31–40 of 292 posts
Article about the case :
"Voyeuristic Photographer Arne Svenson Wins New York Appellate Court Case- Should New York revise its privacy laws?"
https://news.artnet.com/market/arne-svenson-neighbors-photog...
And a talk by the photographer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePjeX6IiSTQ
And an article with more of the photos:
https://www.itsnicethat.com/articles/arne-svenson-the-neighb...
But when you're informed about cookies when entering the site, the only option is "I accept". Not unlike walking in a public space, where it's is, and should be, legal to photograph anyone. (And no, the back button is not a meaningful other option.)
Your other option is the back button.
It's usually derivative. Someone alone looking sad because that's their resting face. A black and white high contrast photo of an old person. A homeless person. Political street art (that someone else created).
Some exceptions of course, like Humans of NY where arguably the main part is the backstory and writing behind the people they capture with permission, but that's more portrait photography than street.
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…
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…
No it doesn't. What post-processing you do is up to you but that doesn't change how people feel about you taking the picture in the first place. They have no idea weather you're going to blur them, enhance them, throw the picture away, or what. Like the author said, it's legal and you don't need consent. The real trick is to not be creepy about it but that's not universally defined.
I was at the marina one day and saw a dog chasing a stick in the water. Lots of splashing about. I stopped and took a picture with my big honking camera. I was careful to get just the dog and not the woman that was throwing the stick, but neither her nor her husband could have known exactly what I got a shot of. Nobody said a word and I moved on thinking how odd it could seem to do that. A friendly comment about what a great subject the dog is might have helped calm any discomfort they may have had but I didn't get the impression it was an issue. Was it to them? I dunno.
BTW It's notable that YouTube in particular seems to steer viewers to channels that celebrate hobbies which if they don't require expensive purchases can at least benefit from them. The "Photography Influencers" are a niche that owes its growth to the massive advertisement Dollars surrounding the space. The more people watch photography content, the bigger the audience Alphabet can sell to Sony, Canon and thousands of accessoire makers. So there is an incentive to push their almighty recommendation algorithm to steer users into this niche and grow demand. At the same time on the supply side, content producers, are incentivized to go into this niche by the higher availability of niche adjacent sponsorship deals for their videos. This dynamic obviously plays out in other niches as well, whether it be cars, gardening or golf. Potential sponsors and advertisers for math youtubers like blackpenredpen however are more limited so google is disincentivized to grow their niche. Does this, over the long term, push peoples preferences toward more materialistic pursuits ? I guess we'll find out.
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?
You make it sound like it would be secondary and not really relevant, but for example, intent is the difference between murder and involuntary manslaughter.
In candid street photography, I think what people fear is exactly that: bad intent, a willingness of the photographer to exploit the images in order to show ridicule or maybe even obtain sexual gratification.
And it's also an easy way to do some virtue signalling. It's striking that in the article, it's not the people being photographed who object, but complete strangers to the scene, who know absolutely nothing about the specific circumstances of how the image was taken and whether or not consent was granted.
Of course, intent lies not just in the pressing of a shutter; one can also select stills from security footage with intent to ridicule. And indeed, as a general rule, access to security footage is limited and controlled, probably for that reason.
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?
Seems to me the objections come from assuming bad intent of the photographer A little apples to oranges, but I get the feeling the same folks who are against being photographed in public are probably pro police bodycams And how far and widely do they apply this? Sailor kiss in Times Sq comes to mind. Shots of the crowd at a sporting event? And then there's war photography...
IMO, street photography is a low art form. It's walking around without a plan, snapping random snapshots of people and expect some meaning to come out on its own. The creation process is regulated to pressing a button and some minor processing. Perhaps similar to throwing buckets of paint at a canvas and seeing what comes out. It's usually derivative. Someone alone looking sad because that's their resting face. A bla…
The low vs. high debate is old as time, with sculptors looking down on painters, with painters looking down on photographers.
The camera is a canvas and the photographer paints with what they put in front of the lens and when they close the shutter. Street photography takes it an extra step further and removes a ton of control over what you're photographing and leaves you creating art out of what is happening before you.
Can I take your picture in a public space? A picture of your kids? Your kids in their bathing suits at the pool? Everyone draws the line, and at a different point. It's not boolean.
If I'm in a public space w/o an expectation of privacy you have every right to photograph me. Same goes for my daughter, bathing-suit or street-clothes.
I value the right of others to make photos in public spaces and I recognize that it applies to me as a subject.