Live data from Hacker News

The sticky issue of consent in street photography

dinalitovsky.bulletin.com

111–120 of 292 posts

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#111
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…

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.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#113

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…

How do you get consent for a photo of a crowd?

I'm trying to arguing that a one size fits all approach doesn't work, because end use matters. So this question is more specific than I think is productive.

But to answer it anyways, I'd say that for security tape you don't need it, but if you want to put it on the front page of your website, maybe you blur the identifying features of the people whose consent you haven't gotten and get consent of everyone else? Or just keep it low res enough that it's blurred by default. Or just don't use it that way. The point is that there are options, and they aren't one-size-fits-all.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#114

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…

The basis of privacy rights in the US is the expectation of privacy. No one can claim an expectation of privacy in public. That image may be of you but you have no claim to it, as you didn’t take it.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#115
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 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 cameras. To that extent even if I have functioning carbon-based cameras, having a silicon-based camera attached to my body is just an extension of my body and you most certainly do not have the right of access to the memories it records, regardless of whether those memories are stored in neurons or in an SD card (even that detail is not your right to know; I could have had a flash memory implant in my brain and it would be a HIPAA violation if you demanded to know what implants I have).

To ban silicon-based cameras is a gross ADA violation. To demand to know exactly by what mechanism videos are stored is a HIPAA violation. If you want to ban recording you might as well blindfold everyone while you're at it.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#116

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…

> “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.

The authority is over their own person. If I'm in public you don't get to touch grab my ass because "in the case of ass-grabbing in public there is no authority so no consent is needed."

> However, I think there may be an ethical dilemma if the picture is unintentionally sexually suggestive.

Think about why there's a dilemma. Can that same reasoning apply to other kinds of photos? And who should get to decide what's sufficiently suggestive? You or the subject?

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#117

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…

> In the case of photography in public there is no authority so no consent is needed.

In the US.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#118
As a hobbyist photographer I once went on a street photography course in London. They did cover the ethics and morals of street photography, along with various techniques about what to do if challenged.

UK law is a bit different than US law. From my understanding the US law allows any photography in a public space. While UK law does not allow street photography on private property (although if you're on public property photographing into private property that's OK), plus any photos of places where they'd expect a degree of privacy. So you can't stick your camera over walls etc.

I also checked the laws around photography in the UK and there are general rules around nuisance photography (that wouldn't cover conventional street photography). Additionally I looked at rules around photographing children in the UK, and generally it's not permitted to take photos of other people's children without their parent's / guardians permission.

The photo on the subway in the article wouldn't _technically_ be allowed in the UK, as the tube in London is private property (although everyone takes photos there) and photographing other people's children without permission isn't really allowed.

At the other end of the spectrum, I've also been to events on private property in the UK like Comic Cons. They have a very comprehensive photo policy for both the photographers and the attendees. While photographing at these events I often switch to a kind of "pantomime" mode, where it's very clear that I'm taking a photo and the subject has clearly agreed to be photographed. Other times I point my camera lens downwards when checking the shots and show them to the subject or have the lens cap on. At these events I've spoken to cosplayers who have thanked me for working like this, as they have had trouble with photographers behaving inappropriately.

I've only been challenged twice while doing street photography. Once while on the street photography course where I was taking a photo of a sandwich shop and a guy walked out while I was taking the photo. He politely challenged me and explained he was uncomfortable with me taking his photo. I showed him the photo and explained he wasn't in the shot. The second time I was challenged more aggressively, I was taking a photo of a long street with trams on near a tram station. Someone came up to me almost shouting asking if I took their photo. I explained I was taking a photo of the tram lines, and showed them a few shots. They seemed happier after that and left me to it. In truth when I got home and looked at my photos they were in the shot, but they were just one of many faces in the crowd. This shot was all about the lines of the tram station and how busy it was.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#119

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…

> 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 you happen to be in that shot?

While I completely understand the spirit of your concern, it shouldn’t surprise anyone familiar with US freedoms.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#120

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…

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.

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 enough in all cases).

There is also a part about clothing, like the story above mentioned. Most people (I think) look at the photo in the story and everything seems kosher as far as clothing goes. some disagree as the story indicates.

The big problem is the ambiguity of some of these terms and what the person you are taking a photo of would interpret said terms.

Post reply on HN