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

121–130 of 292 posts

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#121

Post by Bokanovsky »

I always find it fascinating as there's also an aspect of documentation with certain street photography. If you look at stuff from the 1980's and see how much things have changed, the fashion the shops and so on, but also how certain things are still the same.

Certain cameras are marketed with the whole concept of being good for street photography and like to play with the historic aspect. Like most marketing it's aspirational. Will you be able to capture the decisive moment like Henri Cartier-Bresson?

There are various famous street photographers and their books are always popular with enthusiasts.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#122

Post by vmception »

scotty79 wrote: post #92
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…

Are you sure you need to delete them? I don't know Norwegian law specifically, but it might be the case that you are allowed to take photos in public and you just can't publish them without subjects consent.

Pretty sure that's the point, they have no use for them but haven't resolved to delete them due to their lack of utility. They function as a memory just as everyone else has photos, its not the reason they took the photos though

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#123

Post by lovelyviking »

nickthegreek wrote: post #99
EvanAnderson wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 am pro public photography but it is never boolean. Everyone has a limit. Maybe your bend over to pick something up and they photograph your breasts or they continually follow you with a camera in your face for blocks. At some point a line can be crossed for even the most open minded.

>Maybe your bend over to pick something up and they photograph your breasts

In that case wasn't it your choice if you wear something like that in public perfectly knowing that you can "bend over" and thus who can say it wasn't your intention to show what you show. What it has to do with photographer who simply makes a picture of what you show in public by your own design in that example?

>or they continually follow you with a camera in your face for blocks.

If someone continually follow you may be the 'follow' is the problem, not the photography part? I mean if someone continually follow you for blocks without camera could it be worse? At least photographer presumably does it for pictures only and simply due to the poor skills didn't succeed with the first 10 tries. Again what it has to do with the photography by itself ?

So may be it is boolean? You are in public and that means someone have right to make pictures of what public looks like. Or you have other examples?

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#124

Post by vmception »

OP’s example of the people in the fire escape in NYC being fine with the photo because they have no expectation of privacy is something that relies on people already knowing that.

Its not really the best representation of an opinion. There are plenty of people in plenty of places that are not aware of that.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#125

Post by marysnovirgin »

Advertising, social media, even personal photos are highly edited, overly polished, artificially perfected representations of the world. Not only should we celebrate the breathtaking photo that is the centerpiece of this article, we should encourage more of it. As a species, it's important that we allow these portraits of our lives, behaviors, and quirky interactions to be made as, if not art, then simply a more accurate representation of what it means to be human at this moment in time. I understand these types of photographs can offend, or cross the line, or cause debate. That's what Art is for. We are better for it.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#127

Post by DanBC »

randombits0 wrote: post #110
xmprt wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> But if you do not, i.e. you are in public,

What if you're on the street outside an HIV clinic? Or an abortion clinic? Or an STI clinic? Or a substance misuse clinic? Or a narcotics anonymous meeting?

What if you're on the street, but have clearly just exited the door from that clinic?

This isn't idle noodling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v_MGN_Ltd

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#128

Post by jerry1979 »

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?

Part of the issue is that modern cameras are very high definition. For example, they can capture your skin in detail which is unnerving.

They can also capture what you are reading which means that they dance very closely to the idea of recording audio in public without consent. This could be especially bad if the photographer captures images of communications used by people with disabilities such as braille or signs.

A third issue could be having your photograph taken while doing something private in public such as pooping in the woods.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#129

Post by lovelyviking »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #95

This will be an unpopular opinion but I feel someone taking a photo with me as the subject without my permission is almost on par with assault It feels like a huge invasion of my personal space, regardless of whether or not the photographer is in my face or not.

>taking a photo with me as the subject without my permission is almost on par with assault

Why would you wish to give 'permission' to art expression of someone else? Isn't that an assault to the freedom of other person?

>It feels like a huge invasion of my personal space

It feels this way until there is understanding that public space means that you are part of that public and public can be photographed by anyone interested to preserve the moment.

Some people feel uncomfortable and find it hard to respect basic freedom of other person for art expression. It is a small price to pay though considering the alternative of living in society where disrespect to the freedom of art expression is a norm. Such society is doomed to be oppressive and living in oppression could be much more uncomfortable.

Look at this attitude: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29332188

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#130

Post by robbedpeter »

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,…

The problem with surveillance is that law enforcement is not acting in your interests as an individual. Your image, captured on camera near a crime scene, becomes evidence of your guilt. It puts the onus on you to prove your innocence, and if law enforcement is lazy, fallible, stupid, or you just get unlucky, you're going to prison for a crime you didn't commit. Or you're going to get tangled up in a legal defense that could cost you years worth of paychecks to prove your innocence.

"I've got nothing to hide" is not a valid opinion to have with regards to surveillance - the two options are "I have information to share with the state" and "I do not wish to share information with the state. " Since the state is almost universally in an adversarial relationship with citizens, it never makes sense for a citizen to share information with the state unless compelled to (the processes of state compulsion have stricter rules and precedents that have higher levels of protections against casual abuse. A lawyer can recommend 5th amendment if necessary when compelled to testify. )

https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE

I think the side of private photography is much simpler. If you're in public you should expect to be seen and/or recorded. Public places are places where you have zero expectation of privacy. We should celebrate the art that comes from public photography.

I think we're long overdue for a sweeping, constitutional level reform of information privacy rights that protect citizens from abuses and reinforce modern norms around recording in public. It's obvious that we're living under the panopticon, so we need a system that accounts for that.

Post reply on HN