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

271–280 of 292 posts

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#271

Post by randombits0 »

pomian wrote: post #217
randombits0 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why, don't I own my dna?

Your “flesh and bone” are certainly yours. But DNA?

You didn’t create it, it’s not original, and yours is 99.9% identical to mine. You cannot copyright or patent it. And you’re pretty sloppy with it, leaving a trail of it everywhere you go.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#272

Post by igornadj »

IgorPartola wrote: post #261
igornadj wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference between a model and a random stranger is night and day. The reason the model gets paid is because they are professional and contribute roughly equally to the process. With [good] street photography, it's almost entirely the story that is told that brings the value, the subject just happens to be living their relatively ordinary life.

So you want to use my likeness to make money by selling it while simultaneously telling me that my life is too mundane to bother asking me if this is ok? Most street photography that becomes popular is centered around people who are in distress. How is that not exploitation?

> Most street photography that becomes popular is centered around people who are in distress

Absolutely not true at all

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#273

Post by igornadj »

caslon wrote: post #233
igornadj wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference between a model and a random stranger is night and day. The reason the model gets paid is because they are professional and contribute roughly equally to the process. With [good] street photography, it's almost entirely the story that is told that brings the value, the subject just happens to be living their relatively ordinary life.

Every time I hear someone talk like you do, I think about this photo: https://i.imgur.com/1p0GS9R.png Street photographers are universally terrible people, and people who defend them are defending some of the more mundane scum of the earth. This is made worse by their worship of people like Mark Cohen, who was an absolute creep: https://www.reddit.com/r/AnalogCommunity/comments/qxmjb4/

Taking photos of homeless people is generally seen an unacceptable amongst street photographers. I think maybe you're focusing on a couple specific people?

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#274

Post by igornadj »

krapp wrote: post #231
igornadj wrote: post #229

One thing I've found is that photographing strangers is a lot more widely accepted in places around the world with more community oriented culture, and less accepted in very individualistic cultures like in the West. I think this individualism considers the act of someone taking a photo of you as a transaction, where people stand to gain or lose from it, and quite frankly oversensitivity over how it could affect you…

I think you'll find that even in those "community oriented" cultures, many people don't like random strangers taking photographs of them, although unlike Westerners they may not be as forthcoming about it, especially to a foreigner.

Yeah that's the thing, I don't find that. There are plenty of locals who shoot all over Asia for example and do just fine. I think maybe you're projecting.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#275

Post by randombits0 »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #242
randombits0 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> You're not qualified to make statements like this.

Maybe, maybe not. Who the f*ck are you? (See how that works?)

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#276

Post by brokenmachine »

kolinko wrote: post #268
brokenmachine wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm MUCH more comfortable with street photography than CCTV. I don't care if my image is taken in public, I have no expectation of privacy in the moment. But I do care about subsequent analysis of, and storage of linked metadata about those images. A random street photographer or member of the public is unlikely to be connected to a permanent, secret, and searchable database of facial recognition, gait analysis, or w…

Well, once someone publishes your street photo, it becomes instantly available to a plethora of searchable databases from all kinds of jurisdictions. If it's CCTV, it's just one company that manages the photos, under local regulations.

But that would be just a single image with no context, and usually no location and no ability to link it to bluetooth or phone number, as most online services remove exif data now, I belive.

It's not like a fixed CCTV camera that is continuously recording and being constantly analyzed and stored forever, and can detect regular patterns of behavior, and thereby able to automatically tag things that are "out of the ordinary".

>If it's CCTV, it's just one company that manages the photos, under local regulations.

How could you possibly know that? There is nothing to say that the information is not being shared. TBH, it's extremely naive to think that information stays inside the building, or that the three-letter agencies haven't already connected those thousands of cameras.

It's interesting that you use the word "photos" too, what I'm worried about is much more than photos, it's a permanent historical record of dates/times/movement patterns that can be linked over thousands of cameras, creating a continuous historical record of everyone's movements, all linked to those photos. They can track a single person's movements over years. It can also correlate with other people to detect who may be connected to who. Bigdata tracking everyone at all times.

Give me a random person snapping street photos any day.

Any way you cut it, fixed cameras are more worrisome.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#277

Post by lovelyviking »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #265
lovelyviking wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Forgive me if I don't think someone else should have that kind of control over something that could affect me deeply. No, I am not going to forgive you for that. Not you nor any one else with such views. It sounds like you are ready to deny to other people their basic freedoms just because it "could affect you deeply". This way any oppression really work. To avoid repeating myself I'll direct you to my other comment…

I find this view to be wildly dramatic. As if the right to street photography is the only thing stopping society from sliding into fascism. Give me a break. Trying to paint me as some kind of jackboot who is ready to trample all over everyones freedom because I happen to disagree with how consent around public photography is handled is nonsense. Here's an anecdote from my local paper: A woman is on a public bus with…

>I find this view to be wildly dramatic. As if the right to street photography is the only thing stopping society from sliding into fascism. Give me a break.

This is not what I was saying. I was talking about freedom of the artist in general and how it is not respected in street photography in particular. Street photography is just an example where people can put own little discomfort and feelings above principles designed to keep society free.

Freedom of speech and many other things could make us uncomfortable but not all of them should be taken more seriously than values protecting freedom. In a society with freedom of speech we are not trying to avoid discomfort we are intentionally ignore certain discomfort for the sake of a greater good: discuss freely serious issues and see the different perspective on things provided by artists of all kinds. Some serious issues cannot be discussed without hurting some feelings and this is by design. Certain discomfort is accepted for the sake of freedom. On the other hand person can learn that doesn't have to hurt own feelings.

If you explore how some societies ended up in totalitarianism you see the common pattern that they are happy to accept laws protecting some discomfort without thinking about consequences and those consequences come faster then they expect. Unfortunately those consequences deliver much more discomforts then the first laws were trying to avoid.

>Trying to paint me as some kind of jackboot who is ready to trample all over everyones freedom

I have no interest to paint you anyhow. My interest is the point of view you describe at the moment and I am trying to explain where such view leads in a long run.

When you say "But I have a huge problem with that and think it shouldn't be allowed." it is indeed shows that the view you possibly hold at the moment leads to readiness to trample at least on freedom of photographer. I do not know the details of the story but women doesn't have to be offended by photography by the way and some women are even proud and happy in such situations and can take it with smile. I mean it is a decision of a person how to take it isn't it?

Here is another anecdote from my personal experience: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29342547 and another one when I was making video of bush: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29339707 and I have many more stories like that ...

>I guess that makes me a fascist. Like how dare I think that guy should have to ask permission.

The problem here with the word "should". If you use it it means you are ready to trample over freedom of photographer if I am not mistaken here?

>And surely if he wasn't allowed to do that it would mean the absolute end of freedom in the world. Those baby photos are critical to maintain our rights.

This statement is manipulative. I was not talking about particular photos I was talking about principle of readiness to step over freedom of an artist and where it leads. As I was saying above : Street photography is just an example where people can put own little discomfort and feelings above principles designed to keep society free.

>Get outta here.

I do not think I am willing to satisfy your feeling here because people with the view you've described need learn to respect freedom of artists and see the benefit for the society in doing so.

And together with "Get outta here." you are saying: " Trying to paint me as some kind of jackboot who is ready to trample all over everyones freedom ..."

I am not sure how to properly interpret that. But I guess people who are ready to step over freedom of photographer to avoid own feeling of discomfort are not very active in protecting feelings of photographers from discomfort for merely doing their job.

I just hope you can learn the other side from the anecdote I've provided to see the whole picture.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#278

Post by lovelyviking »

diebeforei485 wrote: post #234
beezle wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't make that assumption at all. First, not all cameras are public and second, what makes you think people with access can be trusted?

It's not so much trust as incentive. I have a camera at my door, facing the street, but I have no reason to give anyone footage unless I get a request for a specific timeframe from someone trustworthy (eg. a known neighbor, or the cops)

so you are spying over your neighbors and report about them too? ... I do not think so but such kind of attitude photographers experience too frequently when they are trying to do their job. You can check this story from my experience: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29339707 and another one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29342547

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#279

Post by stackedinserter »

EvanAnderson wrote: post #264
dsego wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's stalking?

It's interesting that the incredulous replies to my comment have to resort to describing contrived situations that go beyond simple candid photography in public to harassment or other illegal acts to "prove" I can't possibly feel how I do. There's this pervasive attitude in the comments for this article that having your photo taken in public is some major affront. I see people equating it with assault, even. That fee…

You didn't make anybody unhappy. You can say whatever you want in the Internet, nobody will bother to verify even if you post your home address here. We all know that you'd be freaked out, as regular person, if someone started intentionally making pictures of you or your daughter (if you have one).

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#280

Post by boublepop »

If I met this person on the subway, I think it would be a good lesson to go over to them and tell them that they are a complete piece of shit in my opinion and spend a considerable time doing so. Why? Well it’s not illegal to do so, and since I’m just sharing my opinion it’s not really unethical to do so. I don’t even have to care about consent. At the end of the day it is just rude, and apparently that doesn’t matter the least bit to this person.

Honestly it’s surprising that a photographer would even think about ethics of consent when faced with a shitstorm online cause by being rude to a mother and her two children.

Imagine if the response to the woman throwing a cat in the garbage had been an article detailing the ethics and legalities of doing so. Would that be suppose to convince anyone that she wasn’t being an asshole? Incidentally that situation was captured on video in public, but for some unexplainable reason people weren’t discussing the ethics or legalities of the video taping someone in public, and instead focused on the subject being a human piece of garbage.

Post reply on HN