Ethics of photographing in public places - beaches example

m_stephens · August 6, 2013

I really think the ethical question that was asked has been answered easily. To wit: depends on what ethical framework the photographer embraces.

It does bring up lots of other interesting questions though.

<ol>

<li>Are women being exploited by men by submitting to male dominated fashion ideas like string bikinis?</li>

<li>Are men being exploited by women who use this overt sexuality as a controlling power over men?</li>

<li>Are we making too big a deal out of human sexuality and its icons and symbols?</li>

</ol>

carashilaire · August 6, 2013

Hanz, you have started a really interesting thread and a subject worthy of debate. I don't like the idea of censorship either--especially regarding street photography. I took a photograph a few years ago of a couple kissing on a street corner and it is one of my favorite pictures.

Photojournalism is completely separate in my mind because we all generally accept that the intent of photojournalism is to report and document.

I do think we all have to draw a line, though - especially in a setting like a beach. Someone earlier in the thread wrote: "if you think you're over the line, you probably are." That is a helpful way of setting boundaries, I think. This is so difficult because everyone's moral compass and comfort level is completely different, so we always have to act with respect because we don't know what the subject's comfort level would be. We also have to put ourselves in the shoes of others. Would that person feel violated by being photographed in a bathing suit without permission? Maybe yes, maybe no - but you wouldn't know if you didn't ask them.

The one place I feel strongly about is regarding children, perhaps even more because I'm a parent of a toddler son. The law in the U.S. says that consent isn't needed to take a picture of him. As his mother, I would be furious, regardless of intent, if someone were to photograph him without my permission. If he was on a stage or in an event, that would be different. If he was playing on a beach, I don't think it is ethically right to photograph him. I don't care how public it is -- he isn't consenting to be photographed merely because he went to the beach. A photographer earnestly asking permission is a very different story than a photographer lurking with a zoom lens pointed at a child. I realize that there might be a wonderful picture that could be taken that is completely innocent, but because I don't know - I don't want you photographing my child.

Just this past weekend, we were at the beach. Another little boy wanted to play with my son and the two of them were having a blast together. I picked up my camera to snap a picture and then paused. Because that other child would be in focus as the main subject, I didn't feel I had the right to take that picture without permission. I did ask his grandmother for permission, she granted it, and I got to capture that moment. That was the right thing to do - that is what I would have wanted if the shoe were on the other foot.

I realize that we all have differing opinions and this is the opinion of one mom.

m_stephens · August 6, 2013

I realize that there might be a wonderful picture that could be taken that is completely innocent, but because I don't know - I don't want you photographing my child.

</blockquote>

You definitely have some chips in this game as a mom, which makes me very interested in your view. Can you explain in more detail what you think is the harm, hurt or injury that accrues to you or your child if someone photographs them at the beach?

I was on vacation last year and saw two toddlers flying big balloons at the beach. I took two or three photographs from about 50 yards away. I didn't for a second consider walking 50 yards to find their parents and ask permission. Nor did I have any weird feeling or sensation while taking these photos, nor did I have a wrestling match with my conscience. Picturesque site, public beach, cute kids acting up = photograph. Even after reading your post, I can't comprehend any harm I caused for kids or parents. Can you give it a more detailed explanation? And can you describe your definition of public space?

arthur_gottschalk · August 6, 2013

In France, people have an absolute right to their image. It is against the law to photography anyone without their consent. There have been cases of people who appeared inadvertently in a news photo who have sued and won.

fotomac · August 6, 2013

As a father of three daughters and a beach loving wife, as well as being a former professional sports photographer i find this debate to be loosing the plot. Images such as those taken and displayed by John Nell on this site have no place in photography, its images and photographers like these that are giving the industry such a bad reputation. Regardless of wether these WOMEN are on a public beach or not, they have the inalienable human right to expect their image not to be captured for another human beings joillies, and then posted on the web for all to see. And to suggest that it is the parents prerogative to ensure that their daughters leave the home suitably dressed is victorian in its male chauvinistic prejudice. Lets not get embroiled in the ethical or philosophical debate here, the only real question is the legality of whats being done in the name of ART. I question the legality of posting an image of anyone in a public place on the internet without their express written consent, whilst it may be legal in certain countries to physically take the image in the first place, the ownership of the copyright and the intellectual property right remains with the model, unless a model release has been signed. In the UK you cannot photograph anyone under the age of 18 without the written prmission of their parents or guardians, even if they are in a public place, and can i suggest to all the US contributers to this thread, try doing any of this in France!!

MAC

m_stephens · August 6, 2013

Lets not get embroiled in the ethical or philosophical debate here, the only real question is the legality of whats being done in the name of ART.

</blockquote>

The OP requested specifically to get involved in the ethical debate. That was his specific desire.

OP:"However - is it ethical to take photos of people in public places without their consent?"

Are you suggesting that John Nell broke some laws?

Norma Desmond · August 6, 2013

Colin, I would have no desire to try doing something illegal in France or any other country. I'm satisfied to adhere to the laws of each country I'm in at the time I'm in it. I'm glad France determines its laws and the US determines its laws. What's that saying? Viva la différence, though it has to be extrapolated from referring to the sexes to referring to nations.

That being said, I agree with a lot of what you say except for the legality. In my opinion, they're silly, empty, juvenile, and irrelevant snap shots of no consequence. I've stated my opinion to the photographer on a couple of occasions. I'm glad his photos are allowed and, IMO, they reflect more on the photographer and certain critiquers of his shots than they do on the women who are the unwitting subjects of them.

I'm afraid fundamentalist overtones often come to the fore when matters of sex, nudity, and scantily clad persons are the topic. I wish such fervor were spent over pictures glorifying war, exploiting the poor and elderly, and sentimentalizing homelessness, though the latter is taken up often in these forums. Ethics and morals pertains to more than prurience, but you wouldn't often know that given the emphasis placed on that as such a focus. Again, though, I think all these photos should be perfectly legal and allowed on PN, as they are. I am then free to comment on them and to approach the photographers with my own feelings on the photographic merit as well as the social, ethical, and political merits.

Honest dialogue, even if controversial, can be a key to understanding.

My ethics aren't pure, mainly because I'm only human and glad to be so. I have inconsistencies and have even photographed things I regretted later and even sometimes regret it as I'm doing it but do it nonetheless. That's an inconsistency and perhaps an irony I can live with.

If I start casting stones, I might get a few tossed right back at me.

Norma Desmond · August 6, 2013

With respect to full disclosure and to the photographer whose work has been linked to and is being discussed here, I just sent him a PN instant message letting him know about this thread. Since we're discussing the ethics of doing things without someone's knowledge or stated approval, I thought it only fair to let him know of this thread.

felixg · August 6, 2013

Three cheers for Fred G ... a true philosopher. The world needs more like him.

sideris · August 6, 2013

Well colleagues, for sure there are much more interesting and useful topics than this dumb discussion about "ethics" of photographs taken at the beach. However, I will collaborate with this thread.

This case reminds me a certain young man that years ago suddenly become in the Moral Guardian of PN, posting a Red Dot to all those photographs considered indecent by him. Pathetic.

My question is, do we need it? people with these kind of concern don't have another thing to do? For example, instead to write a silly comment about "ethics" I strongly recommend to take a camera showing us what can he do, for sure it is a more constructive activity.

jeff_sudduth · August 6, 2013

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.

</blockquote>

Not sure which "western society" you are living in but if you asked the average 19 year old girl whether she minded overweight hairy 50+ year old guys slinking around the beach with telephoto lenses snapping pictures of them they would all say heck yeah they minded. And this isn't about morality. It's about being part of a community. You may have a legal right to hum to yourself on a bus and it certainly isn't morally wrong but you realize other people really don't want to hear it so you save it for the shower.

Bottom line if it feels wrong don't do it unless there is some higher purpose like doing legitimate reporting on an event. Not just snapping pictures of every coed in a bikini because you think one of them might get kidnapped one day and then it will be news.... I can't believe someone said that in this thread.

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".

</blockquote>

Ridiculous. I would have more respect for someone who just came out and said I like pictures of pretty girls in bikinis. Anyway if a teenage girl turned up missing I wouldn't show up at the police station as a complete stranger with pictures of her in a bikini. Talk about a great way to end up on the top ten suspects list.

MichaelChang · August 6, 2013

I think some of it might be the perception of the photographer - seeing it as no more than an extension of street photography - while a viewer of the resulting photos might see it quite differently.

Since it may be a case of differences in ethical and moral definitions, to me, it become a case of whether we should be imposing our personal moral and ethical judgments onto others.

History tells us that decades from now those beach photos will become vintage documentary photos of a time gone by when photographers used ancient DSLRs to photograph pretty girls of the time, and perhaps point to this thread and wonder what all the fuss was about.

hanz_franzell · August 6, 2013

@ Carlos - "Well colleagues, for sure there are much more interesting and useful topics than this dumb discussion about "ethics" of photographs taken at the beach." if you don't like the thread and feel as though it is a waste of time then simply move on - why must you make such a negative post? The beach reference was posed as an example for ethics question which is about subjects of photos granting permission to be photographed. Its a question every photographer should think about if taking photos of people in public places regardless of the law. Photos of people where they are undoubtedly the subject of (regardless of gender, age, weight, etc) that have not granted permission or have knowledge they are being photographed never mind having their photos posted here (again without their knowledge or consent) has the potential to give all photographers a bad name - thus I believe this discussion is important....but thank you for granting us your infinite wisdom on the subject - we're all so much more enlightened now that you've weighed in.

sideris · August 6, 2013

Mister Hanz Franzell, I am not the man who don't like "something", let me tell you that YOU are who is criticizing the images of John Nell with a pretentious statement about "ethics" in photography.

John has more than 2400 images posted, most of them with an interesting photographic value, even very good, and you have no one single photo posted supporting your belonging to this site. Of course, this curious detail doesn't mean anything, even you can be Cartier Bresson, but we don't have any proof about that so far.

Believe me if I say you that your case is interesting at all, because you've signed up here exclusively to post this comment about "ethics" on the work of John.

You say: "if you don't like the thread and feel as though it is a waste of time then simply move on - why must you make such a negative post?" Well mister, if you don't like those photographs then don't come to this site to watch. This is your own principle, don't you?.

On the other hand, this forum is destined to express our opinions. This is the mine. Good evening.

laur1 · August 6, 2013

In the UK you cannot photograph anyone under the age of 18 without the written prmission of their parents or guardians, even if they are in a public place, and can i suggest to all the US contributers to this thread, try doing any of this in France!!

</blockquote>

It is not as clear cut as mentioned here. <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#United_Kingdom">UK laws</a> are based on an expectation of privacy. <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#France">French law</a> doesn't seem to prevent including people in photos as long as they are not the focus of the photo, but one can always crop a 40MP image to put the focus on whoever they want.

People are much more protective of their children in developed countries that are generally safer for children. I've seen an interesting map in a book (was it The Science of Fear?) where the area where four generations roamed as children is depicted and is drastically shrinking from a large section of the city to the immediate streets around the home. And it is not like crime got higher than before, it just gets more publicity.

Not sure which "western society" you are living in but if you asked the average 19 year old girl whether she minded overweight hairy 50+ year old guys slinking around the beach with telephoto lenses snapping pictures of them they would all say heck yeah they minded.

</blockquote>

So you are going to prevent photography by 50+ year old guys with telephoto lenses but allow photography by 20 year olds with iPhones? There are so many things wrong with this line of thought! Besides, most 19 year old people probably make their beach photos public anyway.

Whether taking a photograph is ethical cannot be a matter of gender, age, and equipment of the photographer.

The beach reference was posed as an example for ethics question which is about subjects of photos granting permission to be photographed.

</blockquote>

While it may have been provided as an example, it ended up becoming a theme and distracting from the point, which was photography in public places.

MichaelChang · August 6, 2013

"-the beach reference- While it may have been provided as an example, it ended up becoming a theme and distracting from the point, which was photography in public places."

</blockquote>

Laurentiu, I think you're mistaken. Please see:

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=7847574">Hanz Franzell</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub1.gif" alt="" /></a>, Aug 06, 2013; 10:08 a.m.

" 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? "

</blockquote>

William Michael · August 6, 2013

So the question keeps being asked, "Is this ethical.." but no one is describing any particular ethical framework.

</blockquote>

That statement is totally incorrect.

I described a framework for the basis of this philosophical discussion of this topic - in my first post. And when you asked, I specifically expanded and described that framework, again, in my second post and my subsequent posts where I articulated and addressed each specific query that you raised - and each of those responses stipulated and described an ethical framework, more precisely.

WW

m_stephens · August 6, 2013

I described a framework for the basis of this philosophical discussion of this topic - in my first post.

</blockquote>

No, you didn't. This was your first post.

QUOTE William W. The crux of the philosophical conversation is: People who are at the beach at a particular point in time, that is: when and where the legs were bared, may have the right to look upon those legs. 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.

END QUOTE

That's no framework, that's a declaration. You simply assert that people don't have a right to make a record, without presenting any foundation, reason, history, premise, logic, or any other framing details.

Let me give an example of framework. If someone asked, "is it ethical to have sex with young children?" A person would describe the answer as "no" and then provide a framework might consist of injury and harm and the right to be free from same. It's a rationale for explaining the ethical prohibition.

You are just making an assertion with no background. Anyone can fill papers with assertions about anything they want. You aren't describing the ethics of anything, you are just giving your opinion about it.

Suppose I said this? "I tire of people playing rock music into my ears in public without my permission. I declare it is unethical to do so!" A reasonable person would ask for the basis of my ethical declaration. With no basis, it's just an opinion.

So far, no one here who objects to these photos has presented anything remotely close to a ethical argument against doing it. They are just giving their opinion. We all have mere opinions. Now maybe, that's what the OP meant - - give me your opinions. But it's not what he asked for.

m_stephens · August 6, 2013

Not sure which "western society" you are living in but if you asked the average 19 year old girl whether she minded overweight hairy 50+ year old guys slinking around the beach with telephoto lenses snapping pictures of them they would all say heck yeah they minded. And this isn't about morality. It's about being part of a community. You may have a legal right to hum to yourself on a bus and it certainly isn't morally wrong but you realize other people really don't want to hear it so you save it for the shower.

</blockquote>

Jeff,

You misunderstood the question. The question was not being asked "will girls object to overweight hairy 50+ year old guys slinking around the beach with telephoto lenses snapping pictures of them. " The question was very clearly asked about the ethics of making such photographs.

I might object to many, many things people do in public. I object to loud music, I object to people cussing loudly, I object to people talking on phones at the cash register, I object to people spitting, grabbing their nutsack on TV, and picking their noses on the bus. But I would never suggest it is unethical, immoral or illegal to do so. I'll bet young 19 year old girls have a whole long list of things they object to. But, that's not the point here.

m_stephens · August 6, 2013

The purpose of public space in a free society is to maximize everyone's expression and freedom, not restrict it. When you go out in public, you are agreeing to a social contract that is permissive enough to accommodate as many interests as possible without causing injury to others. People want to dance, sing, protest, pray, carry signs, preach, march, relax, look at what they want and yes - make drawings or photographs of what they enjoy. You as a public space goer undertake some responsibility to protect your own privacy. If you want to be covered in a Burqa, you have that right to do so. If you prefer a string bikini, you have that choice too. You generally however can not restrict the use of the public space by others just because their activity "bothers" you. That's the difference between private and public space.

We have an elaborate tort system by any definition. We have harms and injuries of all sorts and types that can be a cause for legal remedy. A good example of how that system works is smoking. For many generations the rights of the smoker and the non-smoker were identical in public. Then, a harm was defined for second hand smoke, and the legal system stepped in to change the balance of rights. Now, the non-smoker has superior rights in public to the smoker.

But so far, no harm has been established regarding the mere taking of a photograph in public. Yes, there are harms in law for how such photos are used, but not yet for merely the making of them.

aplumpton · August 6, 2013

Quite apart from the limitations imposed by different jurisdictions (the freedoms of the photographer in China or the USA, contrasted to the greater restrictions of France and some other cultures) which one must be aware of and respect as a photographer, the primary ethical question for me is how you choose to interact with your subject on a human level.

When the picture making leaves enough time and space to be controlled, the photographer has, I believe, the obligation to sense the potential effect of his singling out of specific subjects as subject matter and the desire to photograph them, and, in such cases I believe he or she should make an attempt, before or after the photograph, to request the acceptance of the person photographed.

In an era of immediate playback of the recorded image, it is easy to interact with the subject, show the picture and either keep it or delete it based upon their response. In very spontaneous cases, where the action cannot be repeated and everything happens very quickly and sometimes the persons photographed are no longer available to consult with, the keeping or trashing of the image rests mainly on the photographers's moral evaluation of the content and whether it might be considered offensive or damaging by the subject. In the first case, the ability to interact with one's subject is a definite plus and can very often make the photography experience more valuable than if no contact had occurred.

laur1 · August 6, 2013

Laurentiu, I think you're mistaken.

</blockquote>

You are correct, it looks like I was fooled by the initial post that masked an interest in a specific point under the guise of a general question - "Ethics of photographing in public places". Hanz seems to have been really irritated by those beach photos of John Nell - I've seen his second post, but I didn't realize it was the same person - long thread. I hate it when I fall for such troll bait.

m_stephens · August 6, 2013

When the picture making leaves enough time and space to be controlled, the photographer has, I believe, the obligation to sense the potential effect of his singling out of specific subjects as subject matter and the desire to photograph them......

</blockquote>

Can you explain what this effect is? Many people have alluded to this, but no one has explained it. To be clear, I don't mean the effect of secondary acts like publishing photos. I mean, what's the effect on a person by just making the photo in circumstances where they didn't supply approval?

In very spontaneous cases, where the action cannot be repeated and everything happens very quickly and sometimes the persons photographed are no longer available to consult with, the keeping or trashing of the image rests mainly on the photographers's moral evaluation of the content and whether it might be considered offensive or damaging by the subject.

</blockquote>

I think that makes an excellent general case, not just an exceptional one. My moral system is a mix of humanism and communism. I have no desire to injure anyone with my actions, but I want to maximize my personal expression and freedom. I would never stick a camera through anyone's window, but I also don't accept "being annoyed" as a real injury, if I take a photograph in good taste without previous permission. People are annoyed by almost an endless array of behaviors. You can't live your life bound by every conceivable annoyance that someone comes up with. "Hey you! No talking on that cell phone here - - it's annoying me!"

William Michael · August 6, 2013

No, you didn't.

</blockquote>

Well then, we two shall have to disagree as to what "a framework" for the basis of a philosophical discussion comprises.

WW

laur1 · August 7, 2013

Well then, we two shall have to disagree as to what "a framework" for the basis of a philosophical discussion comprises.

</blockquote>

I think you made some interesting points, but I would also not call them a "framework".

The first point was about whether being able to see should give you the right to record ("But that does not presuppose those people also have the right to make a record..."). This initially appears to be a sensible point, but on closer observation - not as much. The problem is that it is too general and can be applied to anything - should you take a photo of a beautiful landscape just because you can see it? If yes, why not take a picture of a beautiful person? As soon as you start looking at this, you can realize that the problem has nothing to do with your right to record, but rather with how damaging your record can be to other things. Even a landscape can be damaged - your image may attract thousands of tourists that would eventually alter the landscape, so it's not really the case that there is a simple answer even for what initially would appear to be a subject that cannot be easily hurt.

A second point you made was about law ("...in many jurisdictions I may (by law) be allowed..."). I have to say that that was irrelevant. The law and ethics may intersect from time to time, but they often diverge despite the best intentions of lawmakers. We all want to follow the law so we don't support its penalties, but the law has no value for an ethical discussion. The law is only what a majority of people have agreed to allow or disallow at some point in time - and that majority rarely contains the most enlightened individuals. We've been trying to get better laws ever since we got the concept of laws and this effort will never end. Current laws will always be imperfect for reasons that go beyond the scope of the current discussion.

Finally, you have mentioned rights all over the place ("...the right to make a record...", "...addressing the question in the first inst. of my right (or not) to make ANY record of the conversation..."). Like laws, rights are no immutable things that have intrinsic meaning. There is no right to privacy or right to record images. Rights only have meaning in relation to laws - they are granted by them or recognized by them, but can be trampled without any second thought in the absence of such laws - history offers examples galore. And philosophy should only be concerned with immutable laws like the "law" of gravity, not with laws made by flawed people using flawed reasoning and approved using flawed processes.

In the end, the only question that needs to be asked is if the benefit of taking a photograph will outweigh the damage of taking that photograph. And, unfortunately, there is no easy answer for this - most of the time, neither the benefit nor the damage will be noticeable, and in the rest of the situations every person will judge as best as they can (most people, not that much). Given that most people alive today will be dead in a century, I don't see how taking pictures of them is going to produce a lot of damage in itself. Which is what m stephens has pointed out already:

But so far, no harm has been established regarding the mere taking of a photograph in public. Yes, there are harms in law for how such photos are used, but not yet for merely the making of them.

</blockquote>

Sign In

Ethics of photographing in public places - beaches example

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in