Street Photography Ethics

[beach bum]

I think something needs to be considered, too, in exactly what the situation is where the photographer is shooting..... Is it a public event? Is it a massive fire in the neighborhood? Is it something happening in what is indeed truly "public space" and where no expectations of privacy would exist? Or is the photographer shooting images of strangers shopping in a store, browsing through a mall, eating in a restaurant or relaxing in a bar where most people are just doing their own thing and aren't expecting some stranger to be taking their picture at all?

I think that we would have to rely on the photographer’s discretion. There can be no expectation of privacy when you are in a ”public” environment. As @mollyc stated earlier, if someone asks not to have their picture taken—when it’s obvious that they will be included in a photo, then the photographer can either acquiesce or ignore.

It is not up to us to question someone’s ethical standards when they are creating a visual expression of what they are viewing at that moment.

 

[sam_dean]

Avoid poverty porn unless you want an easy like, share, retweet, quote, etc.

 

[r.harris1]

I’ll state at the outset that I’m not clear even slightly why mollyc’s photograph was specifically a point of contention over any other photographs here of recent note containing people in public places that didn’t garner this scrutiny. Costco - or wherever it was - is pretty public. I think most of us have been around the block enough to know the actual laws (generally, anyway) and we all know how to “read the room”, when to ask permission or strike up a conversation, or when it’s OK to go with the scene in front of us. I also assume that anyone who is, for whatever reason, upset at having their photograph taken is comfortable enough to speak to the photographer and let them know. The subject in this case was the shopping experience and not the people specifically. In other words, the people and the aisle+products in the store crossed paths to make the final image, at least to me. The two aspects needed each other, clearly, but that’s part of the art. There’s nothing unethical nor is there anything mollyc should have done differently, in my mind. It seems somewhat odd that the subject even came up, but that’s just me. That’s why we discuss things here . I would have no ethical challenges taking such a photograph. Clearly this is not a commercial photograph, no model releases are needed, from my perspective anyway.



That said, it’s always an interesting topic . I’m also glad the mods moved it to its own thread and “ethics / street photography” is really the right categorization of it (or documentary photography). It’s interesting that we can take our bazooka zooms and photograph people from our homes and that’s “documentary photography” but if we take those same lenses and photograph people in their homes, that’s not OK. I don’t disagree with that position, it’s just interesting in passing. It’s really a question of where we can “reasonably expect privacy”, I guess. I reasonably expect privacy in my home, I suppose. There are others who have no concerns about using bazooka zooms to photograph people in their “private spaces”. This is usually reserved for “celebrities” but obviously it can extend to other people.



I’m sure I’m in people’s photographs multiple times per week, just by walking down the street or going into a restaurant or bar (or grocery store/big box store). I personally don’t care if I end up in POTD or Facebook or Insta. With the exception of POTD , the likelihood of me seeing it is minimal and if I did, the likelihood of me caring is infinitesimal to say the least. I’d care if someone were stalking me, but that’s not likely either. Other people may have different levels of comfort, and that’s OK. Street/documentary photography has many facets. Sometimes you go with the scene as it unfolds. That’s part of the art to me. We have to allow for the dynamic and allow for the unposed and unprepared. That said, sometimes it’s based on relationships you’ve built up, either at that moment in time or over a longer period. If I were taking a “camera in the face” portrait of an individual I’d ask. That’s just me. There are people who don’t, of course, and here in the states that’s generally legal. You might get walloped by shoving your camera in someone’s gob unasked, of course, but that’s on you, illegal though that wallopin’ might be.

 

[Jumpthesnark]

Model releases are not needed for non-commercial publication of photos, so they don't apply here. If Costco wanted to make a billboard from @mollyc's photo, however, then yes she would need them.

In the U.S., people in public legally have no privacy protections in a public space, and therefore no expectation of privacy. Anyone could be seen walking down a public sidewalk, so photographing them is legally no different.

Malls, stores and other privately-owned commercial locations are not "public" in the eyes of the law, and the owners of those properties can determine the rules of the people who are accessing their property. For example, no shirt, no shoes, no service. Though there is public access, it is not a public place. That's why you'll see tables set up for petition drives outside stores, and not inside them.

Stores care about photography when it interferes with their business. For example, a department store Santa. Malls and stores go to great expense hiring Santas and elves, partly so they can sell the parents photographs of Santa with their kids. So in that part of the mall, they probably do have "NO PHOTOGRAPHY" signs, because they don't want any of us to take better photos of our kids with Santa than they do, and not have to pay $20 or however much it is.

And in a truly public place, they would have no legal right to restrict our picture-taking in such a way.

 

[r.harris1]

Model releases are not needed for non-commercial publication of photos, so they don't apply here. If Costco wanted to make a billboard from @mollyc's photo, however, then yes she would need them.

In the U.S., people in public legally have no privacy protections in a public space, and therefore no expectation of privacy. Anyone could be seen walking down a public sidewalk, so photographing them is legally no different.

Malls, stores and other privately-owned commercial locations are not "public" in the eyes of the law, and the owners of those properties can determine the rules of the people who are accessing their property. For example, no shirt, no shoes, no service. Though there is public access, it is not a public place. That's why you'll see tables set up for petition drives outside stores, and not inside them.

Stores care about photography when it interferes with their business. For example, a department store Santa. Malls and stores go to great expense hiring Santas and elves, partly so they can sell the parents photographs of Santa with their kids. So in that part of the mall, they probably do have "NO PHOTOGRAPHY" signs, because they don't want any of us to take better photos of our kids with Santa than they do, and not have to pay $20 or however much it is.

And in a truly public place, they would have no legal right to restrict our picture-taking in such a way.

This is a great point, the difference between public access to a property and a public space.

 

[laptech]

In my opinion it is wrong for photographers (not every photographer though) to think everyone in public is 'fair game' because the law on photography in public protects them thus ethics be damned.

This statement always appears in these type of thread discussions 'people in public legally have no privacy protections in a public space, and therefore no expectation of privacy' and again in my opinion it is wrong because society has allowed photographers to get away with it for so long that it has now become the norm and thus acceptable in the eyes of the law.

 

[r.harris1]

In my opinion it is wrong for photographers (not every photographer though) to think everyone in public is 'fair game' because the law on photography in public protects them thus ethics be damned.

This statement always appears in these type of thread discussions 'people in public legally have no privacy protections in a public space, and therefore no expectation of privacy' and again in my opinion it is wrong because society has allowed photographers to get away with it for so long that it has now become the norm and thus acceptable in the eyes of the law.

It's true that law without ethics or even simple good judgment is never good. To be fair, while there are photographers as you describe, all of the ones I know personally exercise both good self awareness and have an ethical core. In these threads, we always have both ends of the spectrum of opinion and everything in between of course. While I don't expect to be stalked, I don't expect privacy (however we define it) outside of my home, at least in urban areas. I've also never cared one jot if my photograph was taken, going back to being a kid and hamming it up for family and strangers with cameras. I have family members who are very much passionately the opposite. It's a sentiment as old as photography.

It's a good thing I don't expect privacy outside of my home since I wouldn't be getting it. I live in an urban environment. I'm on someone's camera all day, whether I'm driving on the highway, at work, in a store, a restaurant or walking down a city street. That's getting worse, not better, for the most part. I find street photographers to be small potatoes. Their impact to me personally is going to be negligible in the grand scheme of things. That's just my own perspective though, and I do realize that there are passionate differences of opinion.

There are European countries where privacy is much more enshrined in law and you can expect some level of it walking down the street. Except for all of the surveillance of course, but even then there's some level of governance over what you can do with it, how long you can keep it and so forth. It's a mixed bag here in the US.

All that said, I do get the other perspective of not wanting to be the subject of someone's photograph or even in it and I'm actually also not interested in changing anyone's mind, despite what it may sound like . It's merely my perspective. I worry about a lot of things, just not street photographers.

I do want photographers to act with empathy, have an ethical core and exercise good judgment. I find in my experience, the vast majority do.

 

[laptech]

It's true that law without ethics or even simple good judgment is never good. To be fair, while there are photographers as you describe, all of the ones I know personally exercise both good self awareness and have an ethical core. In these threads, we always have both ends of the spectrum of opinion and everything in between of course. While I don't expect to be stalked, I don't expect privacy (however we define it) outside of my home, at least in urban areas. I've also never cared one jot if my photograph was taken, going back to being a kid and hamming it up for family and strangers with cameras. I have family members who are very much passionately the opposite. It's a sentiment as old as photography.

It's a good thing I don't expect privacy outside of my home since I wouldn't be getting it. I live in an urban environment. I'm on someone's camera all day, whether I'm driving on the highway, at work, in a store, a restaurant or walking down a city street. That's getting worse, not better, for the most part. I find street photographers to be small potatoes. Their impact to me personally is going to be negligible in the grand scheme of things. That's just my own perspective though, and I do realize that there are passionate differences of opinion.

There are European countries where privacy is much more enshrined in law and you can expect some level of it walking down the street. Except for all of the surveillance of course, but even then there's some level of governance over what you can do with it, how long you can keep it and so forth. It's a mixed bag here in the US.

All that said, I do get the other perspective of not wanting to be the subject of someone's photograph or even in it and I'm actually also not interested in changing anyone's mind, despite what it may sound like . It's merely my perspective. I worry about a lot of things, just not street photographers.

I do want photographers to act with empathy, have an ethical core and exercise good judgment. I find in my experience, the vast majority do.

You have a good view and opinion but in my opinion it is wrong (yes we are all allowed to not agree with one another) because like I said, photography in public has been going on for so long it has now become ingrained in our brains that it is acceptable we have reached a point where that acceptability has meant the erosion of our privacy to the point where we accept this aspect of our lives.

People should be able to go about their daily lives without the prospect of having some photographer in the distance taking photo's for their own just purposes. If I am in a shopping mall I should not have to be on the look out or on edge thinking my image and what I am doing could be taken without my knowledge or consent and end up on the internet somewhere just so others can get their entertainment kicks. Press photographers have a code of conduct to run from but everyone else doesn't and when challenged they say 'sorry, I have not broken any law, I am legally allowed to take pictures in public'. Just look at the many social media channels, they have millions upon millions of videos and pictures taken of strangers in public doing their own thing and it's their on someone's social media channel for the entertainment purposes of others. Yes the person or persons in the pictures/videos can request the social media company to remove the picture/video but it's the fact that the law allows a complete random stranger take a video/picture of another complete random stranger supporters of such action uses the time honored excuse 'you have no expectation of privacy in a public place'. It's wrong, so wrong.

 

[MBAir2010]

she gave me full permission to post the video and photo anywhere:
I probably would have because her face eis not visible until the end.

used this

 

[r.harris1]

You have a good view and opinion but in my opinion it is wrong (yes we are all allowed to not agree with one another) because like I said, photography in public has been going on for so long it has now become ingrained in our brains that it is acceptable we have reached a point where that acceptability has meant the erosion of our privacy to the point where we accept this aspect of our lives.

People should be able to go about their daily lives without the prospect of having some photographer in the distance taking photo's for their own just purposes. If I am in a shopping mall I should not have to be on the look out or on edge thinking my image and what I am doing could be taken without my knowledge or consent and end up on the internet somewhere just so others can get their entertainment kicks. Press photographers have a code of conduct to run from but everyone else doesn't and when challenged they say 'sorry, I have not broken any law, I am legally allowed to take pictures in public'. Just look at the many social media channels, they have millions upon millions of videos and pictures taken of strangers in public doing their own thing and it's their on someone's social media channel for the entertainment purposes of others. Yes the person or persons in the pictures/videos can request the social media company to remove the picture/video but it's the fact that the law allows a complete random stranger take a video/picture of another complete random stranger supporters of such action uses the time honored excuse 'you have no expectation of privacy in a public place'. It's wrong, so wrong.

Yep, totally get your viewpoint . What steps do you suggest should be done? Do you think we should adopt strict privacy laws as relates to photography in public, similar to what they've done in places like Germany? As you say, people have been taking photographs of other people with or without their consent since the 1800s and that notion of being able to do so is ingrained in society, and in some places, enshrined into law. Unwinding that will be a challenge, I'd think.

 

[bondr006]

It's a "right" (legally) granted equally to everyone, so nothing about making "anyone so special".

Do you think the news media gets permission of all the people in photos or film clips? They roll footage in public spaces like malls all the time with people all over. They also have vehicles, with license plates, which is even more identifiable.

Same with people taking photos of friends or family but with other people in the background. If you want to photograph your kid trying on a funny hat in the store, do you ask others around?

People walk around vlogging as well, capturing anything that gets caught by the camera.

I get photographed or filmed all the time just riding around on my motorcycle, which is identifiable by the license plate. Nobody has ever asked me, that I can recall, because frankly they don't need to

Exactly! Go to any news website and you'll see many multiple instances of photos that never got everyone in the photo's permission. Why? Because they don't have to.

I’ll state at the outset that I’m not clear even slightly why mollyc’s photograph was specifically a point of contention over any other photographs here of recent note containing people in public places that didn’t garner this scrutiny.

There is no doubt in my mind that "Somebody" has a personal problem with @mollyc and that while the topic of this conversation is indeed interesting, it has absolutely nothing to do with the photograph she posted, other than that she was the one that posted it.

 

[bondr006]

In my opinion it is wrong for photographers (not every photographer though) to think everyone in public is 'fair game' because the law on photography in public protects them thus ethics be damned.

This statement always appears in these type of thread discussions 'people in public legally have no privacy protections in a public space, and therefore no expectation of privacy' and again in my opinion it is wrong because society has allowed photographers to get away with it for so long that it has now become the norm and thus acceptable in the eyes of the law.

"Wrong" is such a subjective word, especially in today's society. I will admit that there are some things that are wrong no matter what anyone's viewpoint. I just had this discussion with my 20 year old son yesterday about murder. I agree that murder in today's society is very much wrong, but as my son pointed out, even the "wrongness" of murder is subjective depending on what society we are talking about. Many ancient, and some modern(albeit remote) society's view human sacrifice as ok or moral. Some countries to this day view killing people that don't agree with them or are deemed as subverting the culture of that country, to be ok. I personally don't agree with this viewpoint, just as I don't agree it is wrong that someone gets photographed in a public place. If a person is intended to be the subject of a photo, I do agree it is polite and courteous to ask their permission, but if people just happen to be in a photo taken in a public place, it is something that happens all the time, and it is not necessary to get their permission.

 

[laptech]

Yep, totally get your viewpoint . What steps do you suggest should be done? Do you think we should adopt strict privacy laws as relates to photography in public, similar to what they've done in places like Germany? As you say, people have been taking photographs of other people with or without their consent since the 1800s and that notion of being able to do so is ingrained in society, and in some places, enshrined into law. Unwinding that will be a challenge, I'd think.

What can be done? nothing in my opinion because it has been allowed to continue unopposed for too long. In my opinion these kind of ethics debates/discussion around photography in public have become more prominent due to the introduction of mobile devices with cameras in them. Before then we always knew that photos/videos of people in public were taken by press photographers, people who were bound over by a code of conduct meaning they were bound by a code of ethics and morals on what they could and could not take pictures of and for for and for when.

Now with the introduction of mobile devices with camera's in them, ANYONE can be a photographer, people who are not bound over by morals or ethics and just do as they please. When the introduction of such devices came about new laws should have been brought in about the use of taking pictures/videos of people in public but they were not. A classic example is the new Up-skirting law being implemented in some countries. This should have been introduced when mobile devices with cameras were introduced but it took privacy campaigners years to get the new law introduced.

People need to take back their privacy and say 'No, what your doing is wrong'.

 

[mollyc]

What can be done? nothing in my opinion because it has been allowed to continue unopposed for too long. In my opinion these kind of ethics debates/discussion around photography in public have become more prominent due to the introduction of mobile devices with cameras in them. Before then we always knew that photos/videos of people in public were taken by press photographers, people who were bound over by a code of conduct meaning they were bound by a code of ethics and morals on what they could and could not take pictures of and for for and for when.

Now with the introduction of mobile devices with camera's in them, ANYONE can be a photographer, people who are not bound over by morals or ethics and just do as they please. When the introduction of such devices came about new laws should have been brought in about the use of taking pictures/videos of people in public but they were not. A classic example is the new Up-skirting law being implemented in some countries. This should have been introduced when mobile devices with cameras were introduced but it took privacy campaigners years to get the new law introduced.

People need to take back their privacy and say 'No, what your doing is wrong'.

Suprisingly, until 2005, no one has ever (legally, in a court of law) objected to street photography. And courts consistently hold that the general definition of street photography falls under the freedom of expression in the First Amendment. The photos made in this case were taken in 1999, before the rise of cell phone photography.

Street photography: A right or invasion? (Published 2006)

www.nytimes.com

Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

People have been taking street photographs since the 1800s; it's hardly a new genre.

 

[tizeye]

While the discussion has centered on personal where generally considered ok in public areas, the real question is personal vs commercial. Then there is the middle ground best described as incidentally commercial where you may received some payment or other benefit that is more incidental than a business practice. An example would be the FAA requiring a drone operator's license if used for commercial and they include YouTube posting as commercial due to the possibility of being paid despite my never being paid for any of my videos as I haven't commercialized the account. Personally, being more landscape oriented, I try to keep people out, and even other features, such as house numbers. The clone brush is my friend and I love it when they are in the water as I grab some water in the clone brush and drown them. That will teach them for being in my picture. Then there are the photos that I would want to turn commercial but have no model release. Specifically thinking about one now of a gondolier nicely framed with the Rialto Bridge arching in the background. With that one, would switch to a painting that doesn't have the pixel peeking precise detail pf a photograph and the entire facial structure of the gondolier can be altered where unrecognizable from the original. Painting (digital, not oils, acrylics or watercolor on canvas) is also a good technique for photos that have great composition but are photographically inferior for a direct print, such as slide of Stonehenge taken in the 1980's that has deteriorated over time.

 

[mollyc]

Think about how much history would be lost if we outlawed street photography.

 

[laptech]

The introduction of cell phone photography (thankyou mollyc for that) has changed the whole outlook of 'street photography' in my opinion and thus it needs to be regulated because social media has proven it is the wild west out there with regards to street photography. Before the introduction celluar devices, if you saw someone with a camera, the perception was that the person was either a press photographer or someone working for the local paper, an enthusiast in photography or a tourist. Life experiences told you that press and other news photographers worked by a code of conduct therefore your privacy was relatively safe and that if your image was gone to ever be seen it would be in the news media of the time. Photography enthusiast's have always been around and they were easy to spot because they was always around doing the same thing. So again, your privacy was relatively safe. Now comes the introduction of cell phone photography and suddenly everyone from everyone is a photographer taking video's and pictures of anyone and anything in public using the excuse 'people do not have an expectation of privacy in a public place' or it's being used for 'artistic impression' therefore protected under various laws.

It is very wrong for someone to be able to just walk into a public place with a camera, take as many pictures and videos as they like and their right to take those pictures is protected by law but the public who is having their pictures and videos taken is not afforded those same rights.

 

[bondr006]

@laptech

Even the thought of street photography being “wrong” or outlawed is just totally ludicrous. Brings visions of living in a dictatorial, totalitarian, communist regime. To control where anyone takes pictures just because there may be others around? Really? If you don’t want the chance of being caught in someone’s public photo who doesn’t give a care about you, don’t go out in public. But don’t dare presume to take someone’s right to take public street photos away just because you think it’s wrong.

BTW: Point and shoot cameras have been around a lot longer than cell phones, and public street photography by regular folk like you and me has been a thing for many decades.

 

[mollyc]

The introduction of cell phone photography (thankyou mollyc for that) has changed the whole outlook of 'street photography' in my opinion and thus it needs to be regulated because social media has proven it is the wild west out there with regards to street photography. Before the introduction celluar devices, if you saw someone with a camera, the perception was that the person was either a press photographer or someone working for the local paper, an enthusiast in photography or a tourist. Life experiences told you that press and other news photographers worked by a code of conduct therefore your privacy was relatively safe and that if your image was gone to ever be seen it would be in the news media of the time. Photography enthusiast's have always been around and they were easy to spot because they was always around doing the same thing. So again, your privacy was relatively safe. Now comes the introduction of cell phone photography and suddenly everyone from everyone is a photographer taking video's and pictures of anyone and anything in public using the excuse 'people do not have an expectation of privacy in a public place' or it's being used for 'artistic impression' therefore protected under various laws.

It is very wrong for someone to be able to just walk into a public place with a camera, take as many pictures and videos as they like and their right to take those pictures is protected by law but the public who is having their pictures and videos taken is not afforded those same rights.

Did you read the court case I linked? The photographer strung up strobe lights in the middle of Manhattan and photographed passers-by. It was still deemed legal. That is far more intrusive than showing up in the background of some IG influencer's photos.

I would also question why in the 60s, 70s, 80s it was "relatively safe and that if your image was gone to ever be seen it would be in the news media of the time" and now that same photo is somehow unsafe just by being on the internet? Is it unsafe because it is potentially viewed by more people? What is the threshold for how many people can view an unidentified subject? I would argue the anonymity of the subject makes it "more safe" rather than less safe, as no one can go harass this particular subject. If I showed up in in a photo in my local newspaper in 1987 (which, truthfully, I probably did), my friends would all comment at school.

Pretend that you were the person shopping at Big Box Store (with a mask on no less, so even harder to identify)...what harm has come to you by appearing on Mac Rumors? Who besides you can identify you? Is the subject participating in something demoralizing, obscene, or embarrassing?

I am fully on board with discussing the ethics of photographing homeless or other disadvantaged people, both for artistic and commercial purposes, where those people might be exploited. However, in the photo of discussion (linked in the OP), no one is being exploited. It's an ordinary moment in an ordinary store, which is actually the entire point of the story and photograph. It's an every day moment, and one that my children (because I don't anticipate becoming some famous posthumous photographer) will look back on in 50 years and show their kids or grandchildren how we used to shop (because probably by that point everything will be delivered by robot drones or something yet unimagined).

 

[mollyc]

The introduction of cell phone photography (thankyou mollyc for that) has changed the whole outlook of 'street photography' in my opinion and thus it needs to be regulated because social media has proven it is the wild west out there with regards to street photography. Before the introduction celluar devices, if you saw someone with a camera, the perception was that the person was either a press photographer or someone working for the local paper, an enthusiast in photography or a tourist. Life experiences told you that press and other news photographers worked by a code of conduct therefore your privacy was relatively safe and that if your image was gone to ever be seen it would be in the news media of the time. Photography enthusiast's have always been around and they were easy to spot because they was always around doing the same thing. So again, your privacy was relatively safe. Now comes the introduction of cell phone photography and suddenly everyone from everyone is a photographer taking video's and pictures of anyone and anything in public using the excuse 'people do not have an expectation of privacy in a public place' or it's being used for 'artistic impression' therefore protected under various laws.

It is very wrong for someone to be able to just walk into a public place with a camera, take as many pictures and videos as they like and their right to take those pictures is protected by law but the public who is having their pictures and videos taken is not afforded those same rights.

I'm curious if your objection is to the actual taking of the photos, or the chance that they might be posted on the internet? Cell phones have really only replaced point and shoot cameras, and those were a dime a dozen for decades. I can look at my childhood photos on film and find hundreds of random strangers in the background. I'm sure that I was in the background of other random people over the years as well.

Every once in a while I get tagged on Facebook in some elementary school photo that has been unearthed from someone's basement. Isn't that the point of photos?

 

[Jumpthesnark]

I hard disagree that it is wrong to take photos of people in public, but that's in part due to my background. I've taken photos in public for decades. When studying photojournalism, ethics was a huge part of our classes. Then for years at newspapers, ethics was part of the daily discussion that guided our decisions over what to publish, what is the context, what, if anything, could be the harm.

The only reason that members of the U.S. press have First Amendment protections is because all of us do. Journalists don't have extra rights in that way. Courts have found for years that the work I do is protected speech, and it is an unlawful prior restraint on speech for someone to prevent it. So it would be the same for anyone to be banned from taking photos of people in public, and it would take a wholesale reinterpretation of the First Amendment to ban that protected speech in public.

And the courts have likewise found that when we venture outside, we have given up the presumption of living completely privately. We are likely to be seen by anyone else, recorded by CCTV cameras, to show up in the background of someone else's selfie. It's part of the price we pay for being free to walk outside in the first place.

I know that @laptech may not agree with the way things are, or like it, but I'd rather have too many photographers than not enough.

 

[Clix Pix]

Wow, the discussion has really taken off! Thank you all who added your thoughts!

I'm glad at least one other participant pointed out that yes, there is a difference between shooting photos of people literally out on the public street (walking, riding bicycles, roller-skating, skateboarding, whatever) and someone who is minding their own business while browsing or shopping in a store (which while open to the pubic is actually privately owned, a point I made earlier). Yes, of course there are going to be store security cameras and all that, which is expected, but that is very different from some stranger who is neither affiliated with the store or a photojournalist pointing his or her camera at me, whether or not I am aware of it.

 

[bondr006]

Wow, the discussion has really taken off! Thank you all who added your thoughts!

I'm glad at least one other participant pointed out that yes, there is a difference between shooting photos of people literally out on the public street (walking, riding bicycles, roller-skating, skateboarding, whatever) and someone who is minding their own business while browsing or shopping in a store (which while open to the pubic is actually privately owned, a point I made earlier). Yes, of course there are going to be store security cameras and all that, which is expected, but that is very different from some stranger who is neither affiliated with the store or a photojournalist pointing his or her camera at me, whether or not I am aware of it.

The intent of @mollyc's picture was not to capture strangers in her shot. The strangers just happened to be in the setting she was interested in. How may I ask is there a difference in any situation once you have left your house that you may be captured in someone's photo, whether in a store or out on the street? What if said person was outside walking to the store and ended up in someone's photograph, but wasn't the intended subject the photographer was shooting, that is okay? How is that different from the same person ending up in a photograph once they have entered the store, but were not the intended subject of the photographer's shot, and that is not okay? You can unintentionally end up in a photo any time you leave your house. What if you are at a restaurant where another group is there celebrating an occasion, and pictures are being taken? The subject of the photo's are the group celebrating the occasion, but because they are in a public place, other people may end up in the background of those photo's. Is that not okay? How about a football game at a stadium? You want some pictures to show you were at the game with your friends. A lot of people are going to end up in the background of those photos. Is that not okay? How about the beach, at the park, at the ice skating rink, and the list of places people not intended as the subject of people's photo's potentially ending up in the picture goes on infinitely. How utterly ridiculous the thought that we cannot take pictures in public because unintended people may end up in the photo.

 

[eltoslightfoot]

Wow, the discussion has really taken off! Thank you all who added your thoughts!

I'm glad at least one other participant pointed out that yes, there is a difference between shooting photos of people literally out on the public street (walking, riding bicycles, roller-skating, skateboarding, whatever) and someone who is minding their own business while browsing or shopping in a store (which while open to the pubic is actually privately owned, a point I made earlier). Yes, of course there are going to be store security cameras and all that, which is expected, but that is very different from some stranger who is neither affiliated with the store or a photojournalist pointing his or her camera at me, whether or not I am aware of it.

That's what you got out of all of those posts???? Wow! Okay.

 

[eltoslightfoot]

I hard disagree that it is wrong to take photos of people in public, but that's in part due to my background. I've taken photos in public for decades. When studying photojournalism, ethics was a huge part of our classes. Then for years at newspapers, ethics was part of the daily discussion that guided our decisions over what to publish, what is the context, what, if anything, could be the harm.

The only reason that members of the U.S. press have First Amendment protections is because all of us do. Journalists don't have extra rights in that way. Courts have found for years that the work I do is protected speech, and it is an unlawful prior restraint on speech for someone to prevent it. So it would be the same for anyone to be banned from taking photos of people in public, and it would take a wholesale reinterpretation of the First Amendment to ban that protected speech in public.

And the courts have likewise found that when we venture outside, we have given up the presumption of living completely privately. We are likely to be seen by anyone else, recorded by CCTV cameras, to show up in the background of someone else's selfie. It's part of the price we pay for being free to walk outside in the first place.

I know that @laptech may not agree with the way things are, or like it, but I'd rather have too many photographers than not enough.

This is what @Clix Pix needs to read again. This is a really well thought out post from someone with subject matter knowledge.