I think the laws need revising on the issue of “visible from a public space” because of the technology available today. I’m OK with people being photographed on the street but not through their bedroom window with a 600mm lens from half a mile away 1000 feet off the ground on a drone.
The sticky issue of consent in street photography
241–250 of 292 posts
Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography
#242Earlier 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…
In the united states you do in fact own and have a right to control commercial exploitation of your image / likeness, with exceptions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights#United_Stat...
News coverage is a common exception.
A fraud investigation is not commercial exploitation.
> If you keep trying to draw the line, it gets harder and harder to draw.
You're not qualified to make statements like this.
Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography
#243Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's surprising that this is allowed in the US at all. I’m curious - why do you find this surprising? > For a country that values personal freedoms, the legalization of being photographed against one's will is unexpected. And what of the personal freedoms of the person holding the camera? To make this more complex, what if that person is holding an iPhone, and the subject of their photo is their kid? And what if yo…
If a photo of someone's kid includes a recognizable photo of me, and the photo is for private use then it's a different matter than someone exhibiting that photo for public use. As for general freedoms, a person's freedom ends when it infringes on the freedoms of another. We can debate the nuance of that sentiment (that's what courts are for) but the freedom of anyone to privacy should exceed the freedom of some to m…
Or art, or historical record, apparently.
Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography
#244Data 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 figh…
Counterpoint: If this photo hadn't been taken or the photographer had felt shame at its content and not put it forward for print, nothing would be lost. There are thousands of photos taken the same day that could have become iconic instead. It's an artistically and emotionally good photo, but it holds no special significance outside the fame it gathered.
If it hadn't become famous you wouldn't miss this photo and instead maybe some 5 year old waving to her dad coming home, or a mother hugging her son would have become famous.
Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography
#245This 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 isnt value or really consent, its that the photographer cant see the future.
it also involves not just value but also cost and risk.
Social media and the ability for things to go viral has made it possible for even the most innocent and mundane/valueless media to have a huge impact/cost to the person in it. It could be anxiety and depression triggered by being in a viral meme. A video of a real or perceived mistake normally overlooked and ignored suddenly ruins their career and some relationships.
The subject, just as with the value may have no real way of knowing the cost and risk. most will assume there is no value, cost or risk like virtually every other photo and have no problem with it. Or they will think of those ever so rare photos that they see all the time at the top of their feed and either want far to much in compensation or never allow any photos they cant control taken.
The problem isnt really consent its that the photographer and subject cant predict the future. If the photographer knew the photo would never see general public viewing, win any prizes be seen by the subject or anyone they know. both the photographer and subject wouldn't care about consent. on the other hand if the photographer knew exactly how popular, how much value would be derived from it and the cost it would have on the subject they wouldn't hesitate to get consent and maybe offer some compensation based on the cost the photo would have on the subjects life.
it is however so rare a single photo has significance on anything, that everyone just assumes its not worth getting consent. only photo's where someone expects privacy is it assumed the cost to the subject is usually too high and requires consent.
Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography
#246Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The key distinction is that the human eye and its storage system doesn't meaningfully support duplication and distribution of the picture. That isn't necessarily true. Just because your eye doesn't doesn't mean mine doesn't. How do you know I wasn't born blind and retrofitted with a silicon eye that gives me both the ability to see and record/duplicate more easily than other humans?
This is a bad faith reply. Non-existent hypothetical devices are not worth considering when talking about the morality of something that someone does today.
I choose to frame my view of morality in terms of technological developments that are likely to happen in the next 100 years (approximately a human lifetime for anyone born today), not what exists today. Today is antiquated as soon as something is invented something tomorrow.
"Hypothetical" is an assumption. You don't know what I have, and what I'm experimenting with.
Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography
#247This 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.
I neighboring Sweden, you can take all the photos you want. Publishing is where the dragons are.
Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography
#248Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is for the most part true yes. It is late and I do not have the exact phrasing, but "You are not allowed to take a photo of a person who is in a vulnerable position" The problem there is what constitutes a vulnerable position. A man urinating, a drunk person, a beggar, a homeless person, children, someone crying are all examples of things that -can- be illegal. (Unless you have written release) (which is not eno…
Looks like Norwegian law is terrible. It doesn't respect freedom of art expression. Isn't it a right of any person to see the world the way this person want to see it and express it in any art form that is available? They wish to control pictures photographer produce and they take no shame in that. It is absolutely terrible. They basically oppress photographer who wish to show reality with all imperfections. They mak…
The law has more nuance than that. I am not a lawyer but it’s not as black and white as these comments make it seem.
Separately but this (photography/recording in public, and sharing/publishing of said material) is one of those cases where law and praxis varies widely between otherwise similar jurisdictions.
Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography
#249I would have read that article but I could not get past the sticky 'consent or go away' cookie banner.
Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography
#250I 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.
They were in a high crime area pointing a video camera (which I'm assuming was larger than your typical camera) at some people sitting on their porch. That's completely different from typical street photography