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

281–290 of 292 posts

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#281

Post by caslon »

igornadj wrote: post #273
caslon wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's not just taking pictures of homeless people. Look at what Cohen does in that video, and remember he's one of the most celebrated and beloved street photographers.

Street photography is for hacks. I've known a lot of them, they're never good people.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#282

Post by lamontcg »

IgorPartola wrote: post #72
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…

If I understand correctly, the reason why public photography is considered protected speech is because we want citizens to be able to capture public events of interest. That is, protests, riots, cops using excessive force, or more happy events like celebrations, etc. When it comes to someone taking photos in those situations I have no problem with it. However I really dislike the commercial street photographers as a…

I dislike any ownership of the public space. I think there's a guarantee that will be used against you if you start to allow some people to own their public representations. Powerful people and corporations would love to own their public representation and limit what could be done with them. And the lines aren't going to be clear cut.

There's a conflict between the ability to document the public sphere and any right to privacy in the public sphere. And the need to be able to document the public sphere I think takes precedence. And just like you don't like all the speech in the public sphere, but it needs to be protected, you don't have to like all the documentation of the public sphere, but it needs to be protected.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#283

Post by nicbou »

Invictus0 wrote: post #205
gpvos wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You didn't give up any rights or freedoms: there is no "right to not be photographed".

In Germany, there is a right to one's own image, even in public.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#284

Post by igornadj »

caslon wrote: post #281
igornadj wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's not just taking pictures of homeless people. Look at what Cohen does in that video, and remember he's one of the most celebrated and beloved street photographers. Street photography is for hacks. I've known a lot of them, they're never good people.

Mark Cohen is 78 years old. He is not remotely relevant to the scene today. Photogs celebrate the people who came before them like Cohen or Gilden but you just don't see that type of behaviour in the current generation. Same with anything else really, older sports athletes are celebrated and at the same time rightfully criticised, older musicians, celebrities, the list goes on.

It seems you've had some bad experiences, that's a shame. But that's a hell of a broad brush you're painting with there, when there's so much good street out there telling beautiful stories from people we would never have heard from.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#285

Post by IgorPartola »

igornadj wrote: post #284
caslon wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just taking pictures of homeless people. Look at what Cohen does in that video, and remember he's one of the most celebrated and beloved street photographers. Street photography is for hacks. I've known a lot of them, they're never good people.

Mark Cohen is 78 years old. He is not remotely relevant to the scene today. Photogs celebrate the people who came before them like Cohen or Gilden but you just don't see that type of behaviour in the current generation. Same with anything else really, older sports athletes are celebrated and at the same time rightfully criticised, older musicians, celebrities, the list goes on. It seems you've had some bad experience…

FWIW I agree that street photography is by and large not great. I know there are exceptions but mostly people don’t want to be photographed in public by a random stranger.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#286

Post by _bfhp »

bastardoperator wrote: post #104
_bfhp wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one is confused about what the current norm is. The author and other commenters are curious about the arguments for the implications and improvement or replacement of it.

This has been widely debated for years, photography is nearly 200 years old. Where we have landed is the probably the best place. 1. You have no privacy in public. 2. Individuals have a right to use a camera in public spaces recording whatever their eyes can see. Changing the above would require a modification to the 1st Amendment in the US which makes any argument almost completely moot.

I fear we are conflating morality with legality

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#287

Post by shard »

Edman274 wrote: post #230
dheera wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The key distinction is that the human eye and its storage system doesn't meaningfully support duplication and distribution of the picture. That isn't necessarily true. Just because your eye doesn't doesn't mean mine doesn't. How do you know I wasn't born blind and retrofitted with a silicon eye that gives me both the ability to see and record/duplicate more easily than other humans?

This is a bad faith reply. Non-existent hypothetical devices are not worth considering when talking about the morality of something that someone does today.

I saw this a while ago, Argus II implant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05ee61Bu-Ok

It exists, albeit only B&W and at a very low resolution. However as we all know, technology can advance very quickly, and high resolution cameras are not inconceivable for this application.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#288

Post by shard »

estaseuropano wrote: post #244
btilly wrote: 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…

I'm not sure if I buy that counterfactual. Taken to its logical conclusion, you can say that about any piece of art, or anyone you meet, or any event in your life. I don't believe that these are such interchangeable items. Taking your example of an alternate photo of a 5yo waving to her dad, or a mother hugging her son, they express different things compared with the photo in question, with the original photo giving me a sense of the joy of returning to a youthful life full of promise, while the 5yo waving photo would be of the relief of a father knowing that he will be able to raise his daughter, and the last would be of a dutiful son returning.

Re: The sticky issue of consent in street photography

#290

Post by [deleted] »

goldcd wrote: 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,…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN