Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The sticky issue of consent in street photography

dinalitovsky.bulletin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 292 posts

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#51

Post by btilly »

Data point.

The most reproduced photo of the 20th century is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-J_Day_in_Times_Square. It raises multiple issues of consent. The photographer didn't know who was being photographed. The woman didn't consent to the kiss, and didn't realized she had been photographed until many years later. Under current law, it was a sexual assault. Indeed in another frame on the same camera, she was fighting back.

But it gets better. A man who claimed to have been the kisser later sued for a share of the proceeds. (George Mendonsa dropped the suit later citing costs.)

And there we have it. One of the most iconic photos of all time has lack of consent written all over it. And yet, I'm very glad that the photographer took the picture.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#52

Post by kolanos »

ngokevin wrote: post #33

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…

Public photography (at least in the U.S.) isn't just constitutionally protected because it is a form of expression (art), but also because it is an exercise in free press. In the U.S., anyone can be free press, and as such can document any goings on in public, including photography.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#53

Post by todd8 »

ngokevin wrote: post #33

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…

I respectively disagree. I think people are attractive, in general, and in particular I like looking at people. For me, seeing a photo that captures a memorable or unusual moment in sports, in a performance, or even in a park or on the sidewalk is worth viewing. I agree with the original article that there is a creepiness to voyeuristic photos, and in the case of the woman on the bus photo I would be more comfortable with it if she had agreed to its use, but I do think it's a "good" photo.

When at a museum we frequently look at pictures or sculptures of people. Our viewing of these works of art are totally outside the context of the original subject's goal for the artwork. Is it inappropriate to look at these works of art?

I agree that there are too many black and white photos of the old, sad, and homeless. These don't usually speak to me as art. If I was a photographer that wanted to do street photography, I would take advantage of the capabilities that new cameras have and show the resulting photos to the subjects and ask for their permission to use the photos. One could even offer to send them a copy of the photos by giving them business card with an annotation of the frame numbers so that they could request them via email.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#54

Post by watwut »

ivanstojic wrote: post #7

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?

People who objects to being photographed in public object to those photos being put on internet or journals.

Generally, the security camera pictures won't be published. Where they are published, they are still so boring that no one looks at them.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#55

Post by karaterobot »

ivanstojic wrote: post #7

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?

Is it so unbelievable? You listed hidden cameras. When you don't see a camera, and don't know you're being recorded, you don't object to it as strenuously as when a stranger points a camera at you. Even if you remember reading somewhere that cameras are in the store, you can easily forget that because you don't see them. Instead, imagine if grocery stores had employees follow customers around recording with cameras while they were in the store, and on the way back to their cars: would you expect more complaints, or the same amount?

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#56

Post by aeternum »

EvanAnderson wrote: post #40
hereforphone wrote: post #23

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.

It absolutely is boolean for some people. 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.

I'm still not convinced it's boolean. How about pictures taken from a public space like the street or sidewalk into your house or yard, how about pictures like this: https://www.itsnicethat.com/articles/arne-svenson-the-neighb...

What about if a neighbor decided to take pics of your daughter walking to school every day? What if that neighbor starts a blog?

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#57

Post by Tomte »

rocqua wrote: post #50
Tomte wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What situations of a photo going viral do you consider bad enough to consider blanket banning? Are those nit already illegal as libel or whatever it is that makes upskirt photos illegal?

I haven't said a single word about making anything illegal. I simply point out that people have every right to feel uncomfortable with being photographed by strangers. And all "I don't mind" won't change that many people do mind.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#58

Post by rocqua »

neom wrote: post #31

Tangential, but my fav case/story/art related to this. 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-s…

As I understand the law "commercial use" as requiring a release form does not include 'advertising yourself as an artist, or selling your photos as art'.

This is different from offering your pictures as stock photography, as PR materials, or in advertising of anything other than yourself.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#59

Post by watwut »

kolanos wrote: post #21
Tomte wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> CCTV footage doesn't go viral, and my social circle won't see it. It absolutely can and has. Such as if the CCTV captured footage of a crime or a suspect of a crime. Additionally, if the CCTV is government controlled, it is subject to freedom of information laws (FOIA), which means anyone can get a copy of the footage for any reason and use it for any purpose. It is in effect public domain.

Being willing to accept risk that if crime happens at the same place, the CCTV might go viral still can dislike idea of photographer making I intentional photo of him and make it viral. Those are very different situations.

Your second point does not address comment you respond to.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#60

Post by mixmastamyk »

biglost wrote: post #25

Curious about “ And asking for it afterwards almost guarantees you will be turned down. ” She seems to know most people wont approve it, so the solution is to not ask. I imagine my daughter: “Dad, i didnt ask for permission because you would say no, so i not asked for it and Im safe for being grounded.” Weird thinking

Yes, “I didn’t ask to kiss you because I knew you’d say no. It's better for society if I just go ahead.”
Post reply on HN