While taking one of the above a car pulls up along side, watches for a bit then he comes over for a ‘chat’
It seems I’ve aroused the suspicions of the Local Neighborhood Watch.
‘Whatcha doin there?’
I’m just taking photos of some old buildings.
Oh no, you cant be doing that.
Okaaay…
This is private property, you’re trespassing.
Actually no this is a public space, I’m photographing that building from the pavement.
No no no thats not right. I’m phoning the Guards (local constabulary) you can explain it to them.
You go right ahead.
Gets no answer. At this time of night Sergeant’s probably in his slippers getting ready for bed…
So he calls the owner of the building instead.
Sure enough a few minutes later the owner arrives in his pickup.
I explain what I’ve been doing and show him the photos on the back of the camera. I even offer to delete them.
But he’s totally cool if a little bemused.
‘Sure why would you be taking pictures of that, thats not interesting’.
Personal project, I like old derelict or vacant buildings, sheds and such.
‘Theres a castle at the other end of town’
Hhmmm…
He shrugs, says goodnight and away.
Meanwhile the Night Watch has been at it with his phone taking photos of me and the car reg.
Guess I can expect a call from da bizzies.
So there you have it, taking photos gets me accused of suspicious behavior. I tell ya, when I was growing up in 80s Belfast suspicious behavior had a whole other meaning.
I dont think the experience will have too much of an impact on what I choose to take pictures of. Annoying certainly, but a bit of a chuckle.
Can you tell which of the above irked him so much?
Is there a rule I’ve missed? Some prohibition on things not to point a camera at, or from?
Thoughts? Similar?
As a fellow junky photographer myself, I think you just earned your stripes, so to speak. Being hastled by people is part of the gig.
Several years ago I was out in the desert in a very cool place full of decreped, sandy things. Nobody around. Awesome. Or so I thought. Making my way back to the car, I was confronted by three large German Shepard’s and they were not happy to see me at all. It was sandy so I couldn’t move very fast and this particular trip I’d decided to bring my gear in a wagon so it wouldn’t be on my back. I got my tripod in one hand so I can try and beat them if I’m attacked, while pulling the wagon with the other hand, walking backward through the sand.
I’d prefer to be acosted by people, if given the choice. Now I carry some pepper spray, for both man and beast.
Similar experience at about 1 am in the morning when I wanted to photograph an Aurora. I drove a couple of kilometres up my road and from the fence line setup my tripod to photograph the aurora with a neighbours barn and haystack in the foreground. Lucky me, the neighbour came home from a night out and sprung this suspicious character with a camera. He was cool about it all.
I am currebtly on holiday in england. I went to an old wwii airbase and it was all fenced off. So i went to the cattage down the road to ask if i could have a go. The chap there was very friendly but didnt owned the place so he phoned up the owner. Two days later we met with the owner and i had a go at it. I was impressed to what trubles theese two chaps went without getting any personal gain from it. So that was a great fun.
I think it depends on the laws of the country in which you’re taking a photo of a person or one of their possessions, which in France is called “droit à l’image”, or would it be “image rights” in English? That is the rights you get related to your own image (or your property image).
I’m not familiar with the terms in Ireland or the UK, and I’ve taken lots of photos of people and private places there without wondering.
There are quite a few countries where it doesn’t seem to be a problem to photograph people or personal property… And others where it’s strictly forbidden (and/or dangerous!).
I haven’t found any precise information on the web about these rights in the UK or in Ireland, and it’s true that it’s not at all the same legal system as in France. Case law prevails in these countries, it seems to me.
In France, on the other hand, taking photos of people or private property has become complicated and paranoid.
Yet the law in France is precise and relatively accessible when it comes to “droit à l’image”: in the public space, you can photograph people and/or their property (garden, house for example), but you’re supposed to ask permission to use the photos, for example for publication in your gallery… And you can’t do just anything with these photos, exposing yourself to legal action if they give a compromising or degrading image of the person(s) or property shown. In short, the image must not harm the person photographed (or the owner of the property).
There are, of course, many special cases, such as photographing children in a public place… And then it becomes such a headache that many photographers no longer dare.
Street photography In France has become a combat sport for some, sometimes.
The funny thing is to be attacked by people you photograph and who are constantly spreading on the so-called social networks…
The “droit à l’image” is opposed to freedom of expression… which is much more framed.
Maybe a “pirate” movement where anonymous people share their photos of places without having the required “permission”.
I remember when this law made headlines due to pictures of the Eiffel Tower at night being “illegal” since the “lights” were actually property of the artist that setup them that way, and so, everyone needed his permission. Something like that iirc
Imo these laws make no sense, and as long as they are within reason, like not photographing children in public spaces, everyone should be free to take and publish photos of whatever they desire.
The law you’re talking about, about this controversy of the lights of the Eiffel Tower, does not address the right to the image (“droit à l’image”), but “droit d’auteur” (author’s right) which is another thing. In France, “droit d’auteur” is significantly different from copyright in force in the US, for instance, even if in many respects it is similar.
The “droit à l’image” is something else since it is not about a work but about the image of the person (or one of its properties of which he is not the author such as his house, his car, his dog or whatever he owns). It’s related to privacy which, I know, is not protected the same way here and there.
I agree with you on the fact that this law on “le droit à l’image” is quite criticable, and in my opinion even children should be allowed to be photographed, otherwise we would not have any of the works of big names in photography representatives, I think immediately of Doisneau, Cartier-Bresson, Sabine Weiss, list to complete… almost infinitely. Or else, just their own children (Gene Smith is in my mind).
And then if we start saying “children, no” why not then “police, no”, “disabled, no”, etc, etc.
I believe that what is good in this law is the aspect “not to have a degrading use for the subject”. It remains to define precisely “degrading use”, and here…
I’ve been following this thread with interest. As most are likely aware by now from my numerous comments on various threads, I like taking photos of people rather than things – I don’t necessarily use the term ‘street photographer’ in the same way I wouldn’t use the term ‘digital artist’ to discribe my humble attempts at design; however, ‘street photography’ would certainly best describe what I try to do.
Anywho, the reason I mention this is because I often get asked if random strangers often object to having their photos taken and if I’ve ever been confronted. My answer is no; not really – in all the time I’ve been doing it and all the different places I’ve been (well, there was this one occasion, but it was entirely my fault and I was completely in the wrong (I was drunk, it was at a party, and I was fooling around with a freind’s point-and-shoot, so I’m not sure that really even counts ).
I find it interesting as, in my experience, most people (particularly non-photographers) seem to imagine I’d encounter such situations far more often (and are often surprised to learn that I don’t – as to why I don’t, there are a few reasons I can think of). I hardly ever take photos of places or buildings, or even landscape in general, as it’s just not my kind of thing; however, I have actually encountered ‘suspicious curiosity’ on a few of the rare occasions when I have. It’s interesting to read, here, the comments of others and the theories shared as to why these situations may sometimes happen.
EDIT: Of course, I live in the UK and my experiences are UK-based only – needless to say, laws and public tolerance to street photography can vary significantly around the world.
IMO the problem is that the person asking you was not prepared for the task he was undertaking.
He has the same rights as any citizen. He can ask questions, which you may answer or ignore. He can call the police if he sees a crime in progress, but there wasn’t.
Since you answered nicely, the best option would have been bidding you a good night. Threatening with the police is a not credible move.
I think you did the right thing. In similar situations, it is best to be polite and friendly, but otherwise be unperturbed and carry on.
I am not a lawyer and don’t know French law, but I guess that would be a matter for civil law. That is, the owner of the right can sue you for damages, but it is not a criminal matter so the police would not get involved.
i mean in the EU you have GDPR, which also covers the personal rights on your picture/likeness.
The rights on a photo always cover both copyright of the photographer and personal rights of the subject. so having the consent of the person taken is important.
Here are the details regarding the applicable law in France. Good luck!
Most of the time, the person being photographed (or one of his/her possessions) will ask you more or less hysterically what you’re doing.
Er, a photo…
It’s happened to me half a dozen times in France (almost never anywhere else), which is very few compared to the photos I’ve taken of strangers, either for a person being photographed, or for example when photographing a… factory (no no, not a nuclear power station, something that makes concrete, I think).
Like everyone else (I hope), I explained my project and, even though they didn’t really understand what, people left me alone.
Note that what you use to take the photo makes a huge difference. You’re not experiencing the same thing at all when you’re shooting with a smartphone or a compact, or even worse with a DSRL.
Abroad, on the rare occasion when someone came up to me because I was photographing him, I did what all foreigners usually do: “Sorry no understand.” (exaggerating my french accent, of course) while looking contrite.
During my last trip to Brittany I spent a couple of evenings taking pictures of kite surfers. Some noticed and started to show off a bit, making their turns closer to me. In the evening we exchanged phone numbers so I could sent them the pictures. None of them asked me to erase the pictures.
I find there are many similar situations where people are happy and even welcome of having their photos taken. The example you gave there is a very good one; demonstrations, festivals, carnivals, conventions, I find are others. I go to an Elvis convention every year and just snap away freely – often times, the ‘problem’ is being stealthy as, if I get noticed, my subject tends to imediately strike a tacky Elvis pose and ruin the shot.
I don’t think I’ll ever get asked any confrontational “What are you doing?” or “Why take my picture?” questions in these such cases (I imagine they already realise the obvious answer); however, when taking a snapshot of someone while they’re waiting for a taxi, looking out of the window on a bus, or stuffing a burger into their mouth (in other words, your typical day-to-day street photography), I’d completely understand and respect their curiousity (confrontational or otherwise) – it’s my job, as a ‘photographer,’ however, to provide them with an honest answer and a full explanationan of my thought process; my subject should walk away feeling fine with me having captured their image and, hopfully, feel rather good about themselves (maybe, even, somewhat flattered) if not, I’d apologise and delete the images – I’m very pleased to say I’ve never had this happen to date, though.
I always take the stance that, by doing what I do, it is ME that is poking my nose (or rather my camera) into someone else’s business, and it is up to ME to ensure I am doing so respectfully and for all the right reasons and to ensure that I eleviate the understandable concerns of others (where required to do so) by honestly and clearly communicating what I’m doing and why.
Documentary photography is very different to typical street photography to me personally and requires a slightly different approach and skill; however, I’ve rambled on enough already and my tea is getting cold.
To return to the situation initially described by @jimd, when someone asks you why you’re photographing this house or building, and after you’ve answered, if the person you’re talking to seems open-minded, it might be interesting to ask why that question…
I did it once and the answer was related to insecurity, “because you know with all these thefts…”.
I don’t know… would a thief come in broad daylight (at night again, I can understand the doubt) to take photos of a facade without hiding? It could be a strategy, possibly.
).
