Live data from Hacker News

The sticky issue of consent in street photography

dinalitovsky.bulletin.com

291–292 of 292 posts

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#291
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,…

It is novel and interesting because it compares the value of an image taken accidentally by a security camera to an image taken intentionally by a photographer. The author states that our value flows like the wind and photography captures it, which I thought was correct since photography is to record a moment in a constantly changing world.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#292
post #51

Data 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 ins…

Or just simply some other homecoming soldier kissing his consenting girlfriend.
Post reply on HN