How do you ask permission to take a photograph?

[mike dixon]

<i>the destruction of privacy</i><P>

 

Okay, one more time: being in public is NOT being in private. What is it about that no-so-subtle distinction that is so f&*king difficult for some people to understand?

[chris_waller]

Try the 'Columbo' approach, slightly eccentric and distracted. An eccentric hat helps. People are more fearful of the strange and will do anything just to get rid of you, even agree to be photographed. I rarely ask people, I just start directing them. If they really object they will say so, but generally by the time they have figured out what I'm about I have the picture and have moved on.

[lucas_griego]

"To those who feel that this constrains their artistry and journalism, well, I'm with the subject on this matter. Artistry and journalism come after the right to privacy of the individual."

 

If you're in a public place - you don't have the right to privacy. How much do you actually get out and street shoot?

 

"If you're going to shoot then ask, fine, but I'd want to see evidence of destruction in case I refused, and a real willingess to do so."

 

LOL! This is just sheer nonsense. Get a grip. What.. do you have some kind of 'real willingness' meter out in the street with you? LOL!!

[richard_milner2]

You created a moral dilemma for yourself. You built some private space for the woman by assigning her the right not to be photographed, then you felt unable to enter that space.

 

However, as Mike Dixon said, people in a public place cannot have a reasonable expectation of privacy. If they do not want to be seen or photographed, they should not appear in public.

 

Street shooters should exercise a sensible discretion; there are situations where you should ask, family quarrels, perhaps, or foreign cultures. There are situations where you should just walk away (photographic street criminals is going to be risky.) But this sounded like an innocent situation.

 

I think you made a mistake by asking, but having asked you did the right thing not to take the shot.

[mike dixon]

As I've noted when this issue has come up before, if you ask permission, many people will infer that their permission is required. If you don't ask permission, most people won't give it a second thought.

[geert_vanden_wijngaert]

If you see a photograph, just shoot it...if you start thinking you most probably will miss your shot. Asking permission is not needed when you shoot in a public space. Every object that's located in a public place (people, animals, objects) can't do nothing legally (except giving you a kick under your *ss, but than they're doing something illegal) when you shoot them there.

I think the lady you wanted to photograph was of the kind that's always making a problem out of everything. Don't feel embarrased for that. Next time...just shoot!!! Best Geert

[aricmayer]

Keep your camera ready. When you see that shot, drop to one knee and take the picture

within a matter of two seconds. If she looks at you, smile a disarming goofy smile and

walk away fiddling with your camera bag. You simultaneously look harmless and like you

know what your doing, two things people don't like to confront. Most people won't ever

even notice or say anything.

 

I'm quite sure Elliot Erwitt didn't get all those great dog pictures by walking around asking

permission. In this case you didn't need permission, and the process of getting it may

have ruined your chances that the photograph you saw anyway.

 

Your question begs another question: "When is it right or even necessary to ask

permission to take a photograph?"

 

That is a whole other kettle of fish.

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> I shoot, then ask. If they say yes, I shoot again.

</blockquote> </i><p>

 

I shoot, and if someone sees me I smile and nod. If their reaction ruins follow-up shots

I move on, otherwise I shoot again.

[sam_richardson]

Okay, one more time: being in public is NOT being in private. What is it about that no-so-subtle distinction that is so f&*king difficult for some people to understand?

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

 

If the above example by Grant is the woman in question, then I'd say her suspicion was justified. There could be many reasons why she didn't want to be photographed and one of them might have been that she didn't want to be posted on the internet.

 

Besides, she doesn't appear to me to be in a public place. She's on private property owned by a private business. She looks like she's having an intimate dinner with another person and now here she is on display to anybody in the world who has access to a computer hooked up to the internet. And for what purpose?

[madwand]

<i>""To those who feel that this constrains their artistry and journalism, well, I'm with the subject on this matter. Artistry and journalism come after the right to privacy of the individual."

If you're in a public place - you don't have the right to privacy. How much do you actually get out and street shoot? </i><p>

 

I think that this is an over-simplification. Does a soft drink vendor have the right to take a photograph of you in a public place consuming their product and use it in a marketing blitz? Does a fitness club have the right to take a photograph of you eating a hot dog and use it as an example of what not to do and how not to look? Does a private fitness club have the right to do so and show images of people in their community for private derision? In members-only web sites?<p>

 

There are rights involved, and in my opinion, they are greater than those believed by the majority of this forum. This alone does not make me wrong, nor correct of course.<p>

 

<i>"If you're going to shoot then ask, fine, but I'd want to see evidence of destruction in case I refused, and a real willingess to do so." <p>

 

LOL! This is just sheer nonsense. Get a grip. What.. do you have some kind of 'real willingness' meter out in the street with you? LOL!!</i><p>

 

Show me the pictures on your digital camera and delete the ones of me that I don't want you to have. Take out the film in your camera and give it to me. If you're going to shoot, and then ask for permission to shoot retroactively, (and I know that most of you are not), the logically consistent conclusion of this intellectual cheat is to destroy the results of the previously unpermitted act.<p>

 

If you do not belive that permission is even required, then you should be in the category of the people who say shoot and don't ask. I disagree with them in some cases, but I also see that there is some validity in their position.<p>

 

I do not believe that there are sufficient grounds for claiming that you freely photograph anyone in a public place for any purpose.

[Spearhead]

<i>Does a soft drink vendor have the right to take a photograph of you in a public place consuming their product and use it in a marketing blitz? Does a fitness club have the right to take a photograph of you eating a hot dog and use it as an example of what not to do and how not to look? Does a private fitness club have the right to do so and show images of people in their community for private derision? In members-only web sites?</i><p>

 

These are irrelevant. Try to understand what is being said and maybe even doing a bit of reading before posting. What is being talked about is taking a photo, not usage. Usage is a completely different issue.<p>

 

<i>Show me the pictures on your digital camera and delete the ones of me that I don't want you to have. Take out the film in your camera and give it to me. </i><p>

 

There's no way I would ever do this unless I had actually violated the law. Nor should anyone else. It's an illegal and ridiculous request.<p>

 

<i>If you're going to shoot, and then ask for permission to shoot retroactively</i><p>

 

I do this because it means I get more shots, and sometimes a model release. I don't ask for retroactive permission, I ask so I can get things I can't get with a completely candid shot.

[lucas_griego]

<i>"Does a soft drink vendor have the right to take a photograph of you in a public place consuming their product and use it in a marketing blitz? ..."</i>

<p>

You are confusing the issue here. Sarah Johnson was not shooting an ad campaign for Coke. She was 'street' shooting. She made no mention of commercial intent here. Shooting in public with recognizable people and then attempting to use those shots for advertising purposes is a completely different issue. So when we speak of rights here we are not speaking of 'opinions' but 'rights' under the law. So NO, it is not illegal to photograph someone in public therefore there is NO need to ask permission. Again whether you consider it bad manners or a social taboo of some kind - that again is a completely different issue for you and your conscience to wrestle with - it has zippity-doo-da with my ability to take pictures of people, places and things in a public space.

<p>

<i>"Show me the pictures on your digital camera and delete the ones of me that I don't want you to have. Take out the film in your camera and give it to me."</i>

<p>

Again surely you must be joking. If anyone came up and requested/demanded my film or tried to make me erase digital images they'd be kindly informed of my right to take pictures in public of anything/anyone I bloody well please! If they wanted to escalate the situation they are free to do so but on many different levels they'd end up losing - first at the end of my fist if they try to get touchy feely and second at the end of a judges gavel in court when they get run up on assault charges.

[EricM]

Mad, you need to research and understand the law before confronting anyone here that abides ands adheres to the law and the joy of street photography. Confusing commercial advertising with amateur hobbies needs your reflection too.

[jbs]

"Jeff (www.spirer.com) , jul 19, 2004; 07:28 p.m.

I shoot, then ask. If they say yes, I shoot again."

 

The differences in the two shots can be amusing as well...;)...J<div></div>

[roger krueger]

Sarah: As others pointed out, being a street photographer and

being a nice person are sometimes contradictory goals. No one can tell you which

direction to lean, but it's a decision you need to be aware of, a decision you need to make

thoughfully, not something to merely react to.<br><br>

Sam, re: Grant's shot: <i>Besides, she doesn't appear to me to be in a public place. She's

on private property owned by a private business. </i><br><br>

Doesn't matter--"reasonable expectation of privacy" is the standard in the U.S.,

not where you're sitting. In "private premises open to the public" management can, and

likely will, throw you out if they catch you shooting, but the subject's only recourse is

generally to ask management to eject you.

<br><br>

Note that this appears to NOT be the case in the UK--there is a specific ruling there that

shooting people in a restaurant and publishing the photos is invasion.

[furcafe]

If Grant took the shot without her knowing, why did she curse (1 of) you guys out?

 

 

--------------

 

"Grant got the shot without asking and without moving and without her knowing. The funny thing was when she left she cursed out the wrong person for shooting her."

[sam_richardson]

Brad what makes you think I know nothing about SP? My knowledge is quite good and SP is what first got me into photography in the first place. HBC, Kertez and Koudelka were my first heros.

 

Some people feel bad about photographing people without their knowledge, some don't have any problem. Some may be able to shoot but keep the photos to themselves and some have no problem with posting them on the internet.

 

I think being in a dark restaurant having dinner with someone does give you some reasonable expectation to privacy. She was not out on the street or at some event she was eating in a restaurant. From the looks of the photo it was not out on the patio either but against a wall under subdued lighting. To top it off, if this really is the woman in Elder's story, she also did not want to be photographed and said as much. I'm willing to bet that she would be even less pleased about being posted on the internet, especially since it's such a crappy shot.

[john_sidlo]

do not ask

[maria_s.]

I'm with Jeff Spirer -- I shoot first then come over, ask and shoot again. Or run.

[madwand]

<i>"Mad, you need to research and understand the law before confronting anyone here that abides ands adheres to the law and the joy of street photography. Confusing commercial advertising with amateur hobbies needs your reflection too."</i><p>

 

If you read my notes carefully, you should see evidence of such reflection. Moreover, I have not attempted to claim that laws have been broken here, although I did refer indirectly to commercial use law. That specific example shows that photographers do not have unchallenged rights in this area, in direct contrast to some obnoxious posters here. I have deliberately adopted the opposite extreme position here, which I (ahem) have the right to, (sorry), and btw, is interestingly different from my position on another thread in this forum.<p>

 

I do believe, within some constraints, that the rights of the subject are more fundemental than the rights of the photographer, especially when there are no other significant concerns. I do not pretend that this opinion is consistent with the current laws, nor do I think that it needs to be, nor do I believe that the concept of rights are so limited, even in U.S. legislation. What can be legislated is the recognition of rights. These evolve and change over time, however, the basic concept of rights is that they are fundemental, not just current law.<p>

 

For those who are satisfied by the current law and think that that gives sufficient permission to photograph anyone in any manner and use the images as you please -- I disagree with you, but don't have any hope of being able to convince you otherwise. My notes are strictly for those who are willing to consider further, like the original poster, and her subject, for those who don't think that the law alone defines right and wrong.<p>

 

If you want to make further distinctions on commercial use and the taking of photographs, fine, there are many. It's too much for me to trying to take on by myself here, and I'm probably not going to bother.<p>

 

I will however say again that I agree that there are definite social needs for the rights of photographers, and that amateur street photographers, especially discrete and well-behaved ones, are tolerable, and for the most part harmless. But I caution you to not confuse the implicit and other permission that you are granted to take photographs with the right to be rude, insensitive, and intrusive. There's a line there somewhere in between of course; I'm not sure where it is, but I think that it is closer to the wishes of the subject than many photographers wish.<p>

 

Here's a notion attributed to Henri Cartier Bresson for your own reflection: "a sense of human dignity is an essential quality for any photojournalist, and feels that no picture, regardless of how brilliant from a visual or technical standpoint, can be successful unless it grows from love and comprehension of people".<p>

 

Is this consistent with taking photographs of people who clearly do not wish them to be taken? No. Is that inconsistent with taking unauthorized photographs for other purposes (e.g. catching crooks)? No.<p>

 

<a href="http://www.photo-seminars.com/Fame/bresson.htm">http://www.photo-seminars.com/Fame/bresson.htm</a><p>

 

I think I'm done with this subject for now. For those who think that I'm an idiot, you have that right :) For those who think that I am engaging in a direct confrontation and trying to take away your film and cameras -- please don't; I have no need for that.

[john_elder1]

To ask before shooting would destroy Street Photography as we know it. There would be no books on Street photography by HCB, Kertesz, Winogrand, Frank,Friedlander, Klein, Stettner, Megargee, Levitt,

etc. To require asking before shooting is just stupid in light of the history of Photography. Most arguments or debates usually have 2 legitimate sides;this one does not . Requiring permission is without merit in every respect.

[grant_.]

exactly

[thomas_sullivan]

...as far as the restaurant shot issue...if a privately owned place that opens it's doors to the public, such as a restaurant, has no signs posted saying "no photography" (or the like), then photography is the same as in a totally public place........shoot to your heart's content. When, the owner, or a representative of the owner, comes over and tells you to stop taking pictures, this is where the rights of the owner steps in. You stop....right then and there. But all the film you shot already is yours to keep. A dark restaurant is not a condition for expectation of privacy........not in a public dining room. Now if there were private booths.......enclosed with doors or curtains......yeah, I would consider THAT expectation of privacy. There were special conditions constructed to isolate that area. Just like a banquet held in a restaurant, the doors get closed and that area is now private for those people, they pay extra for that though. I was in this restraurant with them, there was nothing even remotely private about that booth. It was actually on the way to the restrooms (which are considered the "expectation of privacy" talked about above).......anyhow, the booth directly on the way to the restroom is hardly going to be the most private booth in the place....even if things like that did count as "expectation..."...which they dont.

 

Yes, Sarah, just shoot first. I went thru the same mental dilema as you 3 years ago. I forget who said it above, but you are your worst enemy in getting over this imagined taboo against shooting in public. The laws, the courts, say its ok. And you are just taking pics...........so there is no moral issue to even discuss....you have no intent other than capturing a moment in your life.

 

Thats what street photography is really all about. Showing the rest of the world, how you see the world. And thats all there is to it. Its your affirmation of life, as you record it. That is something extremely Moral in my book.

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> I think that the right to not be treated as a subject is more

important. </blockquote> </i><p>

 

In most of the world, in private situations not under your own control, you may be

photographed or videotaped by store management, may have your bags checked, may

be temporarily held subject to arrest by police, or may be expelled. <p>

 

In most of the world, in public, you too lose certain rights you have in private situations

under your own control. You may be photographed as a subject, or an object. <p>

 

<i><blockquote> For those who are satisfied by the current law and think that that

gives sufficient permission to photograph anyone in any manner and use the images as

you please -- I disagree with you </blockquote> </i><p>

 

Live in France, where making photography as practiced by Doisneau and Cartier-

Bresson is now officially deemed illegal, and where a great deal of brautiful, or

compelling, photography now cannot be shown.

[colda]

I'm fully in the camp of taking pics without asking permission, once the subject is aware then the pic is no longer candid.

 

Although I live in the fear of being caught and how to handle it, I've had plenty of strange looks in the past but until today nobody had ever actually said anything. I took a pic of a couple as we passed in the street, a few seconds later the guy approached me and asked if I'd taken a photo, panic filled my mind and I denied the action, and once I got back to the office I deleted the pic. Looking back now I feel foolish, given the chance to re-run the situation I would have said 'yes' and explained about my love for street photography, and offered that if he did not like the idea of being photographed then I'll happily delete the pic.

 

I really do feel like a fool for not handling the situation properly, but it was the first time that anyone has confronted me, I've decided to put this down to experience, and be happy that it's out of my system, next time I'll handle it properly

 

So, to conclude, take the pic(s), don't worry about it, if confronted - be polite and explain, offer to delete if they are unhappy (I would never hand over my camera/film - if my assurances that I'll delete are not enough then tough).