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

21–30 of 292 posts

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#21

Post by kolanos »

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.

> CCTV footage doesn't go viral, and my social circle won't see it.

It absolutely can and has. Such as if the CCTV captured footage of a crime or a suspect of a crime.

Additionally, if the CCTV is government controlled, it is subject to freedom of information laws (FOIA), which means anyone can get a copy of the footage for any reason and use it for any purpose. It is in effect public domain.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#22

Post by Valgrim »

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…

Then you have to describe a legal definition of art, which is something artists spend their entire life trying to destroy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#24

Post by arprocter »

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?

Seems to me the objections come from assuming bad intent of the photographer

A little apples to oranges, but I get the feeling the same folks who are against being photographed in public are probably pro police bodycams

And how far and widely do they apply this? Sailor kiss in Times Sq comes to mind. Shots of the crowd at a sporting event?

And then there's war photography...

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#25

Post by biglost »

Curious about “ And asking for it afterwards almost guarantees you will be turned down. ” She seems to know most people wont approve it, so the solution is to not ask. I imagine my daughter: “Dad, i didnt ask for permission because you would say no, so i not asked for it and Im safe for being grounded.” Weird thinking

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#26

Post by golemotron »

cmaggiulli wrote: post #8

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…

Yes, the law is clear on this and case law evolved back when photography was expensive and relatively uncommon. People want to reconsider now that everyone has a camera all the time and it is very easy. This is a common pattern with tech.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#27

Post by coldpie »

tobr wrote: post #15

Speaking of consent, can someone post a version that doesn’t include a blocking cookie modal that offers no other option than to accept all cookies?

Sure:

https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/

https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/blob/master/filters/...

https://noscript.net/

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#28

Post by mc32 »

kolanos wrote: post #17
mc32 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In the U.S., you can use a photo you have taken for commercial purposes without requiring the consent of the subjects in the photo as long as: 1) the subject didn't hire you to take the photo (thus making it their property), 2) there is no reasonable expectation of privacy (photo taken in a public place). [0] Any "muddy" aspects are purely a civil matter, and even then, public photography is a constitutionally protec…

Yes, however, I believe you cannot take a public photograph and use it as a basis for a commercial advertisement: to sell nappies, or cars, etc…

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#29

Post by dymk »

kebman wrote: post #19

But when you're informed about cookies when entering the site, the only option is "I accept". Not unlike walking in a public space, where it's is, and should be, legal to photograph anyone. (And no, the back button is not a meaningful other option.)

Your other option is the back button.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#30

Post by kebman »

yosito wrote: post #9

I studied video production in college. For one project, I did a documentary on a non-profit that was working in a high-crime area. We drove down the street with a video camera pointed out the window * As we drove by a house with some young men on the porch, one of them saw the camera and yelled angrily, "Yo, what the fuck!" and started chasing us. After that experience, I've never been able to point my camera at some…

It is generally a smart idea to get consent first, especially if the imagery is intended for monetized use, such as ads and posters, especially since such use can result in law suits if done without consent. The one thing that might outweigh this general rule, is if something newsworthy happens, or something that would be deemed important for the public to see, such as a crime. Where I'm from (Norway) the general rule is that a person cannot take up the focus or majority of an image without prior consent. This makes it possible to video or take pictures of public events without needing to ask everyone on the stadium, for instance.
Post reply on HN