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

191–200 of 292 posts

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#191

Post by MrStonedOne »

morphicpro wrote: post #163

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 a…

> 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.

This is low effort sexism. You could remove the words "male" and "towards women" and you'd avoid be being sexist while sending the same message.

> 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.

Nobody is required to tolerate being stereotyped based on their gender.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#192

Post by smoldesu »

6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #189
echelon wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article, > The people who get the most worked up over the ethics of certain images are NOT themselves the subjects of the photo. This is outrage culture. People want to be angry. Here's something more for them to dogpile onto. Delivered by the Internet and amplified by engagement and sentiment detection algorithms. We're fucking animals screaming about events we never witness, experiences we never feel, and…

I feel very strongly about this because facebook is trying to get everyone to wear sunglasses that can surreptitiously put my picture online and TFA is trying to tell everyone that it's fine. I'm not in any art galleries TFA is talking about, sure, and you're telling me that means I can't speak up? Or that commenting means I'm a "fucking animal?"

Facebook's push is the least of your concerns, honestly. Mass-surveillance is an industry-wide effort, driven by government pressure.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#193

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o »

smoldesu wrote: post #192
6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel very strongly about this because facebook is trying to get everyone to wear sunglasses that can surreptitiously put my picture online and TFA is trying to tell everyone that it's fine. I'm not in any art galleries TFA is talking about, sure, and you're telling me that means I can't speak up? Or that commenting means I'm a "fucking animal?"

Facebook's push is the least of your concerns, honestly. Mass-surveillance is an industry-wide effort, driven by government pressure.

Sure. I hate that too and don't want it to be normalized. FB is just an example.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#194

Post by NineStarPoint »

mc32 wrote: post #10
Tomte wrote: post #2

The legal situation is similar in Germany, but I wouldn't do street photography here, either. The article discusses morality and ethics versus personal preference, but that's just high-brow talk. The point is that today, once someone photographs you, you cannot possibly know where he will post or publish your photo. And yes, that's creepy. Decades ago photographers maybe showed your picture at a gallery or exhibition…

In the US it’s pretty well established that art is exempt from privacy laws. It gets muddy[1]when you try to use it commercially: so you can sell a photograph as art, but you can’t use it without consent or permission if the art is for commercial purposes (to advertise, for example). A well known case is a Hasidic Jew suing photographer DiCorcia. New York State sided with the photographer: http://www.artistrights.inf…

I think people are more discussing what the law should be in the modern age than what the law currently is.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#195

Post by colanderman »

Tomte wrote: post #12
ivanstojic wrote: post #7

I always found this issue to be confusing. There are literally hundreds of cameras tracking me every day: in the parking lot, in front of the ATM, when I buy my groceries… I have no ability to know when I’m being recorded or what happens to those recordings. Yet some people are upset if they get photographed by a human photographer in a public space. Is the only difference that the photo was taken with intent?

CCTV footage doesn't go viral, and my social circle won't see it. I find it hard to understand that people in this thread see no problem there. You can still believe that photographers should have every right to take photos (and legally they do, so there's nothing to discuss about the status quo), but you need to address this point, even if only by summarily dismissing it.

YouTube is full of "look what my Ring camera recorded" videos.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#196

Post by randombits0 »

mcguire wrote: post #154
DanBC wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But if you do not, i.e. you are in public, What if you're on the street outside an HIV clinic? Or an abortion clinic? Or an STI clinic? Or a substance misuse clinic? Or a narcotics anonymous meeting? What if you're on the street, but have clearly just exited the door from that clinic? This isn't idle noodling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v_MGN_Ltd

" The House of Lords held MGN liable by majority vote, with lords Nicholls and Hoffmann dissenting. Baroness Hale, Lord Hope and Lord Carswell held that the picture added something of 'real significance'. The court engaged in a balancing test, firstly determining whether the applicant had a reasonable expectation of privacy (thus determining whether Art.8 ECHR was involved). It then considered whether, if the claiman…

> The legal system is not usually made up of complete idiots.

Certainly not. There is the “evil asshole” contingent as well, but I expect a bit of overlap between the two.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#197

Post by zuminator »

jasonhansel wrote: post #142

As a rather privacy-conscious person, I find this argument rather troubling: > asking for [consent] afterwards almost guarantees you will be turned down. In other words: I can't ask for people's consent because they might not give consent. > Even I, as a photographer, would feel suspicious if a stranger came up to me saying they just took my photo and would like some kind of retroactive permission. The fact that most…

I understand that people may have particularly strong reasons no not wanting to be photographed in public, but the strength of their conviction is not in itself necessarily a reason to respect those reasons. For example, lots of people strongly think that Bill Gates is using vaccines to insert microchips for surveillance purposes. Should we respect those ideas?

And yes, the surveillance state is a real thing, so I wouldn't go so far as to say that everyone's concerns are completely unfounded, but at least some of the time, the overall logic and philosophical underpinnings of their reasoning are not well considered. Do they really want to restrict the rights of others in a way that may end up harming them? Wouldn't they in fact be grateful if (without consent) a villain was caught on video attacking them, or if a kidnapper (without signing a release) was caught on video putting a child in a van? Some might conclude that only well-behaved people have a right to public privacy, and think no further about the full implications of that.

But, technology has created this problem, and may very well soon solve it. First, the increasing spread of deepfakes enables people to at least facially deny that the image in a photo is theirs. Second, the rise of deep learning means that it's becoming increasingly possible for photographers to alter photos of real people so that the faces in street photos are replaced with realistic GAN-generated faces that are distinct from the original face, but the expressions and everything else stay the same. It's not hard to imagine that that may become standard etiquette, another decade or two down the line. What a time to be alive.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#198

Post by diebeforei485 »

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…

There's a difference between surveillance cameras (whose footage is not distributed publicly unless it is footage of a crime taking place) and photographers who sell this work for profit.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#200

Post by randombits0 »

gpvos wrote: post #184
haswell wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's very surprising that exposing oneself to the public ... warrants a loss of freedom to privacy. Again, I understand your personal desire for privacy (and even share it), but this argument doesn't make sense. "Public" is literally an antonym of "Private" - the reason one loses privacy in public is baked into the very definition of the words we're using to describe the situation.

It makes total sense. To live any kind of livable life you need to go into the public space now and then. That shouldn't mean you have to give up any rights or freedoms.

Hey, buddy. If you want privacy, stop reflecting photons into my camera! How can you claim ownership over photons you threw at me!
Post reply on HN