort of permission to do so" be made into a general rule. In part that's because -- even though I sometimes would benefit from it -- I'd also lose from it sometimes -- I'd miss interactions that I've been glad not to miss. And even if I didn't ever lose -- if I always wanted to be left alone -- I still wouldn't like to see that rule take hold because when one spends a lot of time in a solitary way in public places one notices that there are an awful lot of lonely people in the world -- people who want to be noticed and want to be talked to. And I know some of them and know that a long experience of being rebuffed has made some of them timid seem closed off when really, they long for human contact. And the "leave people alone in public" rule would make life harder for them even if it would make life easier for the confirmed public hermts out there. And ultimately I do care more about the problems of the people who want to be social than the people who want to be left alone because, again, that seems crabbed, grumpy, and petty to me.

Turning again to photography to strengthen the analogy that may seem quite strained at this point; a lot of my friends -- probably most of my friends really -- are friends because of pictures I've taken of them. They're people who've seen photos I've taken of them, or talked to me because I was taking photos, and been pleased by how I saw them. You're hypothesizing a world of people who don't want to be photographed and those people are surely out there. But just as surely there are people out there who come across a photo of themselves or someone they know and think "Oh, I love that...thank you so much, whoever took it." When flickr first started including stats information that let you see where views of your photo were coming from I saw that I'd had several hits, in a day, from someone's blog so I went to look at that blog. It was one written by the subject of a photo I'd taken, who was a woman in her early twenties who hadn't realized I'd taken the picture. I read her blog and she was often deeply depressed and not at all happy with herself and her life. But she was thrilled by the photo because she thought she looked beautiful and tough and like the person she wanted to be. Do I think the fact I was able to make her happy is worth some grumbling by the likes of you? Yes I do.

More generally, photographs taken in public places are commentary about what goes on in those public places -- about life. And allowing people to observe and comment on what happens in public in the way that allows them to say what they have to say -- whether that is through photographs, sketches, sculputre, words, or some other medium -- opens up the possibility that people will be able to say things that are important to say and to hear. And I am in favor of rules that make it easier for such things to be said -- for us to live socially -- even at the cost of irritating some fairly grumpy people.
 
JHutchins said:
. . . photographs taken in public places are commentary about what goes on in those public places -- about life. And allowing people to observe and comment on what happens in public in the way that allows them to say what they have to say -- whether that is through photographs, sketches, sculputre, words, or some other medium -- opens up the possibility that people will be able to say things that are important to say and to hear. And I am in favor of rules that make it easier for such things to be said -- for us to live socially -- even at the cost of irritating some fairly grumpy people.
Click to expand...
Yes. It is a part of interaction. As you say, not all interactions are good. I find it hard to accept, though, that the absolute privatization of space might be a greater good than allowing street photography.

Can anyone list the jurisdictions in which all street photography is proscribed? What you can do with the pictures may be controlled to a greater or lesser extent, but in most jurisdictions, the limitations are quite narrowly defined.

Cheers,

R.
 
JHutchins said:
...honestly, your complacency and freedom from that particular irritation seems like a grumpy, petty thing that's not worth protecting.

...And ultimately I do care more about the problems of the people who want to be social than the people who want to be left alone because, again, that seems crabbed, grumpy, and petty to me.

...Do I think the fact I was able to make her happy is worth some grumbling by the likes of you? Yes I do.

...And I am in favor of rules that make it easier for such things to be said -- for us to live socially -- even at the cost of irritating some fairly grumpy people.
Click to expand...

No sense trying to have a reasonable discussion.
 
There's a simple reason in the common law base of English-speaking countries - and that is that there is no rule to prevent you recording what you see. You could make a sketch, write a note or take a photograph. If you are legally entitled to see it, you are legally entitled to permanently record what you see. This is because you are legally entitled to remember it, and to do things to assist your memory.
And the "it" may include other people.
There are situations where you are not entitled to see certain things - you may be ejected from private property for any reason or none - and permanently recording what you are not entitled to see is also not permitted. The circumstances of permission to see may include banning photography - you are permitted to see ONLY if you are not photographing.
Then there is the separate issue of commercial gain from a photograph taken in public.

The idea that "I own my space" is not held by English-language law. I own (so to speak) my person but the space I move through has a range of ownership. If I happen to be in this space when someone takes a picture of the space, that is my luck - good, bad or indifferent.

In the modern world this whole discussion is laughable. If you object to being photographed in public, do you advise every store you walk into and every government agency that they cannot take security footage with your image? Legally what is the difference between the red light camera and a person standing next to it with a Leica?
 
If a person with or without a camera approaches me or my family in a public place, the distance matters. From across the street, I have no objection. But approach too close in an uncrowded, open space without an introduction or what I judge to be a courteous and appropriate expression of goodwill, and I'm prepared to defend my space and that of my family members. You will have my attention. That is not street photography, that is not freedom to go where you want in public space: That is threatening behavior.
There is appropriate and inappropriate use of public space. And there is the concept of personal space within public space that we are entitled to defend.

Similarly, if I see concern or objection, I'll not photograph a subject and I will keep my distance. If I meet someone and they consent, I will take photos and share the results with them if they request a copy. It is a great way to meet people and share experiences and viewpoints. If I am photographing on a street or park and people chose to walk through the area, that is another matter. They see me, they see me photographing.

Respect is the principle to be followed. I'll not compromise that principle in the name of "getting the picture" or some other perceived need.
 
Just getting to the root of the issue, the whole issue of people not wanting to be photographed in public, despite being plainly visible to everybody in public - is just a matter of ego.

There is rarely any reasonable, practical reason, behind such complaints. Some people just don't want to possibly look "ugly" in a photo somebody else is taking (even though they'll never see it), others have paranoid ideas about what the photos are going to be used for, and so on. And yet, there they are in broad daylight. If anybody had nefarious plans that involved following somebody around, it wouldn't really matter if they had a camera on them or not.
 
Personally I'm not so much into street photography, not my cup of tea (and too many privacy problems where I live do not encourage me to g try it deeper) but I always like the way you write both for the content and the form, it s a pleasure to read.
Therefore I'll follow this website and read your articles.
robert
 
We recently had a meeting with a lawyer specialized in what concerns images, privacy and related laws and rights.

In Italy laws didn't change very much in the last 5/6 years but what changed is the way judges and magistrates interpret the laws.

From the last court sentences generally speaking it's allowed to take photos on the street unless minors are present (and parents did not give authorization) and when the person in the photo (if recognizable) says or shows does'n like to be photographed (with a denial gesture).

In this last case last sentences accorded to the photographed the right to ask you to delete the image (of course we all know this is a non sense because we could delete it and later rescue with an appropriate software, but the law is the law!).

But the bad point IMO is that in any case we are not allowed to publish (internet, papers, magazines, exhibitions) photo where people can be identified without their permission (a part specific exceptions). This is also a non sense in my view because it's enough to look at flickr or other sites and imagine how many have or not a model release. Again this is the law. For sure we have a difference between theory and praxis!

The risk is when someone recognize himself in a published photo and suit you. At least it will cost you money for a lawyer !

In this view "interaction" is the key word, you meet an interesting person and start to talk to him or her and only later you start to take photos. And if you are lucky you can have a model release as well.

For me there is no more street photography, eventually there will be "street portraits".

robert
PS: and of course beside the law I would do to someone else something they do not like, I prefer to respect their ideas.
 
Roger Hicks said:
I've just started writing for Johnny Mobasher's streetphotography.com, which I can commend to anyone who is interested in street photography even if you don't want to read my stuff. So far there there are three short pieces up. They deal with getting used to carrying a camera on the street; getting comfortable with shooting people; and choosing kit.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Looks like this thread became a chitstorm.

At a glance, it looks like some interesting reading! I'll take a closer look and follow along for sure.

Following on Instagram already :)
 
I live and work in an area where a substantial portion of the population has a religious objection to being photographed. I'm talking about members of the Old Order Amish Church. They do understand, however, that when I'm working for our local weekly newspaper, there are times when they will appear in photographs. They have no objection to that, but will not, nor do I ask them to, pose for photos. If, however, they are manning a hose at a fire - many serve as volunteer firefighters - they have no objection to photos. Nor are there issues when photographing a high school sport where, by definition, the players are all juveniles.
It's a matter of context and sensitivity. In other words, don't be a jackass.
 
In the "choosing kit" link, Roger writes: "thought waves from the dog". That's very clever. I would not have noticed that unless you mentioned it. Nice write-ups, Roger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top