I’m usually not much of a people-picture-taker, but I had a person in a picture, a while back. Really made the picture, too, IMO, and given how much time passed between the person entering the frame and them being gone (not a lot), there was no real moment to ask for permission (or forgiveness). They were wearing a hat that his their eyes, otherwise I would’ve felt even less comfortable about the whole thing. People from behind / unidentifiable, I’m mostly fine with that (and can’t object to ending up in a picture, myself), but recognizable would be… Yeah.
If folks walks into frame I usually make a point of visibly pointing the camera down until they’re gone.
As for Facebook: the fact that it’s Facebook would add an extra element of nope, for me. That company is just… Bad. Evil. Highly immoral. I want nothing to do with them, even in passing.
I agree. Perhaps most interesting (to me) is that things like consent are secondary issues. If someone advises their loved ones to not post images of themselves to the internet, then, it would seem, there is something about images on the internet which is a potential problem. That would be true regardless of consent.
I think someone might want to make a distinction between images on “social” media and other outlets like personal websites, sales platforms (ie Fine Art America), or photo “club” sites (or even pixls). There are differences, to be sure, but I wonder how extensive those difference are and how long those differences will be meaningful. I honestly have not been able to untangle things in a satisfactory manner.
I’ve only recently got more into urban photography so I never previously gave it much thought. But now it’s something I have to think about a little more, even though I haven’t exactly settled on a set of “rules”.
My general rule of thumb is not to ever take a picture of a stranger that paints them in a negative light or ridicules them. Obviously this includes those suffering from homelessness or mental health problems. If it’s a bit more borderline whether the person would be happy with the picture, I prefer to make sure their face is obscured.
However, there have been times over the last few decades when I’ve come across an incongruous or amusing scene, and taken a photo. I remember when I was a teen and went to the US for the first time. I took a candid photo of a woman walking her dog, which she had dressed up to match her own outfit, including a visor. This is the kind of photo that my father and I enjoyed whenever we were on holiday: one that captured a scene we would never normally see in our own country. It was a souvenir of our trip abroad where we saw lots of “foreign” sights.
Obviously that was in the film days, and the print was only seen by our family, so there was never any real risk of that person going viral and being ridiculed. But I guess these days it’s the kind of photo that I wouldn’t post online without consent.
Maybe it’s because I don’t often display my work, but I personally don’t think consent is needed for everyone in a photo. I think context is important, and as long as I’m not trying to shame/ridicule or profit from someone’s image, I think public places are fair game for photography.
If a person’s portrait is the main element in the picture, that persons in most cases still owns the rights to his own face in some jurisdictions.
A question may be what should be considered a publication of a picture.
If it is only to a closed group of people, like a photo club of a normal size, it may be considered a private display. But any publication to a larger group, is likely to be problematic. And that includes any thing put on display on the internet, unless access is restricted to a similarly limited group.
Germany has quite strict laws in this regard (I think much stricter than in some other parts of the world). As @EspE1 said, if a person is the main subject of the picture, you are in most cases not allowed to publish it without consent (I’m actually not sure if you are even allowed to take the photo in the first place).
So for example a photo of an interesting building with some people randomly standing in front of it is okay, but a close-up on one of these persons is not.
Personally, I think these rules make sense, especially in the age of social media.
As I understand it, this isn’t the case in the U.K. and quite a few other places. Would potentially make news photography difficult. I think if it’s for commercial purposes other than news, then you need a release form.
Sure. But still, as I understand it, at least in the U.K. and other places, public spaces are open season and you can publish what you like as long it’s not for commercial purposes.
Yes, there are different rules in different jurisdictions. As in the US, I believe, if there is no malicious intent or commercial use, anybody is fair game in public places. Don’t know about UK.
My initial statements referred to “in some jurisdictions”, to warn that one cannot go anywhere in the world and think street photographers are permitted to do almost anything in public spaces.
Absolutely, it’s everyone’s responsibility to read up on local laws and abide by them, regardless of whether you agree with them or not.
It’s interesting that some people will get very prickly if they feel they are being photographed by the local street photographer, yet have no problems posting everything about themselves all over social media and giving Big Tech insights into the minutiae of their daily lives, which those companies directly profit from.
In my country it has become an attitude that to photograph children in almost any situation is a “no, no”. I find it fine that we protect children in general, and that there is a particular problem with children not having legal status to give consent. But to a certain limit …
As I also am a person who care very much for my privacy and have never participated in any ‘social media’, except forums like this, I can very well relate to those who question many aspects of street photography.
My wife for a period had a certain interest for the topic, so I once participated with her in a street photography course – and all the time during this felt very ambiguous about being there.
Asking the course leader how he handled the consent aspect, returned the answer that he just was so quick up with the camera and down again, after having shoved it up in someones face, that they didn’t manage to react before he was passed them …
Then it was time for practice out in the city. My first attempt was to photograph a Santa Claus sitting on a bench out in a public square. Before I had gotten my bearings fully set, I was more or less assaulted by a man who cried “You are photographing children!!”, as there were some around Santa.
Since then I haven’t tried any “street photography” …
I avoid photographing children except perhaps as small figures in the distance (which makes it sound worse) to avoid any misunderstandings. Still, I can’t help thinking about all those great pictures of kids by, say, Robert Doisneau and also that many female photographers were particularly known for their pictures of children. Seems a bit weird to end that. But for a random amateur like me, it doesn’t matter.
I hate that kind of street photography. I’m still uneasy with the candid part and prefer to capture scenes rather than individuals. But sometimes a random person absolutely makes the scene, and I do appreciate good candid street photography, as long as it’s not exploitative.
I think the NYT article may have had a small technical error. Apparently, it is common to modify the camera’s sensor by removing the IR filter, enhancing the capture of red light. I imagine this is similar to an IR-conversion.
Some folks also have the UV filter removed (full-spectrum conversion).
on that one, but I share your concern. Homo sapiens is the worst enemy this planet has ever faced.
