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

161–170 of 292 posts

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#161

Post by dan_mctree »

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…

> 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,

If people are jumping in front of me paparazzi-style, pushing, gaping, pointing, flashing their cameras, I'd be bothered whether the camera deletes the image or not. I wouldn't even know whether it does. For me the act of photo taking, the unexpected attention in a public space is a bigger deal than the picture. Luckily, I'm not interesting enough

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#162

Post by kube-system »

kazinator wrote: post #152
whiddershins wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Value can be created without it being “taken” from anywhere.

Right; with the notable exception of value provided by governments, which largely comes out of the pockets of the working class.

"Money coming out of pockets" isn't evidence that value is "taken" from anywhere. The more cooperative exchanges of value we have, the more valuable and prosperous our economies are.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#163

Post by morphicpro »

The root of the issue with street photography has a whole lot less to do with the photograph and more to do with the ever present issue of male sexual abuse towards women.

No one would even give a crap about these photos if not for that root cause.

This is why intent is at the root of these issues. We won't likely address these issues of public domain vs privacy unless we address the root of why anyone really cares about the issues in the first place. I don't think people are saying I don't like art. I think people are saying "I'm sick of being sexually objectified"

I say all this as street photographer myself.

Also food for thought. Would this have been as big of an issue had the photographer been a woman? Would it had gotten the same push back? These are question that dig more the root cause of why this has less to do with the photo and more to do with who is taking the photo and why.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#165

Post by sudobash1 »

kurthr wrote: post #65
cmaggiulli wrote: post #8

I’m willing to be swayed on this issue but to me the word “consent” implies permission, and the word permission implies some type of authority. In the case of photography in public there is no authority so no consent is needed. I personally believe that, for the most part, ethics and legality align here. I don’t think it is unethical to photograph and publish a picture of someone in public. However, I think there may…

I agree for figures in public places, but taking a years worth of pictures through a window (from a public place into a private place) is also protected by law (from the article). Is it OK to video/telephoto photograph from a rooftop through a window above the curtains into a shower of a naked person (over 18) and sell those on the internet along with the person's name and address? What about using deep IR to see thr…

According to the article, deep IR would be illegal:

> Spying into someone's private space with specialized equipment or a drone is illegal.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#166

Post by [deleted] »

kolanos wrote: post #52
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.

[deleted]

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#167

Post by GauntletWizard »

IgorPartola wrote: post #72
cmaggiulli wrote: post #8

I’m willing to be swayed on this issue but to me the word “consent” implies permission, and the word permission implies some type of authority. In the case of photography in public there is no authority so no consent is needed. I personally believe that, for the most part, ethics and legality align here. I don’t think it is unethical to photograph and publish a picture of someone in public. However, I think there may…

If I understand correctly, the reason why public photography is considered protected speech is because we want citizens to be able to capture public events of interest. That is, protests, riots, cops using excessive force, or more happy events like celebrations, etc. When it comes to someone taking photos in those situations I have no problem with it. However I really dislike the commercial street photographers as a…

"Public events of interest" is but one of many arguments, and your concern - Of being photographed on the street- Is in opposition to one of the other strongest arguments, that photography, even of random passers-by, is a form of art. That capturing life around you and the sights of your life are worth remembering.

Quite frankly, I suggest you take your argument to some frozen icy wastes.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#168

Post by asiachick »

lovelyviking wrote: post #150

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. Wh…

I have a similar reaction to people that hate Google Glass, Spectacles by Snap, Ray-Ban Stories etc...

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#169

Post by shapefrog »

remus wrote: post #156
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.

Would you feel the same way if someone did a painting of the same scene from memory? What if they were particularly adept at creating photorealistic paintings? How about if someone wrote a very vivid description of the same scene? Would you feel the same way? I'm genuinely interested and not trying to make any particular point.

Would you feel the same way if someone looked at them and commited the image to their memory?

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#170

Post by rkagerer »

Asking for permission before a photo is taken immediately nullifies any possibility of a candid moment. And asking for it afterwards almost guarantees you will be turned down.

If that last part is true then you are knowingly taking pictures of people who don't want to be photographed, which has ethics implications all by itself.

Post reply on HN