The Ethics of Street Photography

[michaellinder]

<p>I suspect these issues may have been addressed before. Nonetheless, just earlier today, I had a heated discussion regarding: (1) the photographing of people in street settings without their knowledge or consent, and (2) having a subject's consent to shoot a photograph, posting it on the Internet without his/her knowledge or consent. Are these practices wrong?</p>

<p>In my own limited experience of shooting street photographs, whenever possible I have asked a subject for permission to shoot a photograph. However, I have often taken photographs of people on the street in a surreptitious manner without their being aware of my activity. For example, I have not stopped someone of interest walking on the sidewalk in front of me before taking a shot. </p>

<p>My concern is mostly related to the Internet. Several interesting points were raised earlier today, such as the possibility a person may just be browsing through my portfolio and see a photograph I took of him. Clearly, he can associate it with my name on PN, and Internet resources may allow him to locate me. The next thing I know, hypothetically, he's threatening a lawsuit over my invading his privacy.</p>

<p>Any guidance in these matters will be most appreciated. I am especially interested in the moral consequences of the practices I mentioned above.</p>

[redphoto]

<p>I do not see anything wring with street photography that is then posted on the internet. You can freely photograph in a public places and people by being in a public place give up their right of refusal. Even if someone did see their image on line and did not like it, the most they could do is ask you to take it down. People sue others in cases like this when there is money involved because the images has been used in an ad or other way to generate income, or if the image is presenting them in a very bad light. The second item is very subjective. </p>

[craigd]

<p>Usual IANAL disclaimer...</p>

<p>But as far as I know, if someone's out in public, there is no reasonable assumption of privacy. People do not have a right to control the creation or distribution of images of themselves unless they own the copyright on those images. If an image is used in advertising, then you probably need a model release because using someone's image in an advertisement can be considered to imply that they endorse whatever product or service is being advertised, but if your purpose is documentary or purely artistic, that's different.</p>

<p>Laws can change over time, of course, but as far as I know the sort of things that classic street photographers used to do are still legal, at least in the USA. Walker Evans took a classic series of images of people on the New York subway using a concealed camera. Paul Strand used to use a camera that had a large second lens mounted on one side, so that people would think he was aiming it in front of him when in fact he was shooting sideways with the smaller, less conspicuous lens. These images were hung in galleries and museums and published in books, and to the best of my knowledge none of them were ever the basis of a successful lawsuit.</p>

<p>If you ask someone's permission to photograph them, you aren't really doing "street photography" in the classic sense. Street photography implies candid, unposed images, so the subject needs not to know that they are being photographed. It really does make a difference. On another forum a year or so ago, a photographer posted what she considered a "street" image of a guy lounging on the front steps of a public building. A professional photojournalist commented, "Don't ask me how I know, but this guy was aware of the camera." The photographer then admitted that she had, in fact, asked the man's permission beforehand.</p>

<p>There are situations in which you need to worry about legal risks when shooting on the street, but unless you're creeping up to someone's window and shooting through it (which is, of course, an invasion of privacy), privacy isn't usually the problem. For example, if you take a picture that shows a copyrighted artwork (say, a painting or statue at a public art show), you could potentially be sued for copyright infringement.</p>

<p>It should go without saying that you could get more competent advice in this area by asking either street photography professionals or a lawyer with expertise in this area. But when you ask a lawyer, "Can I do this?", his answer is usually designed to keep you out of any risk of trouble than to encourage you to stand up for your rights; just keep that in mind.</p>

<p>The question of whether candid street photography is "wrong" in a moral sense is completely separate from the question of whether it is legal. Yet another question is whether such photography is courteous, or, on the other hand, if it is inherently exploitative. Opinions can vary on these questions. Personally I see nothing wrong with street photography, just as I I see nothing wrong with a sketch artist drawing portraits of the people around him in a public place. I would, in most circumstances, consider it poor manners to publish such a picture for no reason other than to embarrass someone, but that's a special case and a question of politeness rather than morality.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> Street photography implies candid, unposed images, so the subject needs not to know that they are

being photographed.<P>

 

Rather than debate the ethics of SP, which has been done dozens of times here on pnet, I just want to jump in

and say when shooting on the street (something <a href= "http://www.citysnaps.net/blog/">I do</a> a lot),

it makes little difference to me whether a subject knows they are being photographed or not. It's still "street

photography," though I don't particularly like that label. I'm pretty open when I shoot and don't conceal what I'm doing (ie hip shots, pretending I'm shooting something else, etc). Some people notice, some don't. It's all good.

[iliafarniev]

<p>I would suggest, as an alternative view, to look at it from the simple angle of 'jungle law' in its elemental harmony. Because, actually it is not only you who take picturest of them but also them who take pictures of you. And it is not only pictures, there is so much more people take and give each other without mutual consent.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Ethics and legality are two serparate things. And the more you practice, the more you'll figure out how to work with different attitudes. Legality and Attitudes will vary from place to place...Ethics is just you, the photog.</p>

[jtk]

<p><em>"I am especially interested in the <strong>moral consequences</strong> of the practices I mentioned above."</em><br>

<em>-</em>Michael Linder</p>

<p>Michael, having taught "philosophy" you understand that there's a difference between <strong>"moral" </strong>and "ethical," neither of which centers on "legality." Morality resides in you, the individual...ethics and legality come from the outside, from groups... </p>

<p>"Moral consequences" are independent from group or legal consequences. IMO questions of morality are similar to questions about "art." Unlike questions about ethics and legality. </p>

<p>Those are my understandings, anyway. IMO etc.</p>

<p>For me a bigger question is "why am I doing this?" ("this" means any activity, but since I don't do photography for a living and since it seems almost magical, the question seems to me to have special weight).</p>

<p>For me,<strong> intentionality</strong> is job #1. That means I don't wander streets hoping to come back with an unexpected photograph. If something occurs to me when I'm going somewhere I think "how does this relate to what I want to do with photography." Ego is central: IMO we ARE egos. </p>

<p>Why do you make any photo? What's the point? Those are my questions.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>I am especially interested in the moral consequences</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There really isn't a lot of moral or ethical consequences for merely taking and showing images of people out in the open on a sidewalk absent other circumstances. Its more an issue of politeness. Some people find shooting images of them while minding their own business for other than actual business purposes (such as security cameras) without permission and displaying them for viewing pleasure as invasive. People at a concert are usually thrilled to be seen on a big screen at the event. Friends sharing pictures of friends taken at a party. Strangers on a sidewalk see secretive images taken of them and then displayed for other's fun as rude and intrusive.</p>

<p>Its just one of those things where the right to do something isn't necessarily going to be seen, by many, as appropriate.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Michael, it makes sense, as always, to click on names to see who actually DOES street photography (as opposed to weddings, flowers, kitty-kats, mountains etc). </p>

<p>So far that seems to mean <strong>Brad</strong> (above).</p>

<p>He's actually serious about kind of work he spoke of. His "morals" and yours and mine are inherently different. I admire his work but do other work. I've posted one image that someone might carelessly call "street," but it isn't: it's an outtake from an aborted photojournalistic essay: in other words it was maximum intentional.</p>

[edrodgers]

<blockquote>Michael, it makes sense, as always, to click on names to see who actually DOES street photography (as opposed to weddings, flowers, kitty-kats, mountains etc).</blockquote>

<p>Unless, of course, the user doesn't feel like posting his or her work in yet another online location, and just comes here for the forums. I get tired of claims that because I don't put images up here that I don't take pictures.</p>

<p>As for the OP, people on the street often react negatively to having their picture taken. I rely on social courtesy more than the law on most days. The question should be: Is it ethical to go out on the street and provoke anger in strangers? I'd say no, but I have the law on my side, and choose to be unethical when I'm in the mood.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Ed, sorry you're "tired."</p>

<p>It's fun to click into portfolios. Sometimes portfolios support what someone says, sometimes they don't. </p>

<p>Photography has to do with visual matters. Visually unsupported opinions about photography are visually unsupported opinions about photography.</p>

<p> </p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>In my view there's nothing wrong with taking photos of strangers on the street. It may be different if the photo is intended to humiliate and demean that person in some way, otherwise no problem.</p>

<p>Of course, some people may not like it. That's another matter. Where what I regard as perfectly fine behaviour and their view of what is acceptable collide, then that's unfortunate. But there probably isn't much to do about such a difference in views, except as a matter of courtesy to try not to go out of one's way to rub their noses in it.</p>

<p>For example, some people regard is as acceptable to play music on their mobiles in public, or to eat or chew gum with an open mouth. I hate it, it makes me see red. But sadly there's not much I can do to stop it. I suppose street photography is a bit like that - people who hate it unfortunately just have to live with it, or perhaps could consider wearing a burkha.</p>

<p>Street photography is essentially not so different from looking at people passing by on the street. There is nothing in a street photograph that isn't there for you to look at, on public display. The difference is that the photograph freezes a particular moment, and can be shown to other people, whether on the internet or in a gallery. But fundamentally, morally it's not so far from looking at people. When people go out in the street, they unfortunately just have to accept that other people might look at them - and that they might even appear in photos, including on endless security cameras.</p>

 

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>it makes sense, as always, to click on names to see who actually DOES street photography (as opposed to weddings, flowers, kitty-kats, mountains etc).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Unless street photographers are the sole arbiters of what is appropriate behavior of street photographers, which they are not, the sense it makes is minimal. Indeed it may result in biased responses. Being "actually serious" is meaningless here. While this isn't a reflection on Brad at all, a lot of people are "actually serious" about engaging in inappropriate activity.</p>

[jtk]

<p>John H, "biased responses" are precisely what every viewer makes, always, in every case, to images.</p>

<p>Moreover, "biased responses" are precisely the starting point of every photographer when s/he clicks the shutter.</p>

<p>You don't think it makes sense to evaluate images (or lack of them) when evaluating opinions. Others think it does make sense. We all know what folks say about opinions :-)</p>

[michaellinder]

<p>Thanks, everyone for your thoughtful responses. You have helped to clarify my issues to the extent that I can think about them further.</p>

[michaellinder]

<p>John:<br>

I appreciate your suggestion about looking at the street photograph gallery and critique forum. I've already been doing this, just to get a better feel for what sorts of photographs seem to fit well in that category. Most certainly, I can learn a great deal from photographers who are more advanced.<br>

I also agree that there is a significant distinction between what is legally right and what is morally or ethicaly right. However, as you indicate, my background in philosophy reminds me that the terms 'morally' and 'ethically' sometimes have the same import. I am, unfortunately, quite rusty, and so I can't cite chapter and verse to support my statement.</p>

[edrodgers]

<blockquote>

<p>You don't think it makes sense to evaluate images (or lack of them) when evaluating opinions. Others think it does make sense. We all know what folks say about opinions :-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The concern is that you are suggesting the purpose of a pnet gallery is to provide credentials to determine the validity of our opinions. To most of us, it is not. You might research the author of a post, sure. But to specifically invalidate people in this thread because you don't like their profile (or lack of one) is rude.</p>

<p>I have been "invalidated" by people with your mindset here many times. It is baseless.</p>

<p>Please provide an opinion/answer to the original question rather than attacking people that are only trying to help.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Ed, "invalidation" is your private problem. You had not posted anything when I posted my own views and since you had not posted you were obviously not "attacked." Chill.<br>

You don't represent anybody ("the rest of us"). Write your own ideas.<br>

Note that I did directly address the "moral" side of Michael's question and tried to distinguish that from "ethical"/"legal" according to my own understanding. <br>

Do you have thoughts of your own on any aspect of Michael's OT?</p>

<p> </p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>You don't think it makes sense to evaluate images (or lack of them) when evaluating opinions. Others think it does</p>

</blockquote>

<p>John, you either do not understand what I wrote or you are just making things up. I never said or suggested anything about images. Neither did you until now. You attached special importance to opinions merely from someone "who actually DOES street photography". I offered a rebuttal to that which has no dependence on whether a street shooter posts images or not. As far as everyone having a biased opinion, it only bolsters my response that a street shooters credibility isn't necessarily as elevated as you suggest since, as I inferred, they could have a bias about about their own activity. If imagery is as critical to an opinion as you imply, one can take note that have have none supporting yours.</p>

<p>So, instead of pontificating about the validity of other people's opinions, why don't we get back to responding to the question.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Ed, respond to the OT. Drop the name-calling.<br>

I'm mystified by your suprise at my reference to "images" in this discussion.<br>

I thought we were dealing with an aspect of photography.<br>

If you're not into images, why visit Photo.net?</p>

[Brad_]

>>> I get tired of claims that because I don't put images up here that I don't take pictures.

 

I looked several times and could not find that claim made or even suggested here.

 

 

>>> As for the OP, people on the street often react negatively to having their picture taken.

 

FWIW, I personally find through direct experience the opposite to be true.

 

 

>>> But to specifically invalidate people in this thread because you don't like their profile (or lack of one) is rude.

 

Couldn't find that either.

 

 

With respect to looking at others work when claims/opinions are expressed here, I do that all the time and in the

past has served me very well, especially when starting out. Not to say I invalidate others' opinions if I don't see

work. But I sure give a ton more credence, say just as an example, if the discussion is event or music photography

and a lot of advice is offered by a member who has a great portfolio of event/music work.

 

Curiously, when I see a lot of claims about SP or other topic that make little sense or I suspect rendered with little

experience, there does seem to be very high correlation with the absence of (good) work. Not so oddly, I've found

that great advice that rings true with my own experiences is highly correlated with seeing work by the

commenter.

[david_henderson]

<p>Well virtually all the street photography I like ( I don't do much myself) has plainly been taken without the subject's knowledge in the interests of the nature of the photograph rather than to avoid asking IMO. The fact that I've seen it means that it's been published on the internet. Would I feel bad about doing that? Not at all. I might feel a number of things- incompetent maybe; afraid maybe in particular circumstances; embarrassed maybe if I was observed. But I wouldn't feel I was doing anything morally wrong or legally wrong so there's no ethical dimension. </p>

<p>I do wonder what someone like Ed Leveckis (<a href="http://www.leveckis.net">www.leveckis.net</a>) whose work I greatly admire, does to get his photographs and how he manages the potential conflict he must come across every day. But thats a practical thing not an ethical thing for me. </p>

 

[john_elder1]

<p>To answer the original posters question:"Are these practices wrong" the answer is an emphatic NO. All a person has to do to come to this conclusion is to study the history of street photogrphy and its masters, namely: Cartier-Bresson, Andre Kertesz, Willy Ronis,Gianni Berengo Gardin, Garry Winogrand, Helen Levitt, Martine Franke, Danny Lyon, Fan Ho, Ray Metzker, Burke Uzzle, Sylvia Plachy, Roy Decarava, Lois Stettner, Dennis Stock, and on and on. None of them asked permission to do their candid street photography, and releases weren't required for display in galleries, Museums or publication in books. </p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>All a person has to do to come to this conclusion is to study the history of street photogrphy and its masters, namely... ...None of them asked permission to do their candid street photography... ...releases weren't required.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just because people has done something well doesn't meant its good or bad. Its just means they have done something well. Some people ice skate well, others are good at being con artists. If an activity features masterful people who don't ask for permission to do what they are doing is the standard as stated above, then con artists are doing nothing wrong. Also, people do things that are perfectly legal and not a cause of action morally reprehensible so referring the legal status of model releases doesn't reveal much of anything either.</p>

<p>Can you tell us why the activity itself amounts to "an emphatic NO". If its that concrete, surely there's an explanation.</p>

[john_elder1]

<p>I was in Washington Square, NYC, about 3 weeks ago where a painter was painting people without their permission and probably without there knowledge. He was doing the same with painters brush that i was doing with my camera. Street photography is an accepted art form and is exhibited in the best museums in the world and, perhaps , more importantly , very much enjoyed by the public at large. To state that a street photographer is analogous to a con man, a thief, simply is not justified . Both the practitioners of street photographer, the art establishment that shows street photography, and the viewing community have accepted this art form in a most positive manner. Anyone who believes otherwise is enttlted to their opinion. I wouldn't be suprised if some people still think the world is flat. You can almost always find some unusual individual who will disagree about somehting that has been generally accepted by the world community. The original poster asked a question. Close to 100 years of street photography easily provides the answer.</p>