11–20 of 292 posts
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
Unless you trip over, get mugged or your pants fall down.
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 pho…
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…
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.inf…
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...
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?
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.
It's available to LEO - and they come with a history of leveraging surveillance in ways that profoundly damage lives.
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?
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.
It depends of the country.