Is it right to take pictures from people in public spaces?

[thierrylaflamme]

I was speaking to a friend on the phone this morning, telling her how

much I have fun when I go downtown, taking instant pictures of people

(most of the time, group of people in public spaces like subway or on

the street...) and, she told me that, since recently, it is not right

to do it if people around don't know what you're doing. What a

surprise to hear this since more than a century, photographers take

instant pictures anywhere at anytime with anybody... Is that true

that there is a new "privacy protection"? What are the limits when we

take pictures if we want to avoid troubles? Thanks in advance for

your advice.

[andrew_c2]

Thierry,

 

Do you live in France? I believe that, around a year or 2 ago, there was a law that forbade photography of a person without their express permission in France. This was seen as a reaction to tourists who, idealizing Paris as the romantic capital of the world, swoop down on loving locals.

 

As for me, I live in Canada, and it is legal to take pictures of people in public places. I tend not to take pictures of young children or homeless people.

 

Instead of 'what to avoid,' I'm thinking of what one can do to have a good street-shooting experience. There are many threads on this. Always smile when taking pictures of people; it helps others let their guard down. While I am quick to raise my camera, I tend not to furtively drop it to my side right after the pic; I have nothing to hide, and I try to tacitly make that known. A 'hi' often helps after. If anyone asks me why I'm taking their pic, as has happened before, I simply tell them that I do it as a hobby.

 

One respondent in another thread wrote about trying to reduce one's 'footprint' when walking around; stop visualizing yourself as a 'man (or a woman) on a mission' to get the best shot. Breathe. If this is a hobby for you, simply treasure the time and other resources that you have to be able to walk around, watching others, and enjoying life.

 

You might even find, then, that getting the pic becomes secondary to living in the moment.

[thierrylaflamme]

Thank you for that nice reflection. I'm always respectful anyway when I take pics in public spaces.

[mark_houlder2]

I'm not 100% sure, but I think the french law forbade publication - so you can take pictures, but not distribute them, effectively. It depends where you are - in Britain you can do more or less what you like if the subject is in a public place, but terms like "reasonable" appear in the wording of the law so you'd have to use your common sense. In Canada the rules may be different - but I doubt there's a law against photographing people in public places. Check a newspaper - any pictures of the public in there? If so, it's legal.

 

Of course, just because you can doesn't mean you should. Use your common sense - taking snaps of people walking down the street is unlikely to cause offence, but do the same on a beach, or of kids in a playground, and you could start annoying people.

 

People like your friend seem to believe nowadays that photography is practically illegal - it isn't. There's a PDF somewhere of photography law - I can't remember the URL but might be worth searching for. "Photographer's rights" or something, it's called; i think there's a US and a UK version.

[justin_thornton1]

hello

Here is a link of the one that some lead me to. hope it helps. The PDF is in the page just have to scrole down a lil bit

 

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

 

Justin

[urs_bernhard1]

In most of the country of the western world it was no problem to photograph people in

public spaces up to a few years ago. No permission or releases were necessary, for

shooting and publishing. Editorial practice was mostly more severe.

Now the laws are changed or modyfied: as a roule one can say that, if you picture people

in a group of at least four individuals, you may not have any problems; if you single out

one or two persons in a way they are clearly recocnizable, you do need a permission or

release from them (even shot in a public space)

Problems come up in so called half-public spaces, p.e. railway-stations, airports,

harbours, shopping malls, churches, a.s.o. But nowadays this places are more considered

private places and a special permission is requiered anyway.

 

Did you ever think why most of the reportages are made in thirdworld countries, in

warzones, in places in chaos after catastrophes by nature? It is easier to shoot, nowbody

cares much about pressreleases, not in the pressoffices in the western world by

desinterest, not in the countries/places, where the photos are made, because the people

there do not know or care about pressreleases.

This is quiet simplyfied, but probabelly worth one thought. This, because a lot of famous

icons of streetphotography were done in "our" western cities - but years ago. And today?

About no western street-pictures anymore published. I think "our" world is not less

interesting (exept considered less sellable) - it is simply too complicated with too many

problems.

 

Cheers, Urs

[mike dixon]

Urs, do you have any links to reliable sources supporting your claims? I have been actively engaged in street and documentary photography, both in the West and in Asia, for several years, and to my knowledge, nothing you've said has any legal basis.

 

Thierry, search the archives of the Street and Documentary Forum here on photo.net--this topic has been covered many times.

[aeiffel]

Just to make it clear for France... You can "freely" shoot people in public places, but can't publish those pics if people are recognizable unless they gave you their permission (written is best).<br>

Of course the fact that people don't appreciate to be photographed and tell you you're not allowed to take pics is another point. It's a common misunderstanding of french laws on rights to one's image.

[bernard_frank]

But, where DO YOU live, Thierry? Laws are different from one country to another. And

cultural beliefs in some countries WILL prevent you from taking pictures of people or, on

the contrary, encourage you to do so.

 

Don't forget that some cities may have special rulings governing the use of cameras in

public. For instance, London, thanks to its mayor, seems to be one of the most dangerous

places in the western world for an innocent photographer who happens to only BE near a

public children playground with a camera hanging from his neck. He didn't make it illegal,

but he has proposed a by-law which planned to have signs posted next to the playgrounds

warning people that a person with a "digital camera" could be a paedophile. Now, how silly

is that? I think he backed off from the outrage, but the harm is already done and the

stigma attached.

 

As others have pointed, taking photos and publishing photos are two entirely different

matters.

[conrad_hoffman]

The "if you have a camera, you could be a pedophile" thought process reminds me of this old joke:

 

A couple went on vacation to a resort up north. The husband liked to fish, and the wife liked to read. One morning the husband came back from fishing after getting up real early that morning and took a nap.

 

While he slept, the wife decided to take the boat out. She was not familiar with the lake, so she rowed out and anchored the boat, and started reading her book.

 

Along comes the Game Warden in his boat, pulls up alongside the woman's boat and asks her what she's doing? She says, "Reading my book."

 

The Game Warden tells her she is in a restricted fishing area and she explains that she's not fishing. To which he replied, "But you have all this equipment. I will have to take you in and write you up!"

 

Angry that the warden was being so unreasonable, the lady told the warden, "If you do that, I will charge you with rape."

 

The warden, shocked by her statement, replied, "But I didn't even touch you."

 

To which the lady replied, "Yes, but you have all the equipment!"

[bernard_frank]

LOL, Conrad!

[fred_obturateur]

Well that law was made to protect corrupted politicians to be seen with handcuffs on... (true story). And people started to believe they could sue a photographer and get thousands of Euros for a published pic *just* because their fav TV star sued a trash mag & DID get a large sum of money for "privacy violation".

That was 3-5 years ago... now the judges either dismiss the case or give the plaintiff "le franc symbolique" that is *ONE* Euro. So that prevents a large part of people from going to court now (whew!).

One last thought : the most successful photo event in Paris this winter was the Willy Ronis exhibition at the city hall. Ronis is a man who like Doisneau took pix of people in the streets of Paris without having them posing & without asking for permission. My conclusion : people hate to be taken in picture BUT that's the only kind of photography they really like/care for in the end. Another French paradox! :-)

[thierrylaflamme]

In repsonse to another member, I'm from the city of Toronto, Ontario (Canada).

[thierrylaflamme]

I should have written: "in response...". I apologize for my English writing; I'm French. :)

[bernard_frank]

Thierry, I'm from Montreal and, as far as I know, Canadian law doesn't forbid you to take

pictures of people in the street. How people will react is another matter. Here, in Montreal,

they usually don't react very friendly to it, and can sometimes be downright hostile.

 

But I have, on one occasion, been stopped by policemen in a patrol car, asking why and

what I was photographing. When I said "Just the buidings and people" and asked if it was

forbidden, they just uneasily said "No, no..." and drove away.

 

And don't even think of photographing children. I have been very suspiciously and

aggressively questioned by a couple of mothers just because I had stood next to a

playground with a camera hanging that I hadn't even raised to my eye.

[andrew_c2]

Thierry,

 

I'm from Oshawa, and walk the streets of T.O., camera in hand, when I have the time. I must admit that I don't take pictures on the Toronto subway!

 

As I said before, street photography is all about presence. Gary Winogrand would have his pre-set Leica strap around his neck, the M in his paw-like hands, then suddenly 'stop and pop.' He'd then lower the camera down quickly, as if nothing had happened. I source this from a photo.netter who actually saw the man at work.

 

I don't believe that kind of presence works for me. I don't profess to be adept at street shooting (read: having the cajones to take any picture I please). Nonetheless, my previously iterated style is what I try to adhere to. I'm usually found tootling around, smile on face, missing the great pic in front of my eyes. It's a hobby for me, and I usually have more enjoyment recounting what I saw on my walk than what pics I grabbed. Oh, along the way, I might grab a nice pic!

 

Where do you enjoy shooting? I like right around Union Station (not in it-- that's not allowed) and around UofT, old stomping grounds.

 

Best,

A

[thierrylaflamme]

Hi Andre! The problem is that I like to take pictures in unusual places (when I can...). As another member wrote, I should try this option: "...Gary Winogrand would have his pre-set Leica strap around his neck, the M in his paw-like hands, then suddenly 'stop and pop.' He'd then lower the camera down quickly,as if nothing had happened."

 

In Toronto, I also like UOFT and streets with old houses and, as you saw in my portfolio... the subway! :)

 

Regards,

 

Thierry

[tony_senzaorbi]

In the USA theres definately more suspicion today than there used to be. Part of its probably post-9/11 but before that there was all that hoop-de-doo over the "evil" papparrazzi after the death of Princess Diana. Also it used to be a photo was mostly published by somone with some concern for legal exposure, but today if someone takes your picture it can end up on the internet in 5 minutes for the whole world to see, in whatever context the photographer (or anyone who downloads the photo)chooses and theres very little the average guy can do about it.

 

I advise my students that legally they may not have to ask permission to photograph someone in public but it's still an ethical question they have to decide. And, if they decide not to, they should understand that there are dangers to the photographer. A businessman might not want to ruin his suit or get sued by attacking a photographer even if he's photographed having lunch with his mistress, but if you inadvertently happen to photograph a couple guys doing a drug deal, well, different potential outcome.

[des adams]

Maybe think of it like this. People say hey you took my picture, as if you stole it. They do not have a picture for you to take. What you do is MAKE the picture. They do not pre-exist, at least in the way that we usually talk about this kind of thing, and so they cannot be taken. The other thing is that in many necks of the jungle people are followed constantly by CCTV and so talking about the morality of the individual photographer rather pales. Speeding motorists in their deadly cars are taken as the norm, a person with a camera, unless they are at a beauty spot, (are there any others?), has to be suspicious.

[bobmichaels]

I suggest the excellent http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/lester/writings/pjethics.html for a great analysis of both the ethical and legal issues. It covers the entire gamut and is by a noted photojournalism educator.

[gary_gumanow]

I like to take shots of people in public places but have found it really hard to come up with a one liner when asked, "What are you taking pictures for?" I never knew what to say, so my wife came up with this, "Why do you want to know, are you in some sort of trouble that I should know about?" You have to understand that my wife is a theatre director, and you must go up on the ending so that people are put at ease, so that they sense this is a joke, and they relax. It really works. Last weekend, someone asked me this question and I replied, "Why, is there something that I should know about?" We both laughed really hard. You have to have good judgement about it though.