Ethics of photographing in public places - beaches example

<p>Every country deals with this question differently in terms of the law <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements">http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements</a><br>

However - is it ethical to take photos of people in public places without their consent? For example - you are a man taking pictures of women at the beach without their consent or knowledge? </p>

<p>I see some pictures posted here and there everywhere on the web, and do wonder if the photographer that took those photographs has a moral compass. How would they like it if a photographer took photos of their daughter or wife without their consent? </p>

<p>How does a site like this deal with photos like this that could be viewed as unethical even if legal?<br>

What do you think?</p>

<p>Photographing the public in public deserves an initial assumption of acceptable unless special circumstances, or unusual conditions can be applied. The idea of a public space places obligations on everyone. You have to assume for instance the right of others to look at you, even stare at you. And if they right to look, why not the right to photograph? Here, there is an obligation then on the subject to dress in a way that won't embarrass them when someone looks/photographs.</p>

<p>For example, if you are embarrassed to show your legs to people, you ought not go in public with bare legs and then complain if you get looked at, or photographed. In other words, being in public is a mutual contract. It's unreasonable to expect privacy in public. Assume you will be looked at by everyone who is in public, and then dress accordingly. You can only respect someone's privacy when they are in fact in a private place. </p>

<p>From the viewer/photographer's moral perspective, what are the moral considerations? There are various bad behaviors involving lust, exploitation, theft, cheating, and violence. Assume the photographer takes a photograph of someone's wife or daughter on the beach. It might be a documentary shot, a simple vernacular shot, or it might be a prurient shot used later on for lustful purposes. But that's only clear to the photographer. Like so many moral issues, intent is crucial. The husband or father can hardly make too many assumptions about this act of taking the picture. The husband or father can not ignore his responsibility here - which is to assure that the wife and daughter are sufficiently dressed to meet the public. </p>

<p>We don't want people exploiting others for prurient reasons, but we also are not mind readers in that regard. What's common and ordinary to one, is very likely to be pornographic to another. Age old problem. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>The crux of the philosophical conversation is: <br>

People who are at the beach at a particular point in time, that is: <strong><em>when and where</em></strong> the legs were bared, may have the right to look upon those legs.<br>

But that does not presuppose those people also have the right to make a record of the legs, such that others who were not there at the time of the bearing of legs can ogle at the legs, at a later point in time, in a different place, perpetually.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Let me ask this, how about a record of the face? Is the question here about modesty, or privacy? Can I draw the person on paper?</p>

<p>From where would such a ban of record making arise morally? What's the basis? </p>

<p>As I mentioned: the crux of the philosophic conversation is neither about modesty nor about privacy, as both those aspects relate to the person who is being viewed.<br>

The essence of the philosophical debate is in the right or wrong of the recording with a view show at a later date in a different space to oneself and/or a different audience, perpetually.<br>

The aspect of the right (or not) to record and review, resides with the viewer.</p>

<p>A ban (or not) of 'record making' by any instrument arises of itself and as a fundamental question.<br>

It is only recently we have questioned same, but our various instruments and laws seemingly have made ad hoc choices and decisions along the way of our development (aka civilization).</p>

<p>There are several examples.<br>

For one: in many jurisdictions I may (by law) be allowed without your consent to take written notes of our conversation in a coffee shop or on the telephone. I may be skilled in Hansard and my notes accurate. But in the same jurisdiction I may also NOT be allowed to make an audio recording of our conversation, without your knowledge and also your consent.</p>

<p>There doesn't ever seem to have been any primary logic addressing the question in the first inst. of my right (or not) to make ANY record of the conversation other than that which is intrinsic, by virtue of my brain.<br>

The same applies with this question of making a picture of a pair of legs - or face at the beach.<br>

That's why I stated that the crux of the philosophical debate is about the viewer's right to record, not about the viewee's right to any modesty or privacy, or anything else.<br>

Yes these two things are related: but the issues and the topic for the philosophical conversation are different. <br>

<br>

WW</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Would you agree that public space is rationally different than private space? If yes, what differences do you find important?</p>

<p>Given that the law isn't necessarily any reflection of prevailing morality, I think we can dispense with ad hoc laws existing here or there. They may arise from nothing more than a crank ramrodding some pet legislation. </p>

<p>And by your position also, modesty is not involved. So, we just mean here the taking of records in public space. Notes, recordings, photographs, paintings, and any other form of physical record-making.</p>

<p>Since the record making doesn't necessarily injure the subject (suppose I never share the record), we are only left with the intentions of the record maker. We can recall that in one moral system, Jesus declared that adultery can be committed just by looking lustfully at the subject. He means sin is all in the intentions. Which makes a good amount of sense. If I am making a record for some bad purpose - blackmail, lust, exploitation and the like - I am likely to be challenging my ethical boundaries based on Jesus' admonition in Matthew. But if I make the record innocently, or better yet with good purpose, what sort of invention is invoked to bar this practice?</p>

<p>I think to support a philosophical ban on record making, some injury has to be demonstrated by the subject. But injury simply by someone merely making a record can hardly be shown. If it is so shown that the injury is inherent in the act, then public space has no meaning distinct from private space.</p>

<p>Saying the debate is "about the viewer's right to record" seems to be side stepping the issue. The OP's question was about the ethicality and legality of taking said pictures. IMO, for something to be unethical is needs to violate someones well being, whether it be their emotional, financial, or bodily state. And seeing images of their daughter in a bikini posted in a public forum may well cause some fathers emotional grief. But I think the issue at hand is whether or not they have a right to be protected from such a perceived violation. I would say no. In the case of the family members being offended, that is an issue they need to take up with their daughter. And the girl/woman herself needs to be aware that she is in public for all the world to see and present herself accordingly. To me these are very basic ideas of living in a community.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Saying the debate is "about the viewer's right to record" seems to be side stepping the issue. . . But I think the issue at hand is whether or not they (the persons photographed) have a right to be protected from such a perceived violation.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe that's what you think is the issue is at hand - but that was not what the OP asked.<br>

The initial question the OP asked is:<br>

<strong><em>"is it ethical to take photos of people in public places without their consent?"</em></strong><br>

The Subject of the verb "to take" is clearly 'the photographer' (understood). <br>

So, it is not side-stepping the issue at all, but rather goes directly to the crux of it. <br>

It is a question of ethics pertaining to the talking of; the recording of; and the photographer or person doing the recording, and the ethical rights or not, thereof that doing.</p>

<p>As previously mentioned: the matters are related and the base philosophical conversation must be predicated on and about the ethics of the right or not to record, by any means. </p>

<p>WW</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Would you agree that public space is rationally different than private space?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In the context of this conversation: no.</p>

<p>***</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Given that the law isn't necessarily any reflection of prevailing morality, I think we can dispense with ad hoc laws existing here or there. They may arise from nothing more than a crank ramrodding some pet legislation.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That was an example of how there seems to have been be no thought given, to the fundamental question, in the first inst. .<br />It was not stated nor implied that 'law' was a reflection of morality.<br>

Neither was it stated or implied that that, had anything to do with the point I was making</p>

<p>***</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>And by your position also, modesty is not involved.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Correct.</p>

<p>***</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So, we just mean here the taking of records in public space. Notes, recordings, photographs, paintings, and any other form of physical record-making.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No we (I) mean: that the fundamental philosophical conversation is about the right to make a recording by any means at any time in any place of another person.</p>

<p>***</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Since the record making doesn't necessarily injure the subject (suppose I never share the record), we are only left with the intentions of the record maker.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That’s an assumption and also one which is not sustainable. You die suddenly (I trust not). The record remains and is used for another purpose.</p>

<p>***</p>

<blockquote>

<p>We can recall that in one moral system, Jesus declared that adultery can be committed just by looking lustfully at the subject. He means sin is all in the intentions. Which makes a good amount of sense. If I am making a record for some bad purpose - blackmail, lust, exploitation and the like - I am likely to be challenging my ethical boundaries based on Jesus' admonition in Matthew. But if I make the record innocently, or better yet with good purpose, what sort of invention is invoked to bar this practice?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don’t instantly recall the passages which state those things, but, let’s say for the sake of this conversation we accept that "good intent" does have a value as a criterion for ethical recording.<br />Then there’s still the ignorance factor and also other factors beyond the control of the "good intent" (as per above - dying - as one example) . . . so no I disagree: one cannot base any argument that is ethically right record premised on “good intensions”.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think to support a philosophical ban on record making, some injury has to be demonstrated by the subject. But injury simply by someone merely making a record can hardly be shown. If it is so shown that the injury is inherent in the act, then public space has no meaning distinct from private space.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As previously stated, IMO, the philosophical discussion cannot be based on “injury”, as per my above, so therefore I logically disagree with this on the basis of a non-sense.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>So I am a photojournalist. I have a get out of jail free card. Every shot I take is the news with all of the protections that affords me even if I choose to not use those shots in the future. The only person who can really question what I am doing is my boss. If I am freelance, then its me. Think about that.</p>

<p>Then there is the potential for any shot to turn into "the news". Some guy is photographing girls at the beach, one of them goes missing, and the shot he took gets him notoriety and perhaps even wealth. all because that shot magically became "the news". </p>

<p>I'm going to always default to freedom even when I think that freedom comes at the cost of accepting some creepy behavior. Where the lie is crossed is when the creep trades the photo for gain. In that case I have an issue. Though I have to put up with the creep shooting my daughter from hiding and using the pictures later for his own ugly purposes, I do not have to put up with his selling them.</p>

<p>I don't think taking a photo has any ethical implications at all, unless in that act you have somehow harmed someone (e.g., interfered with their golf swing). It may or may not have legal implications, but the question is about ethics.</p>

<p>USING a photo you have taken, on the other hand, has definite ethical implications, and they depend on the circumstances of the taking of the photo, who it is, how it is to be used, and so on. My rule of thumb would be that, because of our natural biases to justify our own behavior, if you think you're over the line, you probably are.</p>

<p>There are also nude beaches, where I presume photography would be a no-no, as sometime signs posted could tell you that.</p>

<p>Normal, dressed up beaches and pretty girls, are good places to take photos.</p>

<p>Taking pictures on a beach with visibly long lenses frequently makes you a suspect even if you are a saint.<br>

I prefer to use long zooms that retract and fold-in to a smaller looking beast.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"How would they like it if a photographer took photos of their daughter or wife without their consent?"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>The OP's question is about intent. <br /> <br /> Presumably these will not offend the OP to the same extent: <br /> [<a href="https://www.google.ca/search?q=st+maarten+landing&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.50310824,d.dmg,pv.xjs.s.en_US.arDYkacXFAU.O&biw=1440&bih=770&um=1&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=gKIAUuv2FcmCygGYroHADQ">Link</a>]</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Where the lie is crossed is when the creep trades the photo for gain.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>USING a photo you have taken, on the other hand, has definite ethical implications</p>

</blockquote>

<p>+1 for Rick and Mark's observations. It is not about taking the photo but about how it gets used. A century from now, everyone in a photo will most likely be dead or impervious to scandal and the photo on its own will gain value as a document (of course, technology may alter my deadlines (hopefully during my lifetime (:))))<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>How would they like it if a photographer took photos of their daughter or wife without their consent?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How about if they took photos of the husband or son without their consent? Why is that more easy to digest?</p>

<p>However - is it ethical to take photos of people in public places without their consent? For example - you are a man taking pictures of women at the beach without their consent or knowledge?</p>

<p>Most people are normal and have common sense. Unfortunately sites like this attract the minority of people who lack common sense. I went to the beach with some friends who had children and I photographed the group and made wide angle pictures of the beach. Some of the shots just incidentally contained pictures of women I didn't know in bikinis. No one objected to my picture taking. Why? Well none of the women that I didn't know that were included in the shot were the main subject. I wasn't wandering around by myself with a big L telephoto lens stalking young girls. If someone could have legally confiscated my camera and looked at the images on it it would be very obvious I had no particular interest in scantily clad women.</p>

<p>What may be the most important thing that makes society work may not be the written rules... on a certain level I think it is the unwritten rules. Girls are not necessarily at the beach in a bikini because they are exhibitionists. If given the choice of hanging out on a private beach on a secluded island with their boyfriend/husband most girls would choose that option. Just because they aren't rich doesn't mean we should just declare open season on them because they are forced to go to a crowded public beach. Because we have unwritten rules and lay off the ladies they can actually enjoy a day at the beach. What's the alternative? Letting the Taliban write our laws and having either all photography state censored or women walking around covered head to toe?</p>

<p>I agree that intent is the primary keyword in this argument. <br>

To expand on the original question of ethics of "taking" pictures at the beach ....is it also ethical to post pictures like this <a href="/photodb/folder?folder_id=994057">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=994057</a> which appear to be taken of the subjects without consent and without their knowledge?<br>

You will notice that the vast majority of comments on these photos are about the subjects and have very little to do with photography or technique. What is the intent of the photographer taking photos like this and should a site like photo.net welcome them? Or put more bluntly - Is it OK for creepy old men to take pictures like this and post online for comments - again without the subjects knowledge or consent? <br>

If their intent was pure as the driven snow, then why not politely approach the subjects and introduce themselves and explain that they'd like to photograph them?</p>

<p>I'd agree that the morality lies not in the taking of the photograph but with the subsequent use of it.</p>

<p>I am, however, troubled by the unthinkingly patriarchal tone of many contributions. The most blatant example is within a post with which I otherwise tended towards agreement: «The husband or father can not ignore his responsibility ... to assure that the wife and daughter are sufficiently dressed to meet the public».</p>

<p>Laurentiu Cristofor is an honourable exception («How about ... husband or son ... Why is that more easy to digest?»).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am, however, troubled by the unthinkingly patriarchal tone of many contributions. The most blatant example is within a post with which I otherwise tended towards agreement: «The husband or father can not ignore his responsibility ... to assure that the wife and daughter are sufficiently dressed to meet the public».</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There was no :patriarchal tone" intended. It was inserted as an answer to the OP who posed this question: "How would they like it if a photographer took photos of their <strong>daughter or wife</strong> without their consent?" </p>

<p>Had the OP referenced "son and father", I would have put the responsibility on wife. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"As previously mentioned: the matters are related and the base philosophical conversation must be predicated on and about the ethics of the right or not to record, by any means."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well? I am waiting for you to explain your position. Is it ethical or not? </p>

<p>m stephens:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There was no :patriarchal tone" intended. It was inserted as an answer to the OP who posed this question: "How would they like it if a photographer took photos of their <strong>daughter or wife</strong> without their consent?"<br /> Had the OP referenced "son and father", I would have put the responsibility on wife.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Point taken, and accepted; in your case I retract the "patriarchal" label. There remains a more general philosophical consideration: the acceptance, regardless of gender, that adult X is responsible for assuring (or has any right to decide) that adult Y is sufficiently dressed to meet the public (I specify "adult" since I do accept that there may, depending on age of the offspring, be parental responsibility).</p>

<p>So the question keeps being asked, "Is this ethical.." but no one is describing any particular ethical framework. Imagine the difference in asking it like this:<br>

-Is this ethical for a married white male Mormon church leader to do?<br>

-Is this ethical for a freedom loving humanist to?</p>

<p>As I pointed out earlier, if you are a Christian, operating in that moral framework, just looking lustfully at a woman is the same as adultery (Matt: 5-28). But if you are not within that moral system, if you are say an atheist, it would not be immoral for you to look at a woman lustfully. So, speaking about ethics is incomplete without defining the ethical system. </p>

<p>Since this was not designated as a religious question, I think the system of ethics has to be our "western civil society" - as loose as that may seem. In this system, the considerations coming into play for this question are freedom, public space, property, and maybe contracts. </p>

<p>In general, photography is allowed in public places. So any prohibition has to have some specific need for special rules. The governments have set a major precedent by saying they don't need your permission to surveil you in public with cameras. No permission required. I think that's the existing standard. In public, no permission is needed. This is not a question of "good taste" - it is a question of the operating ethic. </p>

<p>Most of this argument has centered around "men taking pictures of girls in bikinis. It is very obvious that people posting that concern are doing so from a moral framework that is more restrictive than western civil society. Something more like the religious framework previously mentioned. For that person, it might very well be unethical to take such pictures. For others, it may not be. </p>

<p>Freedom generally implies that a behavior is acceptable if it doesn't lead to harm to others. A girl is free to wear a bikini in public because it doesn't hurt me. I am free to photograph it, because it doesn't hurt her. There is no need to discuss what might be done with the photo later, because that is a completely new and different act. </p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>To expand on the original question of ethics of "taking" pictures at the beach ....is it also ethical to post pictures like this <a href="/photodb/folder?folder_id=994057" rel="nofollow">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=994057</a> which appear to be taken of the subjects without consent and without their knowledge?<br /> You will notice that the vast majority of comments on these photos are about the subjects and have very little to do with photography or technique. What is the intent of the photographer taking photos like this and should a site like photo.net welcome them? Or put more bluntly - Is it OK for creepy old men to take pictures like this and post online for comments - again without the subjects knowledge or consent?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What ethical system do you embrace for your own standard? </p>

<p>"I am free to photograph it, <em><strong>because it doesn't hurt her</strong></em>."<br>

<em><strong>"because it doesn't hurt her" </strong></em>How would you know it doesn't hurt her unless you asked for permission?<br>

<em><strong>"There is no need to discuss what might be done with the photo later, because that is a completely new and different act." </strong></em>Of course there is because it reveals intent.<br>

Lets be real here - these photos are not "beach photos" - the subject matter is clearly women in bikinis that happen to be at the beach, AND the women have no idea they are the subject of the photographers shot, so I ask again - if the intent is pure as the driven snow, why not ask for permission?<br>

PS. I believe it is polite and ethical to ask for permission to take photos of people as subjects of the photo. Key here being these women are the subjects of the photo and have no idea they are being taken or what will be done with them. Its really that simple. </p>

<blockquote>

<p><em><strong>"because it doesn't hurt her" </strong></em>How would you know it doesn't hurt her unless you asked for permission?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because we have a thorough system of torts in all western society. If harm is done by photographing people, they pursue remedy under the law. People at the beach are not being entitled damages from photographs.</p>

<p>If by "hurt" you mean some internal emotional pain, that is part and parcel of going out in public. Can I say I am hurt by hearing someone's music? Can I say I am hurt by seeing someone's tattoo? Yes, I can, but it's not a tort. I can't enforce claims of that kind of hurt.</p>

<p>So, key to your question is understanding your ethical framework. Is there a reason you are not stating it in response to my question?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>so I ask again - if the intent is pure as the driven snow, why not ask for permission?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You're now asking a new question. I don't even know what pure intent means in this context. If a guy like looking a girls in bikinis, is that pure or impure intent?</p>

<p>I think your new line of questioning here reveals that you are really asking a question related to good and bad taste as it relates to some specific ethical landscape that you subscribe to, but are not revealing. For instance, I've known lots of religious people who would not allow a teen daughter to wear a string bikini to the beach. I know other people who have no trouble with it. I think when you come down to this specific question of "girls in bikinis on the beach" you are honing in on a very NARROW system - a very specific one. So sure, if I was a priest, I would now declare, "It is UNETHICAL." But, I am not a priest, so it seems "ok" to me, even if it can easily cross into bad taste (upshots and so on).</p>

<p>In short, you are asking a relative question.</p>