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

101–110 of 292 posts

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#101

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o »

How is the topic of "well people are okay with this totally separate usage" such an issue? Obviously how an image is used matters. If you take a photo with a camera that automatically deletes it immediately, nobody cares. It's not the act of taking a photo that people care about, it's what you do with the picture afterwards.

That's why consent is great. One person might think the photo of them in a bathing suit that you want to put on your instagram is creepy and another might be fine. Letting the subject decide is a great way to avoid the issue.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#103

Post by xmprt »

goldcd wrote: post #62

This made me think - and I've still not managed to produce a coherent viewpoint. Closest I can come up with is that there's some sort of asymmetric 'value' that sometimes appears from nowhere and this throws us off a bit. As people have mentioned, security cameras are filming me all the time - and I've no issue with that. My image has no value. It's one amongst billions of frames taken, that will be ultimately wiped,…

My worry about it is how street photographers are able to convey meaning through context, captions, etc. I don't mind someone taking a photo of me if they get permission afterwards to post it and I'm able to ask them to take it down. However, I don't like losing control over my image.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#104

Post by bastardoperator »

_bfhp wrote: post #87
bastardoperator wrote: post #49

Streets/Subways are public, you have no expectation of privacy in public. Consent is implied. If you go into publicly accessible areas you will be on camera. However, a professional photographer despite knowing this would have asked for additional consent given the nature and subjects of the photo and their intentions on how the photo will be used.

No one is confused about what the current norm is. The author and other commenters are curious about the arguments for the implications and improvement or replacement of it.

This has been widely debated for years, photography is nearly 200 years old. Where we have landed is the probably the best place.

  1. You have no privacy in public.

  2. Individuals have a right to use a camera in public spaces recording whatever their eyes can see.
Changing the above would require a modification to the 1st Amendment in the US which makes any argument almost completely moot.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#105

Post by ppeetteerr »

ThinkBeat wrote: post #88

This bit me hard. I love street photography and have been active for a number of years. I have done some good work. I never appreciated the freedom I had as a photographer in the US. A while ago I moved to Norway. I kept taking pictures. Working on two different concepts / series. I got some good shots, the cultural differences in behavior, fashion, what is considered polite etc was inspiring. I shared some shots wit…

It's surprising that this is allowed in the US at all. For a country that values personal freedoms, the legalization of being photographed against one's will is unexpected.

As a non-photographer, I absolutely don't consent to having my photo taken for public display. For a private collection, that's a different matter, provided care is taken to make that photo inaccessible to the public. If a photographer is to make money off of my appearance, I want to make sure it's done with consent.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#106

Post by chmod600 »

6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #101

How is the topic of "well people are okay with this totally separate usage" such an issue? Obviously how an image is used matters. If you take a photo with a camera that automatically deletes it immediately, nobody cares. It's not the act of taking a photo that people care about, it's what you do with the picture afterwards. That's why consent is great. One person might think the photo of them in a bathing suit that…

How do you get consent for a photo of a crowd?

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#108

Post by throwawaygh »

_bfhp wrote: post #83

I sympathize with the author but I would consider non-consensual street photography ill-advised at best, not necessarily immoral. It's an accessibility issue, and like with many accessibility issues, it helps to engage in a "thought experiment." Just like you would assume someone with a wheelchair may want to enter your public building, you should assume that when taking picture of strangers you are being invasive to…

Pointing your camera in the wrong direction at the wrong moment can also get you killed. I've heard stories like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29331480 but which ended in tragedy.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#109

Post by dheera »

chmod600 wrote: post #106
6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #101

How is the topic of "well people are okay with this totally separate usage" such an issue? Obviously how an image is used matters. If you take a photo with a camera that automatically deletes it immediately, nobody cares. It's not the act of taking a photo that people care about, it's what you do with the picture afterwards. That's why consent is great. One person might think the photo of them in a bathing suit that…

How do you get consent for a photo of a crowd?

Exactly, you generally don't. People tend not to care if they're in some picture with a hundred other random people.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#110

Post by randombits0 »

xmprt wrote: post #103
goldcd wrote: post #62

This made me think - and I've still not managed to produce a coherent viewpoint. Closest I can come up with is that there's some sort of asymmetric 'value' that sometimes appears from nowhere and this throws us off a bit. As people have mentioned, security cameras are filming me all the time - and I've no issue with that. My image has no value. It's one amongst billions of frames taken, that will be ultimately wiped,…

My worry about it is how street photographers are able to convey meaning through context, captions, etc. I don't mind someone taking a photo of me if they get permission afterwards to post it and I'm able to ask them to take it down. However, I don't like losing control over my image.

But it’s not yours. You don’t own your “image”, just like you don’t own your DNA.

It’s not reasonable to expect to require permission for someone to use your image that they captured. What if it’s for news purposes? What if it’s related to, say, and insurance fraud investigation? If you keep trying to draw the line, it gets harder and harder to draw.

So what’s reasonable? If you have an expectation of privacy that’s violated, that seems far. But if you do not, i.e. you are in public, you have no such expectation.

Now, photographs shot through a window? Close your blinds or shut up. It’s all up to you.

Post reply on HN