- This topic is empty.
Privacy rights and street photography
-
There’s a thread about privacy relating to a new Google site but it lead me to question the privacy of people in the general public who appear in street photos. Where does the photographer lie in the eye of the law with taking photographs of unsuspecting bystanders? There have been some striking images on this forum of candid and sometimes personally emotional photographs of subjects. Are we safe to be doing this? Do we need permission from the unsuspecting subject, if this isn’t an oxymoron?
Alan.
This is a very good question. I was in New York a while back and was snapping pictures of the fabulous skyline during a bright October day when a member of the public took exception to being in my photos.
From roughly one hundred yards away he started repeatedly yelling “I know you ain’t taking my photo” at me. He was obviously not delighted at the thought of his beauty being captured digitally for all time, or until my Hard Drive crashes.
Luckily, I am 6′ 4″ and over 16 stone so he didn’t make much out of it.
Just thought I would share this with you as there are people out there who do not like being photographed.
Also Alan.
I think it’s becoming more of a concern in recent times. To explain – there is a “Hurling on the Quay” event in Wexford tomorrow (Saturday) for children. If I was to go down and take photographs of young children it would be a matter of minutes before some parent or member of the Guardi approach me. All the explanations or PI straps in the world wouldn’t explain my reasoning. Prior permission would also be difficult without being an already established or well known photographer…end even then.
We’re in a peculiar time.
Alan eile.
There’s no way I think I could do street stuff by myself. I know that either me, the camera or both would end up in the river.
I think by and large most people are pretty much oblivious to photographers and if they do notice you most just ignore you anyway. The odd crank will take exception as above..and I think in a case like that just walk away and don’t antagonise them. I think legally there’s little they can do..if they are in a public place where they may reasonably expect to be photographed. Of course that doesn’t stop them attacking you or hurling abuse..so discretion being the better part of valour it would be wiser to cease and desist.
In this day and age children ..whether we like it or not ..come under a different social ruling and you need to be very careful if attempting to photograph them..legally entitled or not. Even in events where my own children are taking part I find you have to be careful these days as other parents will tend to be highly suspicious.
Sad but unfortunately true methinks.
Depends on jurisdiction, I suppose – in NY the photographer is covered under the law — the “unsuspecting” or “unaware” subject cannot sue. More info at
http://www.nyc24.org/2006/issue3/story02/index.html
I lived in NY for 10 years and did loads of street photography. Usually at night. In dodgy neighborhoods. And I rarely had a problem, and I mean rarely. I take a hippy dippy approach — don’t be “stealing” photos with a super long lens and run off — share what you are doing with body language, respect the people you shoot, and carry on!
Don’t overthink it. I’d never take a photo in that case.
Cath.
If you’re on the street,
you’re fair game-However, that includes the photographer,
and stories abound of photographers having their kit bounced over their head
by those who object to being confronted with a camera.People on private property have a right to privacy.
Regarding children,
its an unsafe area,
and perhaps all the innocent pictures have been taken already-
at least in the western world.A recent post of mine had minors as a subject-
the 54A one- https://photographyireland.net/viewtopic.php?t=7394Technically, or legally even, I suppose I should have had consent from their parents or guardians,
but the scene was harmless and innocent,
and they themselves agreed to the picture.I wouldn’t have even thought of taking a picture at all,
but the scene presented to me was unusual enough to merit taking a picture.Even if you do photograph someone on the street,
there are limitations as to the use of the picture-
If the picure is to be used to actively promote something,
then anyone who is recognisable in it should have signed a model release form.Or they can sue you and the publisher for a lot of damages,
as it could be interpreted that they are endorsing whatever the picture is selling.But that would be a pretty unusual scenario,
and a long way down the line from actually taking the picture in the first place-jb7 wrote:
and stories abound of photographers having their kit bounced over their head
by those who object to being confronted with a camera.N’ah, sorry, i don’t believe this… Yeah, maybe if you are paparazzi, chased by Hugh Grant and his baked beans… or a creep upskirting… but street photographers?
jb7 wrote:
Technically, or legally even, I suppose I should have had consent from their parents or guardians
Nope, technically or legally permission not needed [exception, stock use]. It is a superb picture. If you hadn’t taken it wouldn’t you be kicking yourself later about the picture that might have been?
I think the greatest risk is to censor yourself and limit your vision by worrying about what might happen, what other people might think, etc.
I know a guy in NYC been taking photos on the subway for years — that’s all he shoots —
http://www.travisruse.com/ How many problems over the thousands of photos? None. In his FAQs he says“It is always a scary moment when I raise my camera to take a stranger’s photograph. I seldom ask for permission. A friend once said, ?To seek permission is to seek denial.? If I stopped to talk to the subject before I made the photo, the moment that I was drawn to would be gone. My policy is that if I take someone?s photo and they express their displeasure then I will not post the image. That has never happened. I also feel that since the intent of this project is to celebrate the subway commuter no one would be offended by the images. I?m trying to tell a story, our story. What it?s like to live in NYC in 2006 and commute on the subway. I also carry business cards with the website address to hand out. I’ve gotten some great feedback that way.”
I kinda was referring to extreme examples,
but some folk just don’t like having their picture taken-And maybe I did take too much licence with figurative speech-
Thanks for the comment on the bus picture though,
glad you like it-j
A subject that’s come up so many times… and no doubt will come up again.
As mentioned already, if the subject is in public, they’re basically fair game. But regardless of the legality, I think photographers have to exercise a certain amount of common sense and ethics.
http://www.digitalrights.ie/2006/05/09/photographers-rights/
I tnink the whole privacy subject can be expertly answered this evening on C4. Photographs showing Princess Diana caught up in that fatal car crash are being shown. Not even the Royal family could stop their publication in their own country being shown by a British broadcaster.
Alan.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
