CCC Forum

The craze for secretly snapping hot strangers is as bad as upskirting. Just put that camera phone away.

Check out
https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/the-craze-for-secretly-snapping-hot-strangers-is-as-bad-as-upskirting-just-put-that-camera-phone-a3872206.html

Look forward to your comments.
Iggy

It’s a very valid d question. I was on night street walk and someone spotted me taking their picture. Asked me to explain why I taking their picture.

Then proceeded a conversation about whether I had the right to take their picture without permission and got asked to delete the picture.

I said no and walked on. However it got me thinking what was the ethics in this situation? should I have deleted the picture after acperson in the picture (it was a group of people and one objected) very clearly voiced her unhappiness?


Welcome your views?

Street photography does get one into various situations that is probably best to have thought about beforehand.

“The law” might suggest that you have the right to photograph people at will in public places, come what may. I tend to be sensitive to a person’s feelings and would always delete the image if requested. In some places you could loose your camera if you did not comply with a request for deletion.

Iggy

Iggy wrote:The craze for secretly snapping hot strangers is as bad as upskirting. Just put that camera phone away.

I get where the autor is coming from, but conflating upskirting which really is an invasion of privacy with compared to other forms of photography seems extreme. Street photography has long been an accepted genre, but the prevalence of social media has made people more aware of it. Imagine if people like Bert Hardy or Tish Murtha* had been confined sy such restraints. We would have lost a valuable part of our pictorial history. Often, it is not practical to ask permission first as that would destroy the very scene the photographer is trying to capture.

Iggy wrote:“The law” might suggest that you have the right to photograph people at will in public places, come what may.

That is not quite the actual case. UK** law makes no specific reference about the right to photograph in public places, including people, but neither does it prohibit it. In copyright law, there is a right of panorama which allows inclusion of copyrighted works if they are in public locations without infringing copyright. It is relevant since no one can copyright their image.

Sensitivity to candid photography does seem to vary in different places. A lot of people are very aware in London, but outside the capital people seem less concerned. I have found I am less likely to be challenged if I compose using the camera's rear screen rather than holding it to my eye. People are more accepting of camera phones as well. As both Sarah and Iggy have said, it needs to be done with sensitivity, both towards the subject and one's own safety.

https://thephotographersgallery.org.uk/ ... -1976-1991

* An exhibition of whose work is currently on display at The Photographers' Gallery - https://thephotographersgallery.org.uk/ ... -1976-1991

** It does not apply to every jurisdiction. Both France and Hungary have specific laws in respect of privacy, for example.

It doesn’t happen often but if I am asked to delete an image I generally would, at least if it was of a person. I try to respect the person(s) I’m photographing and although the law is on my side it seems simpler to avoid the argument.

Joel Meyerwitz, the American street photographer has written with Colin Westerbeck an excellent history of street photography ‘Bystander’, which they updated last year (£29.95 from Amazon). Joel quotes Saul Leiter as saying in an 2008 interview “I’ve spent a lot of my life being ignored, I’ve always been happy in that state. To be ignored is a privilege.” See http://www.howardgreenberg.com/artists/saul-leiter for more on Saul Leiter). Of course there is always the Bruce Gilden approach where he deliberately antagonises his subject to get a certain characteristic disgruntled look. But I feel the resulting image is telling you more about the photographer than his subject. I suspect it’s a risky approach too.

As pointed out before in some countries there are some quite strict rules on photographing people. In France before taking a photo of someone you are required by law to ask the individual’s permission, and if you want to publish it later you have to ask their permission for each specific usage. Article 10 of the European Convention supporting free expression doesn't hold in France if it interferes with certain individual right. There are exceptions, like uniformed policemen, but not many. Amusing article on this at http://seanrocha.com/2012/08/18/in-paris-this-photo-is-illegal/

So be thankful for the UK law as it stands and don't upset people too much in case there's a push to have it changed.

Now someone has raised the question about the ethics of including private messages on portable devices in street photography. While not apparently illegal, the article makes the same point as Graham that street photography has to be done sensitively so as not spoil it for everyone.

https://petapixel.com/2018/07/05/is-it- ... -messages/

PetaPixel has just published a counter view to the criticism of Jeff Mermelstein's depiction of text messages. Essentially the argument is similar to the one I advanced earlier in this thread that in part street photography creates a record of our society for future generations. In my previous post, I had not really looked at the images in question, but the close-up nature of them suggests that they could well have been taken with the phone user's consent. In which case, the issue of insensitivity towards others does not arise.

Take a look for yourself and see if you agree: https://www.instagram.com/jeffmermelstein/?hl=en.

Graham C wrote: In France before taking a photo of someone you are required by law to ask the individual’s permission, and if you want to publish it later you have to ask their permission for each specific usage.

Unknowingly, I have broken French law many a time and then gone on to publish articles in UK & US magazines such as The Bird Market in Paris where bird sellers saw me taking images but did not object or give me permission. Some images of people would have also been taken while visiting several Public Aquarium in Paris but probably not used in the published features where fish would have been the order of the day. Same applies to many of the cities around the world that I visited. Obviously editors of the nine magazines that I used to write for did not know the law either.

I always try to work with sensitivity when photographing people and if there is any unhappiness, I do not take the image.
Sadly, the paparazzi photographers hunting down Princess Diana showed no such concern and eventually led to her death.

Iggy

Iggy wrote:Unknowingly, I have broken French law many a time and then gone on to publish articles in UK & US magazines such as The Bird Market in Paris where bird sellers saw me taking images but did not object or give me permission.

I look forward to the Gendarmerie descending and taking you off for a spell in a French chokey.

To my chagrin, this might not come about as French law is not quite as simplistic as you suggest. Photography is allowed for journalistic purposes in some instances and where it does not transgress the private lives of the individuals depicted. Much depends on whether the subsequent publication could be classified as news or illustrative and whether those featuring in the pictures were the primary subject or incidental to it. In other words, it is a legal minefield and it is always safest to obtain written permission.

This link has further information: https://photothisandthat.co.uk/2012/02/ ... ivacy-law/

Iggy wrote:Sadly, the paparazzi photographers hunting down Princess Diana showed no such concern and eventually led to her death.

Arguably, getting into a car driven by a drunken Frenchman who was three times over the legal alcohol limit and drove dangerously, well in excess of the speed limit, was a far greater factor. Not to mention that she was not wearing a seatbelt; the only person who did so was her protection officer and he got out alive if not unscathed. Certainly, the paps were an unwanted irritant and a contributory cause but Diana had been photographed previously in such circumstances and survived. It was the chauffeur who was lethal.

The latest edition of Amateur Photographer, publishe today, has an artiicle aboput photographers' rights. It does not add anything new but is a useful summary of the current legal position in the UK.

Sometimes AP publishes content online a few weeks after it appears in the magazine, so it is wothwhile keeping an eye on the website.