Ethics of photographing in public places - beaches example

spanky · August 8, 2013

The bottom line is this: If one don't feel comfortable taking pictures of people in public places then don't do it. Now wasn't that simple? However, do not judge those people who do. One is not morally superior for choosing not shoot in public and furthermore to be judgmental to those who do shows a lack character. Not everyone who shoots in public is some kind of pervert but to immediately jump to that conclusion without knowing the photographer and the current circumstances just proves stupidity.

m_stephens · August 8, 2013

It buys into a paternalistic approach to women, which potentially harms women more than any camera might. And it assumes that unwanted attention is automatically morally wrong, which it's not. It's part of living in a social community.

</blockquote>

+1

More important maybe than even the original question.

aplumpton · August 8, 2013

Often I will shoot scenes in which the number of figurants are between a half dozen and perhaps twice that number. The dynamic of the image often relates to what is happening between the people, to what they are doing or to what brings them together. The emphasis on the person is less and effectively replaced by that of the activity they are involved in. I feel no need in theses cases to seek permission. An individual subject can be another matter. In those cases I don't feel bad about entering into their world and if they are in a public space it is then not entirely their world that I am photographing, at least in the physical sense. I do not always get a chance to ask the subject permission to use the image as part of a series, or as an individual work that might be shown to others and even sold. One case comes to mind. Although the young girl (about 8 to 10 of age) in one of my photos that was exhibited during a few years in my summer gallery was accompanied by her photographer mother and photographed during a picnic under blossoming apple trees, and although those present were aware of the activity of photography amongst ourselves, I would have liked to show the print to the subject and her mother before exhibiting it in public. I made an attempt to contact the mother before exhibiting the print (a 16x20 B&W infrared image of that type of tonal range) to make sure she had no objections to the print being shown. That proved very difficult as she had since moved 150 miles away and had left no address to the photo group I had invited to the outing. I chose to exhibit the print and while it was eventually acquired by only one viewer I would have preferred to have given a small copy to the subject and to explain my use of it. Sometimes we cannot cover all the bases we may choose to cover, but that shouldn't impede our communicating what we think is a worthwhile image to others. Some who have visited my small portfolio on PNet will know which print I refer to.

laur1 · August 9, 2013

I think the most interesting philosophical/photographic consideration in this thread is about the difference between using a camera and using one's eyes. William W addressed this early in the thread.

</blockquote>

Yes and it has been discussed at length between William W and m stephens, although perhaps the transition was not made very clear.

Both observing and taking a photo are about recording. The main difference between them is the media used for recording - the brain (memory) or a memory card (digital file).

But the difference in media only becomes important with respect to publishing the record or portions of it for others to act on. I am using "publishing" in a very generic way here - you can think of sharing it with another person.

So there are two aspects here: recording and publishing. What m stephens has been trying to point out for some time now is that harm can only come through publishing (what we do with the photo) and not from the recording (the mere taking of the photo).

Let's try to see if that is the case by examining the differences between the media used for recording. I see the following important ones:

<ul>

<li>Before you can publish a memory you need to commit it to another media, which requires significant skill - you need to have a way with words or with a crayon or with a brush</li>

<li>Memory is lossy and will degrade in time (this impacts publishing because you will forget and others may not trust your ability to remember)</li>

<li>A memory is lost when the owner dies, while a digital image can survive the owner (this means that even if the photographer didn't mean to publish an image, someone else will (this could also happen due to theft))</li>

</ul>

As we can see, however, all these differences only matter with respect to publishing the image in that they make it easier for a photograph to be published vs a memory.

Just as another exercise, let me take the following statement and note that it can be applied to a memory just as well:

Framing through a lens isolates, exaggerates, modifies, and distinguishes, among other things.

</blockquote>

You can do all that with a narration or in a drawing or a painting. These are not possibilities that were just opened by photography.

So where is the moral dilemma? In the recording or in the publishing? Like m stephens argued, it is hard to show harm coming from recording alone. The only issue I see is that the recording of a photograph is more likely to lead to publishing than the record of a memory, but that is not good enough to condemn the mere action of recording a photograph. So where we need to focus (and where we tried to focus) is not on whether it is ethical or not to take photos in a public place but on what are the ethical constraints around keeping and using those photos (the publishing implications).

I did have a discussion a while ago on whether it is ethical to publish images of people that died in a disaster without clearing it out with their families. I was surprised that some people did not see anything wrong with it even though I thought I had some very good arguments against it - arguments that in the case of beach photography I feel are sorely lacking.

BTW, <a href="/photo/17488524">the image uploaded by j d.wood</a> really answers many of the questions that were asked in this thread. Why not ask for permission? Because you can no longer capture candid moments. Why photograph people candidly, even on a beach? Because if you get lucky, you can capture moments that are a great social commentary.

Sure, some photographs might not have much value. But that in itself does not make them damaging to anyone. One still needs to look at where the harm is in an action, before they can determine if it is ethical or not. If I am repeating the points made by m stephens, it's because they were excellent points.

William Michael · August 9, 2013

Yes and it has been discussed at length between William W and m stephens, although perhaps the transition was not made very clear.

</blockquote>

Others were free to address my commentary. m stephens, I believe, was the only member who did and so I responded to m stephens.

***

Both observing and taking a photo are about recording. The main difference between them is the media used for recording - the brain (memory) or a memory card (digital file). But the difference in media only becomes important with respect to publishing.

</blockquote>

I previously addressed that point and gave my view on it. Perhaps I didn’t make it clearly enough and that too was lost in the: transition.

Here, again, in other words:

The act of taking the image with a camera, all but automatically “publishes it” - it is "published" (in terms of this discussion on the philosophy of the ethics of making a photograph of another person) - at the moment in time that the image is viewed . . .and re-viewed: even if that initial viewing and subsequent re-viewings are forever only by the Photographer.

Hence my previous: “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.” WW

Aside: Thanks Fred G – it seems you grasped exactly what I meant from the get go: and your most recent post has allowed a re-expression of my point, perhaps with this time with better transition.

Norma Desmond · August 9, 2013

William, yes, glad to provide a further opportunity. I'll expand in my own way below.

"harm can only come through publishing"

Laurentiu, I don't agree. Worry and anticipation can cause great harm. A soldier seeing himself photographed going into a gay bar could very well have suffered great pain and personal harm, worrying about and anticipating what could happen because he'd been photographed. The film could stay forever in the camera. The photographer might never publish it. But the soldier doesn't know that. All he knows is the camera shot him, and he's harmed. Greatly. His career and honor are at stake. The harm is not his getting fired, because that may never happen. The harm is his worry and anxiety over being recorded. Of course, our silly government would have had a role in that anxiety and I'm not blaming the photographer in this case at all, who may be totally unaware of the circumstances and unaware of the career of who he's shooting. There are plenty of ways one can be harmed without having a harmer to blame. Harm can come in very unintentional ways. And it can certainly come as the result of the mere act of someone pointing a camera and pressing the shutter and does not require the publishing of a photo or the fulfillment of potential.

I recently had blood tests done and some of my counts were off so I had to see a specialist and get some tests done for some very serious illnesses. Everything turned out OK. But until I knew for sure, I felt harmed. Couldn't blame anyone for it, just the circumstances. I didn't sleep well at night, was anxious during the day, etc. My work suffered and my nerves were shot. I know from experience that those who actually are sick are suffering much greater harm than I did, of course. But I suffered harm, even though the potential of illness was never realized (published).

None of this means I think photography of strangers without consent is necessarily unethical or should be banned, as I've repeatedly said. But that there's no one to blame and that photos don't get published doesn't mean there can't be harm.

"You can do all that with a narration or in a drawing or a painting. These are not possibilities that were just opened by photography."

Good point. No one here ever said they were. Making a photo and even using a camera without it resulting in a photo, making a drawing, writing a story, painting a picture are all very different acts from observing.

AJHingel · August 9, 2013

Interesting discussion !

Just a few remark on the "right to one's image" in France.

There is absolutely no restrictions on your right to shoot photographs of whatever and whoever you wish in streets in France. What the "right to one's image" tells, is that such photos cannot be published or distributed without the explicit acceptances of the persons shown, if they are easily recognisable and the main subject of the photo (or crop). These restrictions are based on the general protection of privacy, but limited by the freedom of expression of the photographer. Photos of bigger groups of people (in demonstrations for example) or general photos of people in the streets, or on beaches for that sake, are not covered by the restrictions.

Personally I have no ethical restrictions on photographing people in public spaces. Somehow I feel however unease of shooting people that obviously believe to be in a private sphere although walking in the streets or sitting in coffe houses: people with very private smiles, speaking in phones for example.

m_stephens · August 9, 2013

Fred's example (soldier/gay bar) has been mentioned twice and should be addressed. One can create an infinite number of similar examples, which are based on the idea of people being in places they don't want to be discovered. A married man going into a singles bar, or a man with non-smoker health insurance photographed while smoking, and so on. Fred clearly spelled out the harm as "worry and concern" over being discovered and then facing certain unpleasant consequences. Now examine the case.

The first notable aspect is that the harm (worry, etc) can be caused without photography being involved. Anyone who simply sees the gay soldier going in the bar can be a threat causing worry and concern. Eyewitness claims are valid in courts of law, for example. It's not necessary for the witness to have a photograph.

The second notable aspect of this is that we create this kind of internal worry and concern over the actions we take regardless of the presence of others. We do it because we feel guilty about an action.

So finally, we have to look to see if this kind of harm is recognized in any ethical or moral system. Recognition would mean either that the harmed can claim compensation from the person committing the harm, or that there is an explicit prohibition of the actions causing this kind of harm. I don't find it anywhere. Which leads me to conclude that this scenario is simply a part of living, and a part of our psychological makeup to feel worry and concern over our actions.

aplumpton · August 9, 2013

Anders, I think that Hanz gave a link that shows that a number of countries also have guidelines similar to those of France. With small differences (from province to province), what you describe is also true in Canada.

The point of interest I believe is that if any harm to the subject is done by the photograph it is often not manifested at the point of capture of the image, but in how that image is diffused in future. I may not like having my picture taken in some instances, but the consequences of it are not necessarily very important to me if the image is not diffused beyond the photographer and perhaps his immediate relations or friends. The intentions of the photographer also come into play after he has made the image. Because some of my photographs are exhibited and sold the question of an acceptance or release is a concern. There are of course other situations where the agreement of the subject can also be important and some of those have already been mentioned by others in the preceding discussion.

Recognition would mean either that the harmed can claim compensation from the person committing the harm.. (I don't see that anywhere..)

</blockquote>

M, I don't have the details at hand, but a case against a photographer in Montreal in the late last century gave compensation to a girl who was photographed on the street (just sitting on a curb and in thought) was successfully resolved for the subject of the photograph who received a compensation from the photographer, as mandated by the legal system.

Norma Desmond · August 9, 2013

"We do it because we feel guilty about an action."

I wouldn't assume that a gay soldier had something to feel guilty about for going into a gay bar. I'm sure others do, which is at least part of the reason why the draconian ban on gays in the military existed in the first place. It could be that he felt fear, not guilt.

The love between himself and his wife and any worry about her feelings or questioning of his own motives may have died years ago. The husband meeting his mistress may be way beyond feeling guilt. He may, in fact, feel justified if it were his wife who had caused the decline in the marriage through her own prior infidelity. The reason he wouldn't want to be photographed might have nothing to do with his conscience and everything to do with his pocketbook and that divorce settlement that awaits him.

Ethics sometimes demand not projecting my own reactions and foibles onto others.

_____________________________________

Because harm can be caused in other ways besides photography doesn't mean harm can't be caused by photography. I can kill you with a hammer and I can kill you with a sword. One doesn't mean the other causes no harm. And there are valid reasons to single out photography . . .

Immediacy often marks the difference between having one's picture taken and having a drawing made or a written or verbal account written about oneself. It's the reason we take snapshots at our kids' birthday parties instead of inviting the local novelist over. This is why picture-taking gets more attention than other means of recording, the potential for a photo to result that hits home and is a closer approximation and more immediate.

Legality, with regard to photos, is usually around what gets published. But ethics can be about more, or less. We generally assume that a photo, especially these days, has the potential to be easily published and most people don't take photos to have them left unseen in their camera or their memory cards. They look at them and show them to their friends and often post them to the Internet. I'm not suggesting making that potential legally punishable. I am suggesting understanding why people get upset long before a photo is published, when the shutter is snapped. When that shutter snaps, in most minds, the sense of being published is already in the act. It's why so many photographers talk about pre-visualization, or visualization if you prefer. We consider the photo to be in many ways already in the act of taking it.

This is just a perspective. There are others that obviously differ from mine and have been well expressed here. It doesn't have to be a matter of convincing everyone on the street one way or the other or even of convincing each other here. Ethics often have to do with understanding others and making accommodations. We also take stands for our own freedom. And I appreciate, M, your emphasizing that and wish more people would remember it in all kinds of situations we face as citizens with increasing abuse of our freedoms by governments and authorities. Ethics is balancing my well being with that of others, doesn't always mirror legality and tort law, and can be a matter of perceptions, which in the case of choosing when and how to accommodate others with my camera, is at least partially what's at play for me.

Norma Desmond · August 9, 2013

M, to add something. You'd probably agree that whether the reason for being worried about being photographed is fear or guilt or financial is less the point than that, to at least some extent and in at least some cases, we have ourselves contributed something to the situation and can't blame the photographer for the situation we find ourselves in that would cause us to worry about being photographed. And it's best to take responsibility for the reasons we may not want to be photographed in public. But we're all human. We're not legalistic automatons. And, as a human, I know I've found myself in situations I'd prefer be kept private even when I'm in public. I don't expect any legal remedies. But because I've been in this position myself, I can empathize with others who are in a similar position. I know how a lot of people feel about having their pictures taken or pictures of their kids taken. Rather than trying to convince so many mothers that I'm within my legal rights and their fears about my taking unsolicited photos of their kids may be unwarranted (of course, with increased sensational exposure of stalking situations and child molestation accounts, certainly not all the fear is unwarranted) I choose to accommodate those fears, which have pretty much become a societal norm. There are some unwarranted fears I would not accommodate, but I'm willing to be fairly liberal in my accommodation of moms' fears about their kids or people's fears about their images in what can be considered a compromising situation out of context. You may well go to a public beach clad a certain way and not think twice about it. You would likely not go to work clad that same way, unless you were a lifeguard. So, it's reasonable to me that you wouldn't want your picture, scantily clad, showing up in your workplace or in someone's PN portfolio, even if you're perfectly happy to go out to a public beach that way. The snap of the shutter, in many minds and I think understandably so, is tied to that picture appearing in a different context. It's part of the soul of photography.

laur1 · August 9, 2013

Others were free to address my commentary. m stephens, I believe, was the only member who did and so I responded to m stephens.

</blockquote>

Of course, there was no criticism in my remark, just a statement of fact.

I previously addressed that point and gave my view on it. Perhaps I didn’t make it clearly enough and that too was lost in the: transition.

</blockquote>

I think the disagreement stems from this:

The act of taking the image with a camera, all but automatically "publishes it" - it is "published" (in terms of this discussion on the philosophy of the ethics of making a photograph of another person) - at the moment in time that the image is viewed . . .and re-viewed: even if that initial viewing and subsequent re-viewings are forever only by the Photographer.

</blockquote>

You may note that when I defined publishing, I meant:

with respect to publishing the record or portions of it for others to act on

</blockquote>

If you object to the reviewing of an image by a photographer, you would probably want to object to the reviewing of a memory by an observer. Perhaps you want to elaborate on the reasons why you would object to this. I would be surprised if you don't end up with arguments that are related about sharing the information with others (through narration in the case of memories), because at a higher level, all we are discussing is about accumulating information and distributing that information. I cannot see why accumulating information is intrinsically bad, but that does not mean I think we should not prevent accumulation of information in cases where the risk of it being published outweighs any other concerns.

Worry and anticipation can cause great harm.

</blockquote>

Yes, but they are worry and anticipation of publishing and like m stephens pointed out, a simple narrative can cause the same. I realize that this is perhaps too fine a point, but I think it is an important point to grasp.

I choose to accommodate those fears

</blockquote>

Yes, but that is just a personal choice and doesn't settle any ethical question.

Just a few remark on the "right to one's image" in France.

</blockquote>

Thank you for the clarification. That makes more sense than what I've seen stated online. Gotta go now, but I'll be back to elaborate more, if needed.

m_stephens · August 9, 2013

Fred,

Yes, I agree. I generalize this to mean that living socially implies infinite numbers of cause and effect consequences. So we draw a line around the ones which we deem serious and create either criminal wrongs or civil wrongs or ethical prohibitions. The rest we chalk up as "life."

There is a line of spiritual thinking which seeks to exist without cause. Meaning, live a life where you are never the cause of any ill-effect on another sentient being. This leads such oddities as a Yogi leaning against a tree on one leg, not moving for weeks or months at a time out of fear of causing something. An extreme interpretation of "do no harm."

There is another extreme of prohibitions in history. In the novel SHOGUN, a peasant is beheaded instantly and immediately for simply raising his gaze to the eyes of the Lord Governor of the territory. In the feudal system there was no concept of public space. All was the sovereign property of the feudal Lord and all behavior subject to his whim or fancy.

Modern civil society is seeking to create order and freedom - which obviously compete with each other. So we take small hurts or harms and say, "Buck up! You have to tolerate some of these harms in order to have enough freedom to make life worth living." My view is that the concept of public space is exactly that compromise where people must accept these small hurts and harms and buck up. If you like wearing a strong bikini but don't like being looked at or recorded, do it in private space, not public space. Your choice. In private you have the right to demand no recording. In public you give up that right, but you gain the right to express your self by showing off your arse. It's the trade off we have designed right now. It works pretty well, but not perfectly. I'd hate to live in a world where we had to adjudicate every small harm.

Norma Desmond · August 9, 2013

Laurentiu, I haven't been trying to settle any ethical question. I thought the OP was poorly framed to begin with and have simply tried to talk about how I would generally act and why I might hope others would act similarly, even if it doesn't mold into a defined ethical system. As I said, we're human. We're not ethicists running around the beach with a lot of skin showing. Likewise, I don't think the photographer linked to in this thread is to be judged for his ethics. I said that early on. I said that in similar situations at the beach, my motivations were much more carnal than ethical.

As far as a simple narrative causing the same worry, I addressed that in my last couple of posts and disagree with you and M on that score as well as on your separating the act of photographing from publishing to such an extent. They are not as separate as you are making them out to be, and you can find my reasons in my above posts as well as in the posts of William W.

Please, Laurentiu, you don't have to agree with us and I don't necessarily expect you to. But the arguments have been made and there is rationale for our view just as there is rationale for yours. I don't think your view is without merit. And obviously, I feel the same about mine. My ethics tell me that no one has to be the only one who's right in all situations. Sometimes there are differences of opinion that can coexist. Black and white ethical rules rarely exist in any sort of functioning manner. We react to things on the fly and are sometimes inconsistent. That's human and should be accounted for in any understanding of ethics. Photography is all about perspective, rarely about absolutes. Philosophy and Philosophy of Photography often are as well.

Norma Desmond · August 9, 2013

M, just saw your post after writing my last one. Appreciate your perspective. It's clearly stated and reasonable. My feelings about bucking up and the wearing of and recording of bikinis obviously differ, but I think we can still coexist in some sort of harmony, which implies discord as well. I don't expect you to follow my guidelines, just to understand them and I am happy to afford you the same understanding. In any case, I want to make it clear that defenses of freedom often have to manifest around the most offensive behavior and some of the most important defenses of freedom are the most difficult. It's easy to defend Martin Luther King's right to freedom of expression. The flip side of the coin is that I also have to defend the least common denominator, which would be the photographer linked to in this thread. But in defending his right to do it, I don't have to say I would also do it and I don't have to say the women in the photos are wrong to feel violated. And, as I said before, there's a point at which one starts to hide behind official legal or ethical declarations instead of just stepping up and doing something for someone else's sake. Not sure where the Zen Master or Jesus, for that matter, would fall on those cases. It's sometimes most difficult and most enlightening to do something in spite of my own ethics rather than because of them, just for the other guy.

laur1 · August 9, 2013

Laurentiu, I haven't been trying to settle any ethical question.

</blockquote>

Well, it sounds like you have no interest in settling the ethical question, while I only have that interest. Hence we don't seem to share a common interest and have nothing to discuss.

Please, Laurentiu, you don't have to agree with us and I don't necessarily expect you to.

</blockquote>

This is an unnecessary remark - do you need to be reminded that you were the one to first express disagreement with me:

Laurentiu, I don't agree.

</blockquote>

Please Fred, can you not answer my posts or express disagreement about them if you are not interested in what I am saying? Really, what is your point when you reply to me but then declare you had no interest in what I was discussing? I have no problem skipping your posts, but stop mentioning me if you are not interested in what I say.

To be clear, I am interested in discussing the ethics of photographing in public places, not in what were private reasons for deciding whether to engage or not in such activity. I don't expect anyone to share my interest, but I expect people to act as if they understand it.

m_stephens · August 9, 2013

I share your interest Laurentiu. I think it is a question that comes up often in many ways here, and I find it a fascinating question. The explosion of public photography with cell phones and such make it all the more timely.

William Michael · August 10, 2013

Laurentiu, There was no criticism in my response to you: it too was merely a statement of fact. ***

You go on to mention . . .

“I think the disagreement stems from this: (and then quote my words) and then: “You may note that when I defined publishing, I meant: with respect to publishing the record or portions of it for others to act on If you object to the reviewing of an image by a photographer, you would probably want to object to the reviewing of a memory by an observer. Perhaps you want to elaborate on the reasons why you would object to this. . .”

</blockquote>

This “disagreement” that you perceive and question - does NOT exist in my mind.

The progression of the conversation along lines as per your comments and questions above, has not very much to do with the points which I have chosen to contribute to this thread.

Let me attempt to explain, what I have chosen to contribute to this thread and in so doing hopefully I will address your questions to me.

*** 1. The Original Post’s title was all about: ethics of taking photographs in public places (implied photographs of people). [Bolded words are the key words which I chose to address in my comments] 2. The first question the OP asked was specific: “is it ethical to take photos of people in public places without their consent?” [Bolded words are the key words which I chose to address in my comments]

3. My first post (and intended at the time to be my only post on the matter) was my opinion of a necessary cornerstone for the philosophical discussion addressing those key words.

4. In simple terms, I believe that: to have a philosophical discussion about the ethics of taking photographs of people, without their consent – We must first build a framework for that the discussion set upon firstly dealing with the ethics of making any record of a person or their action or any part of their being, without their consent.

5. My subsequent posts, IMO, only put more flesh on that point of view of what the first question is that should be addressed.

6. Certainly, as a consequence of my putting flesh on my opinion as to what framework this discussion should be bound by, I brought other (IMO important) observations. These observations form part of the reasons why I suggested that any discussion be predicted upon discussion of the ethics of making any record, without consent. For example here are some but not limited to only these:

<ul>

<li>that the making of an image of a person in a situation is different to witnessing the person in that situation;</li>

<li>the record of the brain is different to the record of the film or digital sensor;</li>

<li>it is implicit in taking a Photograph that it will be viewed (or ‘published’) – even if it is only ever viewed by the Photographer and even if it is only viewed once, because that one viewing has the potential to add a layer to the brain’s fleeting capture of the moment and reinforce or dilute aspects of that moment.</li>

</ul>

***

So you have asked me:

“You may note that when I defined publishing, I meant: with respect to publishing the record or portions of it for others to act on If you object to the reviewing of an image by a photographer, you would probably want to object to the reviewing of a memory by an observer. Perhaps you want to elaborate on the reasons why you would object to this. . .”

</blockquote>

And my answer is: I have not anywhere suggested that I object to the Photographer reviewing the images he has taken. More importantly your question and my answer to it have nothing to do with what I have chosen to contribute on this thread.

What I simply have stated, repetitively and in as many ways as possible, is:

<ul>

<li>Very few comments on this thread actually address the Philosophy of the Ethics of taking Photographs of People without their consent.</li>

<li>This is because most of the comments are without a defined framework for that discussion.</li>

<li>I gave a framework, very early on, and that framework for the conversation was rejected by two members of this conversation; accepted by one and drew no comment from the remainder.</li>

<li>That’s fine. I have zero problems with this position and that’s why I chose to be silent. There is no sense in just repeating a premise for a discussion, if the discussion is already elsewhere.</li>

<li>this specific matter was raised by Fred G., then I commented again, expressing a similar contribution, but in a different way.</li>

</ul>

I contributed to this thread mainly with the intention of realizing a conversation in a particular direction and with particular content. I believe such addresses an exceptionally fundamental Philosophical and Ethical matter of valuable import Introspectively to each as Human: and to Society in general.

I did think that this fundamental question was what the OP was asking. I could have been incorrect: at least the OP has chosen not to steer the conversation in any manner, anywhere near the goal I thought the thread was initially aiming. In fact the OP has steered it away from that goal. That's fine by me: but I choose not to contribute my opinions to the general path the thread has taken nor comment on the individual matters the thread contains as examples.

Although I have chosen not make comments about whether or not I believe it is OK for Photographers to snap bikini clad women at the beach; or men going into bars; or kids playing in the park and any of the other permutations of candid shooting: I have read each and every comment and I have been very interested in all the views and all the various the topics commented upon in this thread.

I thank all those who have provided me with their many points of view and the multiple insights.

WW

Julie H · August 10, 2013

posting a verbal photograph of two who are on the public beach of this thread in this forum:

[Laurentiu, m] <<<<<<<<<<< (snicker, eye-roll)

*******************

Was that ethical?

m_stephens · August 10, 2013

In simple terms, I believe that: to have a philosophical discussion about the ethics of taking photographs of people,without their consent – We must first build a framework for that the discussion set upon firstly dealing with the ethics of making any record of a person or their action or any part of their being, without their consent.

</blockquote>

OK. Let's have that discussion. Seems easy enough. You are asking a straightforward question, and I think it has a straightforward answer.

Given:

Ethics is the study of right and wrong behavior and conduct;

Record making includes taking notes, photographs, electronic recordings, drawings and anything else that commits descriptions of people's actions to a medium;

Permission means explicit approval by subject to the recording person on a case by case basis;

Public space means the indoor and outdoor spaces which are not governed by the subject in question. Ex: malls, streets, parks, beaches;

We ask then, is it right or wrong behavior to make recordings of people in these public places?

Discussion:

The first chore is to select an ethical system to examine. Are we going to select the Law of the land? Or, a local religion? Or, popular culture? Or something else? Anyone could create a religion or club with a host of specific ethics that are very different from the law of the land or popular culture. Sharia law is a different ethical system than civil law in the US, for example.

I live in US civil society, and live as a humanist. So my ethical system is a meld of the law of the land, mainstream culture, humanism and communism. That system, for example, advocates personal freedom while admonishing harm to others, harm to self. Therefore, I take it as a given that a behavior is right, unless I can demonstrate how or why it is wrong. Theft is wrong because it harms another. Murder is wrong because it harms another. Writing a poem is right because it enhances my freedom and doesn't harm anyone.

Record making without permission sounds ominous because we generally value permission as an idea. A doctor needs permission to perform surgery. Permission is our control mechanism over what can or can't be done to us, or our property. If record making without permission is ethically wrong we need to find harm done that is unique to the act of record making.

What is record making? Persons in public reflect light, and they give off energy in the form of heat, acoustics and magnetism. They generate all this energy as a part of simply being alive. They have some control over it such as choosing to talk or not, choosing to show or cover parts of their body. When an observer enters the subject space, the observer is acted upon by the subject. Which means, the subject is outputting energy waves onto the observer (and vice versa). Most of these back and forth energy waves are not subject to permissions because they are an automatic feature of living. Record making occurs when the observer commits representations of these arriving energy waves to some form of media. A sketch, a photograph, a poem. No consideration is made here of what the recorder does in the future with the recording.

Has something been stolen? Has someone been harmed? What are the effects on freedom? How is permission possible for uncontrollable effects? How is the recording different than the real time experiencing?

The harm identified so far is this: The subject will suffer embarrassment, worry and fret over the future use of the record. And, the subject owns their image, so any unauthorized recording is a theft. So, how is recording different than seeing, which we accept without question?

From the POV of the subject in real time, there is no difference. The subject can't nominally detect any difference between an observer seeing and an observer recording. e.g. the recording doesn't impinge on the subject. It happens without their knowledge for the most part. The remaining difference then is potential. The recording presumably has more potential than merely seeing. Can a subject be harmed by a process they are unaware of? I make a recording of them and they don't know. I laugh at them in a mocking way and they don't know. Are those any different to the subject at that moment?

As to the freedom of the observer, is there any argument we are free to observe? No. The record making is special case of observing. In both seeing and recording the subject is radiating energy into the space by their own presence and choices. Recording is nothing more than accepting-processing or collecting the energy hitting the observer - just like seeing. If the observer has no obligation to seek permission for seeing, then he/she has no obligation to seek permission for recording.

Most of the time the subject is unaware of all the observers - most of whom are seeing, some of whom are recording. Both seeing and recording are a "collecting" mechanism based on the "output" of the subject's energy fields. Since the harm to the subject is all potential harm, based on some future use of the seeing or recording, it is a phantom harm, and not real. If we allow ethical prohibitions on unreal phantom effects, we have chaos.

The subject controls the release and distribution of their own energy. Choosing bathing suits, uniforms, places to go, things to say, poses to take, is all subject controlled. Observers are acted upon by the energy falling on them from the subject behaviors and choices. Seeing or recording this energy can't be subject to permissions for both practical reasons and logical reasons. All the harms possible in the subject observer realm are potential harms that would occur by secondary actions of the observer, such as publishing, which are not part of this question. Therefore, the recording itself of any subject in public is a right and acceptable behavior by observers. The future use of that recording may separately involve a host of other ethical considerations.

aplumpton · August 10, 2013

Since the harm to the subject is all potential harm, based on some future use of the seeing or recording, it is a phantom harm, and not real.

</blockquote>

That is the time zero case, only. Only. And the only thing that is not real or phantomic is the assumption that the future use of the recorded image carries no possible harm for the subject.

Which is confirmed as false by those cases in which the unwanted, unauthorized use of a photograph is challenged in the courts and the photographer is penalized. The society, via its legal system, judges that the photographer has invaded the rights of the subject. A breech of ethics occurred. If the photographer had instead chosen to request permission of the subject to publish his or her recorded image ethics would not enter into the question. I cited one example of this. There are no doubt others.

m_stephens · August 11, 2013

I certainly agree that it is wrong to assume there is no possible harm in future use. And that was never argued by me. That is also true of photographs taken with permission. That's why the two acts - photographing and publishing - are being treated separately.

It's also true that a simple observation with eyes can be misused in future ways. And once again, that tends to negate any fundamental difference between a recording and an observation. Their potential for harm lying in future actions.

If you do the "algebra" and factor this out, you see that all that matters in any of this is the publishing aspect of it, not the recording or observation - which are by their essence neutral and without harm.

aplumpton · August 11, 2013

m, I understand your points.

However, in regard to your last sentence ("not the recording or observation - which are by their essence neutral and without harm."), is it all that easy for you to ignore an obviously signaled displeasure of someone you are pointing a camera at, or, equally important, the cultural choices of some foreign populations and/or the not foreign but religious or social groups in your country to not be photographic subjects even in public places (Quakers, others)? Is it right to impose your ethics on theirs?

m_stephens · August 11, 2013

Arthur,

I would hope I don't ignore it. But I would give consideration based on my style and sensitivity, not my ethics. So, I can see a situation where I might be saying internally that there's no ethical prohibition against me taking the photo, but out of consideration, politeness, empathy, sympathy or other emotions of the moment, I will pass on the opportunity. This means I am using a more casual and informal filter of my actions than ethics. Does that make any sense to you?

I suppose I am saying that our actions are moderating by a pyramid of constraints. At the top I could say is the Law. I don't want to break the law. Next is morality and ethics. I don't want to violate my ethics or commit immoral acts. And finally, there is my style (personality), in which I seek to "do good works," as an example, or treat people with compassion, or contribute to society, and so on. This final filter on my actions serves me pretty well. I've been taking photographs for 40 years and have only a few instances where I know I violated someone's interests in favor of my own. Like Fred says, we aren't perfect in this regard.

Although I take a lot of my photographs in the street, and in public, and of people without their permission, I wouldn't want you to go away with the impression that I am jamming my lens in people's lives against their will like a renegade paparazzi, or with their displeasure. My style prevents me from doing that - with the exceptional mistake as described. What allows me to do this kind of photography is my clear understanding of the ethics involved. I don't fret, I don't have self doubt, and I don't hesitate to pursue my art in a way that I think is a positive contribution to my existence.

We never have perfect information about anything. If we did, we might discover that many of our actions have some obscure harm to others. We'd be frozen like a centipede trying to decide which leg to move next. Life is a continuous stream of unintended consequences.

aplumpton · August 11, 2013

Well said.

Some night call your sensitivity (style is another thing) a real part of your ethics, but whatever, or however you think of it, or choose to classify it, I think we agree with that opening towards your subjects.

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