Release required for public settings?

[tomspielman]

In the section on Bruce Gilden, the author claims the photos aren’t genuine because the people Gilden is shooting aren’t in their “natural state.” Many photos, from still lifes to fashion to landscapes are “set up.” The author is mistaken that only a natural state is genuine. Actors and theater directors work in artifice all the time and they express very genuine things. Art and photography transform all the time. Besides, if you did want to make “natural state” a bottom line (which is plain silly), what’s more natural than a candid and immediate reaction to something occurring to you on the street? Is a car backfiring and a subsequent pedestrian reaction natural or not? Is an intentionally honked horn by one car toward another driver eliciting a pedestrian reaction natural or not? A reaction can be very natural even to a very planned and manipulative stimulus. How many portrait photographers intentionally say their subject’s name when the subject is taking a break to get an expression that might work? Is that not natural or genuine because the photographer imposed himself on the situation?

 

A lot about both art and photography is neither natural nor completely candid, including some good street photography. Such imposed limitations to genuineness aren’t often persuasive.

 

That being said, do what’s comfortable for you.

 

Valid critiques can be made of Gilden’s photos and even his manner of accosting people can be debated, but criticizing him for a lack of “naturalness,” IMO, is neither true nor would it be persuasive even if true.

 

Did Gilden get releases from the people he jumped out at? He well may have, I don't know.

 

The argument for it being legal to publish photographs of random people in public places is that they are already making themselves available for all to see in whatever state they are in. Though I agree that such photos can be exploitive while still being legal.

 

In Gilden's case, he is sometimes using members of the public like models. He is posing them. His subjects are reacting to him. To me that's different. That's using the street like a studio. In my mind that requires consent. Again, I'm not saying that photographers shouldn't ask for permission in other cases.

 

I'll acknowledge that it quickly gets grey. If I wait for someone to walk in front of a particular sign before pressing the shutter button, I'm also posing them to a certain degree, but I'm not changing what would have happened anyway. I'm not interfering with them.

 

Street photography is not something I actively engage in very often. And I have asked for permission when taking pictures of individuals doing something unusual. But I tend to avoid pictures like that. I'll photograph crowds or take pictures of what people have created/left behind rather than the people themselves. There are exceptions.

 

 

 

I wish this one would have turned out better. This was Minneapolis on the morning after a number of buildings had been set on fire during the recent protests and riots. There was smokey haze in the air and the film I had in the camera was a little slow for the conditions.

 

Anyway, these people were working. I was not going to stop them from doing their jobs in order to get permission to take pictures. Also they're not readily identifiable except for maybe one National Guardsman.

 

And while there were plenty of pictures taken by thousands of people, I felt it was important for me to capture what it was like at this time in my immediate area, - even if it's only my kids and grandkids that ever see these pictures.

 

As far as long lenses go, I think they have their place in street photography as long as you're not using them to hide the fact that you're taking pictures. The problem with a short lens is that it can require you to get in the way to get the shot you want, which also has its ethical problems.

 

I think I took the photo above with a 135mm lens

Edited July 23, 2020 by tomspielman

[samstevens]

In Gilden's case, he is sometimes using members of the public like models. He is posing them. His subjects are reacting to him. To me that's different. That's using the street like a studio. In my mind that requires consent.

I wasn't addressing the issue of consent. I was addressing the author's (of the linked article) assertion that Gilden's photos are not genuine. And I provided some reasons for my position that they are.

[tomspielman]

I wasn't addressing the issue of consent. I was addressing the author's (of the linked article) assertion that Gilden's photos are not genuine. And I provided some reasons for my position that they are.

 

The photo you caught is not genuine. It is not the person in a state natural to them. It is not the person interacting with their surrounding environment. All you have captured is the person reacting to being harassed by you and your camera.

 

To me it is related to consent and the right to photograph people in public spaces. In my opinion, something implicit in the legality of take pictures of people in public spaces is that you're just capturing what is there for everyone to see anyway. You're not interfering. The author used the word genuine. I wouldn't have expressed it that way but to be fair to him his objections go beyond that.

 

I agree with you that there is a lot of manipulation that can happen before and after the shutter is pressed to make the photo much different (or less genuine) than what was really in front of the camera.

[samstevens]

something implicit in the legality of take pictures of people in public spaces is that you're just capturing what is there for everyone to see anyway.

I don't agree that that's implicit in the law. As a matter of fact, when you're out in public, people are going to be constantly adjusting their behavior based on what others do. Public space rarely offers a bubble. We move to make room for other pedestrians. Our attention is grabbed by store displays put out on the street in front of shops. A young man with a petition steps up to passersby and asks if they're interested. Another young man is asking folks for spare change. All these things change our posture, bearing, attitude, and expression. A photographer other than Gilden might capture a crowd all turning their heads to watch something occurring suddenly in this or that direction, an accident or some other event. Why would that photo be any less genuine than if the photographer himself creates the stimulus to get spontaneous expressions? Sorry, I don't see it. Public space is often very much about interactions of all kind, which change the flow of events. I see that as the natural state of being in public. A photographer is certainly allowed to interact in many ways, as are we all, causing all sorts of things to happen.

[tomspielman]

I don't agree that that's implicit in the law. As a matter of fact, when you're out in public, people are going to be constantly adjusting their behavior based on what others do. Public space rarely offers a bubble. We move to make room for other pedestrians. Our attention is grabbed by store displays put out on the street in front of shops. A young man with a petition steps up to passersby and asks if they're interested. Another young man is asking folks for spare change. All these things change our posture, bearing, attitude, and expression. A photographer other than Gilden might capture a crowd all turning their heads to watch something occurring suddenly in this or that direction, an accident or some other event. Why would that photo be any less genuine than if the photographer himself creates the stimulus to get spontaneous expressions? Sorry, I don't see it. Public space is often very much about interactions of all kind, which change the flow of events. I see that as the natural state of being in public. A photographer is certainly allowed to interact in many ways, as are we all, causing all sorts of things to happen.

 

Certainly people in public react to what's around them including photographers. But having photographers deliberately create a reaction to get a picture IMO, is violating the spirit of the law. I would agree that in a lot of cases that it's harmless. If I hire an excellent magician to perform tricks on a street corner and want to get pictures of people reacting to them, I don't think anyone would object too much. Getting consent would still be an ethical thing to do.

 

However, when I was in San Francisco many years ago on Fisherman's Wharf, a homeless person jumped on to the sidewalk and yelled, - right in front of a couple of tourists. A photographer snapped their picture. The couple was startled to say the least. The homeless person then smiled and made it clear he wasn't going to hurt them. And after they went on their way, the photographer gave the homeless person a little bit of money and he hid again waiting for the next group of unsuspecting people. Then I noticed a little crowd had gathered. They were also waiting for reaction of the next victims.

 

Harmless? Maybe. But I'm not sure the couple was even aware that their picture was taken and I don't think that's the kind of thing the law was meant to protect.

 

Again, I think the justification for the law is that people in public are making themselves available to be seen. They aren't consenting to be models to be posed by photographers.

[samstevens]

But having photographers deliberately create a reaction to get a picture IMO, is violating the spirit of the law.

Then please cite a case where a photographer's been convicted of a crime for doing exactly that. I guess that would answer our question.

[Dieter Schaefer]

Let's get specific. Here's a picture I took in NYC. If I published a photo book of street shots, would I need permission?

Inside the book, most likely not (unless you try to create a false impression or construct an endorsement from it). If you use it for the book cover, you most certainly will need permission as this is considered "commercial" or "promotional" and the person depicted has the right to benefit from it too.

 

Re: Gilden and his "surprise attacks" - I find his behavior rude. And the resulting pictures with their mixture of surprise, shock and anger on the persons' faces don't appeal to me.

[Ricochetrider]

Hi everyone, interesting conversation here.

 

I'm wondering this: how -if at all, does the fact of municipal street cameras aka. citizen cameras, intersection cameras, security cameras, ATM cameras etc etc in the public realm affect the legality of anyone ELSE with a camera also shooting random images of street scenes, much of which is. bound to include humans? Like what about when people are caught on security cameras doing ... whatever- and somebody posts that on the world wide web (to cite but one example).

 

Or is this a complete non sequitur that has nothing whatever to do with private citizens shooting "still" photos (as opposed to videos) of people in what anyone would naturally assume is a "public" space?

[samstevens]

Hi everyone, interesting conversation here.

 

I'm wondering this: how -if at all, does the fact of municipal street cameras aka. citizen cameras, intersection cameras, security cameras, ATM cameras etc etc in the public realm affect the legality of anyone ELSE with a camera also shooting random images of street scenes, much of which is. bound to include humans? Like what about when people are caught on security cameras doing ... whatever- and somebody posts that on the world wide web (to cite but one example).

 

Or is this a complete non sequitur that has nothing whatever to do with private citizens shooting "still" photos (as opposed to videos) of people in what anyone would naturally assume is a "public" space?

In response, I’ll just say that quaint notions of privacy are becoming a thing of the past, on so many levels, or at the very least are evolving almost out of control. My sense is that younger generations will be more comfortable with certain degrees of lack of privacy than older generations because the trend away from privacy is such a reality today. While I regret some losses of privacy, of course, if someone wants to go out of their way to get an expression out of me and post that to the Internet, I doubt I’ll lose much sleep over it and would more likely get a laugh out of it. I do understand others being more sensitive than I am. Regardless, realism demands we recognize just how much we’re being tracked and how little we can do about it, since that cat seems out of the bag and almost out of sight by now.

[samstevens]

Maybe Gilden is the one indicting the rest of us. All the street photographers who more “politely” and also more clandestinely snap pics of strangers on the street. Are they hiding and getting away with what Gilden is brazenly not trying to hide? Is looking for “kind” or “flattering” moments to photograph less manipulative than looking for or finding more sour ones? Is flattery more “genuine” than what Gilden may be finding? What about portrait photographers who more-delicately-than-with-a-flash but not-much-less-exaggeratedly emphasize wrinkles of old people to give them “character” and gain accolades for themselves? Or the photographers taking pics in museums at the expense of the peaceful enjoyment of that museum for the rest of the patrons? The photojournalists who embed themselves with troops in immoral wars ostensibly to document but often in the process helping to glorify those wars.

 

Sure, lets all cast stones at Gilden. Maybe that’s exactly what he set himself up for and maybe we’ll all find a little bit of Gilden in ourselves as well. Maybe photography doesn’t make princes of us all and maybe that’s ok. Because we’re just imperfect humans photographing an imperfect world, a world with all kinds of nuances from unexpected reactions to in-your-face motions to the saccharinely-sweet fabrications of made up models with perfect skin and bland expressions of boredom.

 

Reality is a big tent. It includes both the natural and the artificial or man-made. Photos are man-made. Insisting they be natural is fine, for someone who wants that for themselves, but it only tells part of a much bigger story. Insisting they be kind is also fine but only part of a reality which isn’t always so. The truth can be ugly and it can be just as invasive as it can be passive.

 

Decades ago, Sontag said ...

To photograph people is to violate them, by seeing them as they never see themselves, by having knowledge of them that they can never have; it turns people into objects that can be symbolically possessed. Just as a camera is a sublimation of the gun, to photograph someone is a subliminal murder - a soft murder, appropriate to a sad, frightened time.

You don’t have to take this literally or buy it completely to recognize it expresses something worth thinking about. Gilden may be translating it visually. He may be the one confronting not just people on the street but confronting unflinchingly a part of himself.

 

Maybe he’s inviting the rest of us to confront ourselves more honestly as well.

 

Or are we more comfy without that self awareness, feeling better about ourselves, by judging him?

[Ricochetrider]

Nicely stated!

[Allen Herbert]

Tomspielman, there really is enough problems in the world than your moralist worries about someone taking your photo on the street.

 

Wake up and smell the coffee.

[AlanKlein]

Inside the book, most likely not (unless you try to create a false impression or construct an endorsement from it). If you use it for the book cover, you most certainly will need permission as this is considered "commercial" or "promotional" and the person depicted has the right to benefit from it too.

 

Re: Gilden and his "surprise attacks" - I find his behavior rude. And the resulting pictures with their mixture of surprise, shock and anger on the persons' faces don't appeal to me.

OK, so I'd have to pick a shot that doesn;t show a person's face?

 

However, what if it was a street shot with lots of people crossing the street? Would rel;eases be needed?

[Allen Herbert]

Personally I have never had a problem in taking photos on the street. This includes Morocco, where apparently, according to web flora ,folks there seriously object to having their photos taken.

 

Its all about how you go about your photography, and whether you a scared person.

 

Dogs and humans can smell fear.

[Allen Herbert]

[AlanKlein]

In response, I’ll just say that quaint notions of privacy are becoming a thing of the past, on so many levels, or at the very least are evolving almost out of control. My sense is that younger generations will be more comfortable with certain degrees of lack of privacy than older generations because the trend away from privacy is such a reality today. While I regret some losses of privacy, of course, if someone wants to go out of their way to get an expression out of me and post that to the Internet, I doubt I’ll lose much sleep over it and would more likely get a laugh out of it. I do understand others being more sensitive than I am. Regardless, realism demands we recognize just how much we’re being tracked and how little we can do about it, since that cat seems out of the bag and almost out of sight by now.

When I worked for NYC School Construction Authority, we were installing security cameras in all 1200 schools in NYC to provide protection for children, teachers, and others who used the schools. Cameras were placed strategically outside watching entrances and throughout the inside of the schools in hallways, auditoriums, lunchrooms, and stairwells, Classrooms were not included especially when the teacher union expressed their concerns that teachers could be monitored secretly.

 

The order of installation were High Schools first, than Middle Schools, and K-6. Obviously, high school kids being larger and more dangerous, were a priority. Actually, the concern was that there was more danger from kids within than terrorists without.

 

On one project I picked up from another manager in a rather bad neighborhood, half the cameras were being vandalized before made operational. So during the summer, I had the principal shut down the school completely. No summer school or any extra curricular activities in the building. I then had the contractor get the job done during July and August so that 90% of the cameras were operational by the time the vandals, I mean kids came back in September. They immediately knew what the situation was and didn't vandalize one of them. They knew we'd record their faces. We finished the job shortly after that. :)

[Dieter Schaefer]

However, what if it was a street shot with lots of people crossing the street? Would rel;eases be needed?

You need to ask a lawyer.

[tomspielman]

Tomspielman, there really is enough problems in the world than your moralist worries about someone taking your photo on the street.

 

Wake up and smell the coffee.

 

I'm very much aware that there are serious problems in the world. I've had a front row seat over the last few months. Many of those problems result from having too little regard for other people. If feeling that way makes me a moralist I'm quite OK with that.

 

Personally I don't care if someone takes my picture while I'm out and about. But I prefer to go through my day without being harassed or manipulated, whether by a "street photographer" or someone else.

Edited July 25, 2020 by tomspielman

[mikemorrell]

Bruce Gilden - perhaps rightly - gets a whole lot of flack because of his "aggressive" in-your-face approach to photographing people on the street. I have very mixed feelings about this too. But I've come to believe that - however rightly or wrongly his approach is - his motivation and artistic integrity is genuine. It's not the only project he has. One of his most recent is portaiting (willing) teenagers in farming districts. I still like his first 'Coney Island' project.

 

In

with (Magnum) British street/documentary photographer Martin Parr - who has a completely different style - Gilden gives some insight into his motivation ands work. A memorable quote is "if someone was taking photo of my daughters at a young age, I'd prefer it if they took them in front of my face rather from across the street"

 

 

Maybe Gilden is the one indicting the rest of us. All the street photographers who more “politely” and also more clandestinely snap pics of strangers on the street. Are they hiding and getting away with what Gilden is brazenly not trying to hide? Is looking for “kind” or “flattering” moments to photograph less manipulative than looking for or finding more sour ones? Is flattery more “genuine” than what Gilden may be finding? What about portrait photographers who more-delicately-than-with-a-flash but not-much-less-exaggeratedly emphasize wrinkles of old people to give them “character” and gain accolades for themselves? Or the photographers taking pics in museums at the expense of the peaceful enjoyment of that museum for the rest of the patrons? The photojournalists who embed themselves with troops in immoral wars ostensibly to document but often in the process helping to glorify those wars.

 

Sure, lets all cast stones at Gilden. Maybe that’s exactly what he set himself up for and maybe we’ll all find a little bit of Gilden in ourselves as well. Maybe photography doesn’t make princes of us all and maybe that’s ok. Because we’re just imperfect humans photographing an imperfect world, a world with all kinds of nuances from unexpected reactions to in-your-face motions to the saccharinely-sweet fabrications of made up models with perfect skin and bland expressions of boredom.

 

Reality is a big tent. It includes both the natural and the artificial or man-made. Photos are man-made. Insisting they be natural is fine, for someone who wants that for themselves, but it only tells part of a much bigger story. Insisting they be kind is also fine but only part of a reality which isn’t always so. The truth can be ugly and it can be just as invasive as it can be passive.

 

Decades ago, Sontag said ...

 

You don’t have to take this literally or buy it completely to recognize it expresses something worth thinking about. Gilden may be translating it visually. He may be the one confronting not just people on the street but confronting unflinchingly a part of himself.

 

Maybe he’s inviting the rest of us to confront ourselves more honestly as well.

 

Or are we more comfy without that self awareness, feeling better about ourselves, by judging him?

Edited July 27, 2020 by mikemorrell

[samstevens]

I agree that amateur street (and travel) photography often tends to be the most mediocre (boring) and sometimes exploitative (unethical).

I agree with this but with an important caveat. To me, street photography is no different from all other photography, most of which is mediocre. As I surf the Internet, full of imagery, the mediocrity comes in big waves. And, to be honest, I'd prefer looking at mediocre street photography than most other kinds of mediocre photography. By its very nature, street photography tells me more of a story and is relatable, even when poorly done.

 

Interestingly, there are times when the mediocrity of ubiquitous photography can be fascinating as a story of the times and culture. Framed, in my eyes and thoughts, a certain way, these mediocre photos, as a phenomenon, are fascinating.

[tomspielman]

I agree with this but with an important caveat. To me, street photography is no different from all other photography, most of which is mediocre. As I surf the Internet, full of imagery, the mediocrity comes in big waves. And, to be honest, I'd prefer looking at mediocre street photography than most other kinds of mediocre photography. By its very nature, street photography tells me more of a story and is relatable, even when poorly done.

 

Interestingly, there are times when the mediocrity of ubiquitous photography can be fascinating as a story of the times and culture. Framed, in my eyes and thoughts, a certain way, these mediocre photos, as a phenomenon, are fascinating.

 

I agree with all of that. Pre-Covid I used to frequently walk through an old building over lunch and in the lobby area were a few photos from the early 1900's taken shortly after the building was first constructed. They were enlarged to over 8 ft tall and as you can imagine, the quality suffered. And given the technology of the time, they probably weren't the most sharp photos to start with.

 

So they aren't great photos. You can't really make out facial features. But I stop to look at them every time. I'm fascinated with them.

 

One is a picture of people watching a baseball game at a field that used to be nearby. The fans were all dressed in their Sunday best. Another was a view of parade from near the top of one of the buildings. Again, people were dressed up and sitting/standing on thin ledges and steep pitches or hanging out of windows 15 or 20 stories above the street. These were men and women of all sorts, - doing something that virtually no-one today would consider remotely safe.

 

But I wouldn't be as interested in contemporary photos. Street photos become much more interesting decades after they were taken.

 

Also I don't think Gilden's tactics are necessary or add much, if anything. Pictures of people doing what they would be doing anyway is interesting enough to my eyes.

 

Just my opinion.

 

When taking pictures of my own family, I prefer the candid shots rather than having them react to a camera.

[httpwww.photo.netbarry]

My understanding relating to U.S. is that photos taken in public places can be published unless they are being used for a "commercial use" as that is defined in the law, generally most often related to advertising. For commercial use, I believe you have to get a model release from everyone in the frame that is recognizable.

 

Confusion often ensues on the meaning of "commercial" in this context. It doesn't mean you can't sell the work, or even sell it for stock photography. As long as its classified as an editorial photo, or as a fine art photo. You can sell prints, or license for editorial use. Perfectly clear?

[httpwww.photo.netbarry]

=

A friend just today emailed me this link to an opinion article that much of street photography is "bad and exploitative". It could be the start of a new thread but it fits here reasonably well, as it discusses legal issues briefly too. Anyway, I offer it for your consideration. I agree with the author's view, although I must admit that I am not completely without sin in this regard.

 

That is an opinion people express for sure, but to date, there is no legal barrier to making those types of photos, at least in the U.S.

[httpwww.photo.netbarry]

Let's get specific. Here's a picture I took in NYC. If I published a photo book of street shots, would I need permission? (PS: Hi MIckey. I'm your neighbor living in Middlesex County next door. Good luck with your shots. Maybe we can compare notes and photos off line?)

Checking the oil - NYC by Alan Klein, on Flickr

Would not need a release if not being used to sell a product in the U.S. I don't believe that Gary Winogrand, Lee Freidlander or Bruce Gilden stopped to get releases for photographs they showed in museums, sold to the public or published in books..

[petrochemist]

Several good summaries of rights, but it might be worth pointing out some stock agencies etc. insist on releases whatever the legal situation.