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

141–150 of 292 posts

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#141

Post by tomcam »

dillondoyle wrote: post #136

Not street photography but I'm bringing up a different context, which I think is perhaps an even more important ethical conversation to have. Consent of photographic subjects, specifically BIPOC, being used by for profit companies in marketing. My recent example is in Climbing. gyms require waivers that also contain text granting the company rights to take your photo and use it however they want throughout the univer…

I always read every contract I sign, but I may not be representative. However, the woman you were talking about could have crossed out the offending paragraphs in the contract in the gym probably would have gone along.

That said, I think contracts like that where you have to opt out of what you would think of to be normal behavior shitty.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#142

Post by jasonhansel »

As a rather privacy-conscious person, I find this argument rather troubling:

> asking for [consent] afterwards almost guarantees you will be turned down.

In other words: I can't ask for people's consent because they might not give consent.

> Even I, as a photographer, would feel suspicious if a stranger came up to me saying they just took my photo and would like some kind of retroactive permission.

The fact that most people would not explicitly consent to being photographed is (prima facie) a pretty strong argument against taking such photographs.

It's worth noting that some people have particularly strong reasons not to want to be photographed. Among them: some religious traditions forbid photography, and some people (e.g. closeted LGBTQ people) need to keep aspects of their lives private.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#143

Post by Ma8ee »

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

I think it very much depends on the circumstances. If people are sitting down and are in an environment where they feel safe, you can walk over with a friendly smile, chat a little, show them the camera and btw, I took some pictures of you that I hope will turn out really nice. I hope you don’t mind, I’ll be happy to send you a copy. Few people say no.

On he other hand, people who are in a hurry or feel vulnerable mostly say no just by default. Does it reflect their true feelings about the matter if they had time to reflect? Hard to know.

In the US the situation should be simple. The first amendment must trump any right to any expectation of privacy in a public space.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#144

Post by underwater »

petepete wrote: post #14
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 Unless you trip over, get mugged or your pants fall down.

That feels like it's just looping around to the same problem. If you use an image or video of a other person for ridicule or profit, and it is likely to bring them unwanted attention, that is exploitation of that person. In my opinion it's ethically wrong.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#145

Post by foxfluff »

mdorazio wrote: post #98
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,…

This is probably an unpopular opinion, but I'm in the same boat as em-bee - I am not ok with security cameras in public[1], or with public-facing doorbell cameras, either. My thought is basically: if a camera is recording the public, the public should have access to the recording. That isn't generally the case, so I'm not ok with it. [1] Note that by "public" I mean cameras facing streets, sidewalks, etc. I can alway…

I guess I have similar feelings but it's not so much about whether the public can access it. It's about the fact that I'm not so comfortable with surveillance in general.

I would also feel uncomfortable if they had street corners full of watchmen hired to just stare and keep track of everyone. I would feel uncomfortable at work if they had people or cameras positioned to stare over my shoulder. It's not the camera, it's the surveillance.

And by that token, I'm ok with street photography. I love street photography. It's completely different from surveillance.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#146

Post by dheera »

boardwaalk wrote: post #140
dheera wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with this. I consider the human eye a camera. It also saves videos in a storage medium that doesn't permit deletion. I don't distinguish between a silicon-based camera and a carbon-based camera. To me they're just different rows of the periodic table. In fact I even hope to think that one day silicon-based cameras can be used to restore vision to carbon-based beings that have non-functioning carbon-based c…

We’re living in the present, not some cybernetic future. To say all this when it’s not relevant to the present is a little silly in my view. We don’t have cameras and flash embedded in ourselves, someone’s recollections are not the same as an video file in terms of evidence, and there’s a substantial difference between someone actively on the street corner watching and security camera you can set and forget which wil…

> We’re living in the present, not some cybernetic future.

Maybe you aren't, that doesn't mean everyone chooses that lifestyle or should be forced into that mode of thinking.

I for one choose to think in terms of the future.

> We don’t have cameras and flash embedded in ourselves

Oh you bet I do happen to have a piece of flash storage embedded in my body, for a reason I choose to not disclose here. Although mine is not wired into an imaging device, it's only a matter of time before someone else's flash implant IS wired to an imaging device, and they have every right to.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#147

Post by closeparen »

renewiltord wrote: post #111
mdorazio wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is probably an unpopular opinion, but I'm in the same boat as em-bee - I am not ok with security cameras in public[1], or with public-facing doorbell cameras, either. My thought is basically: if a camera is recording the public, the public should have access to the recording. That isn't generally the case, so I'm not ok with it. [1] Note that by "public" I mean cameras facing streets, sidewalks, etc. I can alway…

The article addresses this. What you are okay with is not the sole basis for determining what is ethical. For instance, I am not okay with you reading this text. I meant it for everyone except mdorazio. I demand you apologize.

If you took this to a regulator they would probably laugh at you, but from what I can tell this statement is technically enforceable under GDPR.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#148

Post by gnopgnip »

ppeetteerr wrote: post #105
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…

>If a photographer is to make money off of my appearance, I want to make sure it's done with consent.

US law is more specific than just whether it makes money. You can't control how your likeness is used in fine art, or for editorial or education purposes with limited exceptions for things like defamation. But you can control and entirely prevent your image from being used commercially, generally to advertise a product. And commercial use is more about the relationship implied than just about making money.

Like a newspaper can use your photo in an article about a newsworthy event that you were part of, even though the newspaper makes money selling newspapers. Or a street photographer can sell a limited number of prints in a gallery for tens of thousands of dollars as in Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia. But it would be commercial use and an infringement of your personality rights to print your face on t shirts or mugs even if they are a non profit giving them away.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#149

Post by dillondoyle »

tomcam wrote: post #141
dillondoyle wrote: post #136

Not street photography but I'm bringing up a different context, which I think is perhaps an even more important ethical conversation to have. Consent of photographic subjects, specifically BIPOC, being used by for profit companies in marketing. My recent example is in Climbing. gyms require waivers that also contain text granting the company rights to take your photo and use it however they want throughout the univer…

I always read every contract I sign, but I may not be representative. However, the woman you were talking about could have crossed out the offending paragraphs in the contract in the gym probably would have gone along. That said, I think contracts like that where you have to opt out of what you would think of to be normal behavior shitty.

They are almost all on ipads at climbing gyms. Yeah it would be cool to have like mini check boxes for each major provision, especially ones that aren't safety critical (they wouldn't let you climb if you didn't check those)

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#150

Post by lovelyviking »

While people are constantly under surveillance of street cameras.

While people are constantly under surveillance by their own phones and all kinds of apps.

While people are constantly under surveillance during any internet activity .

While most people agree to have computers that are not completely open which means no complete inspection of firmware and software including OS which means zero privacy by definition.

While most people gladly give up any privacy for big corporations and store in their clouds what ever one can imagine .

The same people seriously discuss if it is ok for photographer standing openly in the street to take some pictures?

I should check the dictionary for definition of insanity because it can help to describe the situation.

How about freedom of art expression? What have happened with respecting that?

Isn't it a right of any person to see the world they way this person perceive it and express it in any art form including photography?

Isn't the alternative is toward oppressive society? Would people disrespecting street photography prefer to live in oppressive society where all art is under complete control?

Or they mean all art can be free except photography? Well also except drawing because who knows what one would draw. And songs because who knows what one could sing about. And sculpture. And movies. And computer games. And books. And music creating wrong emotions. And dancing which should be proper. And may Web sites. And well with current tools of surveillance ... anything is fine except 'wrong' dreaming?

Post reply on HN