[Alliecat]

With evolving copyright laws etc., & the growing prevalence of cameras, camera-phones, etc., everywhere, I wonder if we'll see a new branch of privacy laws geared toward who can photograph what, where. It sounds like a legal morass, but someone might be inclined to pursue it.

I agree with Mag. Unless I'm "performing" (??), or something else noticeable for others to watch, or unless I'm hanging out with you & we're all taking pictures of each other, then you don't have permission to take my picture. If I'm quietly going about my business somewhere, I don't think I want some stranger taking my picture. If it's "arty" I might let them, if they asked. If they just like taking pictures of people & showing them to whoever... uh-uh. And if they're using a long lens to do it from somewhere safely distant/hidden, then they're just being sneaky.

I just realized this is likely to be challenged soon; I'll be going to a "pirate festival" which everyone attends in costume... I'll be doing some meet-&-greet as a volunteer, & I think I have a pretty cool costume, & wonder if anyone will want to take pictures. Will be in the opposite situation to Mag's "my outfit makes me a less desirable subject". Nobody would likely want to take my picture withOUT the costume, LOL
So, if someone asks me to pose with their kids, sure. If someone just wants a picture, maybe. If someone is being sneaky & firing a shot or 2 from a distance, I'm not likely to confront them; that's not my style. I'm more likely to turn my back if someone's trying to take a picture. But if we're all in goofy costumes, should I make some stupid pose instead? (Did pirates give people the finger? )

Now, what would you guys do if you were in that situation???
And, btw, how many of you would actually confront a stranger for taking your photo?

[dlacouture]

Try France: "droit a l'image" means that those not wanting to have their pictures taken actually have a legal claim (modulo some exceptions) to not be photographed.

Well, that's not exactly true... It means you cannot use their image for monetary/artistic purpose without their consent, but you can still freely take a picture of someone in the street, so long as you keep this picture private.
And this "right" does not even held for newsworthy events. If a picture with an highly informative content is taken with you in it, you will have real difficulties asserting your right as long as your dignity is respected (if you're not naked, humiliated, or whatever).

Say you were photographed throwing a rock to police forces during a riot, well, bad luck, papers can still run your exploit in front page (at best with your face blurred)... So it all goes down to the liberty of the press against your individual rights, and only a judge can deliberate on this...

Same goes for artistic events in public places : you can legally snap and use a picture of, say, Bono performing in the subway, but you cannot paparazzi him smooching his girlfriend in the same place...

[RobA_Oz]

There's an interesting philosophical question buried in all this: we all own our faces and our bodies, by definition, but how can we claim ownership of images of us?

Consider this: an image is a representation of someone or something. It can be compiled by a number of processes, including photography, but also by an artist with a pencil or paintbrush. The artist working with any medium uses their eyes, imagination and hand skills to create the image. The common element in most cases is light. Light is the medium by which the non-photographic artist inspects and analyses the subject, before synthesising the image. It is the medium that is directly used by the photographer. Nobody owns light.

Nobody owns the skills that the artists uses, except for the artist themselves, and ownership of the materials used is subject to trade. What then is the status of the image? It is something that arises from us, but, except in the case of self-portraits, is not of and by us. We have no right to the light that reflects from us, otherwise we could control who sees us, which is absurd. How, then, can we make any claim over an image of us that uses that light?

The common argument people use is that they don't like the idea of someone making an image of them. I think the reasons for that are based on suspicion and vanity: suspicion that the image might be used for some disagreeable purpose and vanity that the image does not coincide with their preferred view of themselves. In the first instance, as long as the image isn't used for a commercial or other purpose to benefit another party, or to denigrate or disadvantage the subject, the artist's purpose is entirely their business. In the second instance, the subject's denial of reality is their own problem to deal with.

Everywhere, photographers seem to be subject to pressure to not do what their peers and forebears have been doing for over a hundred years. What they've lacked is a cogent argument to justify that work. Most people love to look at photos of what life was like in eras and places that no longer exist, like many of the people in them, but see neither anomaly nor hypocrisy in rejecting a part for themselves in that continuum. I think we should arm ourselves to reject that, in our turn.

[magkelly]

So you want to talk about photography like it's painting? Okay, but then you must realize that generally speaking artists do pay their models for the use of their image and their time. So why shouldn't photographers? You don't generally just paint someone and not ask them to pose. For me it's the same thing with a photograph. I think the person I'm taking pics of should have the right to not model if they so wish. Owning a camera doesn't just make you God. Artistic license is one thing, outright rude is another, and these days "for personal use" actually encompasses a lot of things that make me pretty unhappy when it comes to the use of an image of me.

Like posting pics of someone on here. How many of you even think to ask if the people you are photographing want to be displayed like this online? Or Facebook. I freakin HATE Facebook. Not because people socialize and spill every darned thing about their entire lives to the point of nausea but because in doing so they quite often rudely display the lives of other people sans their permission as well. My friends, my real friends, and family know better than to pull that crap on me. I have very good reasons for not wanting my face online, IE I have a long term freakin stalker who doesn't need to know where I live now, where I might go, and what events I might attend.

Someone's face shown in the right place at the right time, unwittingly, you don't know the damage that can cause. People have been found by their stalkers, they've been denied jobs, or lost jobs they have for doing things that that are frankly no one's business. A few years ago I was asked to photograph at a fund raising party for a very well known HIV/AIDS charity. They wanted pics for their site and I agreed. But they insisted that I could only photograph those people who were okay with it and that anyone I did photograph had to sigh a release. I was perfectly fine with that. Why? Because not everyone at that party was "out" as HIV positive and/or gay.

The proliferation of cameras notwithstanding people have a right to some privacy and to veto anything that might compromise that privacy or their safety. I don't use my real name or show my face online because I don't want the guy who stalked me for years to realize where I am now. I've spent an enormous amount of time and money trying to get away from this guy over the years. I've had to move several times. Most people don't have to deal with something like this but still many people have darned good reasons for not wanting their face to be your next "artistic project."

If someone is strongly objecting? Maybe it's not just about them being grumpy. Maybe they have a good reason for shutting you down. All I am asking is that you think twice and try to understand that some things actually do trump your right to photograph whatever you want. A person's safety that's far more important than that shot you wanted to take. Sorry, but it is.

---

Last edited by magkelly; 09-02-2012 at 04:04 AM.

[RobA_Oz]

Wow! Was that my throat you just jumped down?

Mag, I don't deny any of what you say. All I was trying to do was to look at the situation objectively. I grant you that people do have good reasons not to have photographs of themselves broadcast, and I wouldn't object to deleting a photo if someone put a good argument, such as the one you described. However, I don't agree that people have any right to demand that a photograph be destroyed just because they happen to be in it.

Broadcasting a photo is one of those situations I was describing, as the result may disadvantage the subject.

Posing for a portrait is clearly another situation, and wasn't what the OP was talking about, when he described the confrontation.

I'm with you on Facebook, though.

Edit: and the discussion was about being in a public place.

[Rupert]

Woke up in a bad mood this morning.......doesn't happen often, but I will give you my "Bad Mood Rupert" version.

"Lady, I am so sorry you got in my shot by your own fault....you walked right into it without consideration, and now I have to spend an hour cloning your ugly mug out to keep from scaring little children. Can I have you name, address, and phone number, my attorney will be contacting you."

Regards!

[reeftool]

Being that I live in a tourist area, I see people taking pictures every time I go just about anywhere. I generally try to step away to avoid being in somebody's photo album. Who wants my ugly mug? Most people have manners and if they see me or someone else shooting a pic, they try to step aside. That's called manners. Be aware that at big public events like motorcycle rallys and car shows, there are pro photographers taking shots of everybody and posting proofs online so you can buy one.

[JinDesu]

Someone's face shown in the right place at the right time, unwittingly, you don't know the damage that can cause. People have been found by their stalkers, they've been denied jobs, or lost jobs they have for doing things that that are frankly no one's business. A few years ago I was asked to photograph at a fund raising party for a very well known HIV/AIDS charity. They wanted pics for their site and I agreed. But they insisted that I could only photograph those people who were okay with it and that anyone I did photograph had to sigh a release. I was perfectly fine with that. Why? Because not everyone at that party was "out" as HIV positive and/or gay.

The proliferation of cameras notwithstanding people have a right to some privacy and to veto anything that might compromise that privacy or their safety. I don't use my real name or show my face online because I don't want the guy who stalked me for years to realize where I am now. I've spent an enormous amount of time and money trying to get away from this guy over the years. I've had to move several times. Most people don't have to deal with something like this but still many people have darned good reasons for not wanting their face to be your next "artistic project."

If you are worried about your safety (and if anyone else is), then it is important to express that to the photographer. However, to say "you don't know who you could hurt" - this argument is terrible.

I don't know who I can hurt while doing practically ANYTHING. What if my photograph of a sporting event allows stalkers to look into the picture (because you know what, camera technology nowadays allow us to see so much more) and find their target anyways? What if my photograph of a building allows terrorists to pinpoint an attack? Should I just go and take pictures of pretty flowers and mountains from now on?

If you have a problem with pictures being taken of you - don't restrict the rights of everyone else.

Are you calling us terrible in following the footsteps of Henri Cartier-Bresson?

[magkelly]

What I am saying is it's not that simple anymore. People who don't like it are getting cameras shoved into their faces more and more and they do have a right to say no. Your rights as a photographer do not trump the rights of a person not to be photographed. It's bad enough that I can't even go to Walmart without ending up on security cameras. I just really don't like people just walking around acting snappy happy and taking pics of people who may or may not enjoy that then crying foul when people naturally get upset. It doesn't hurt you to be polite and ask and if you don't well then don't give someone grief if they do come up to you and object. Bottom line they may not want their face on Facebook or whatever. People who feel entitled to do whatever really annoy me. Doing that it's like saying you have a right to be intrusive. It's like saying you don't care how others feel. Think about it. Would you like someone to do that to you, to totally disregard your feelings like that? I wouldn't. That's all I'm saying.

[RobA_Oz]

We may be talking at cross purposes here. If I read you correctly, your emphasis was on candid portraiture, whereas mine was on a general street scene, where the emphasis may be on the overall feel of the place with people in it, although it may also include people doing things (trading, talking etc). If one or two people are the focus, then I agree that it's at least polite to ask first, before taking a photo. In tourist or other busy areas, that's impractical, but it shouldn't stop anyone from taking a photo - millions of tourists do it every day, me included.

[mee]

I would say.. no.. you really shouldn't have asked her if she wanted some photos. Obviously she almost attacked you for her thinking she was in your shot..

That is along the lines of telling your wife something and her thinking you're calling her fat.. then, when she realizes you were not, you then ask her if she would like to try on these skinny jeans. You're setting yourself up for trouble.

[Alliecat]

How many of you even think to ask if the people you are photographing want to be displayed like this online? Or Facebook. I freakin HATE Facebook. Not because people socialize and spill every darned thing about their entire lives to the point of nausea but because in doing so they quite often rudely display the lives of other people sans their permission as well. ...I have a long term freakin stalker who doesn't need to know where I live now, where I might go, and what events I might attend.

Whoa. That was interesting. Only this year did I change the name on my e-mail account to my real name. I figured after 17 years, the stalker who was the reason my parents & I moved 1000 miles, is probably no longer looking.
You have my sympathy, & my understanding, on that one.
When I first lived here, had there been this epidemic herd-mentality Facebook thing, I would have objected very strongly to people taking my picture too. As I've said before, now it just makes me feel like a zoo exhibit when the tourists do it at the market.
Actually it's the other vendors who are more of a problem; they all want to post pictures of us all on facebook. Someone did it to me again yesterday. I think she'd already snapped one of my table; then when she came over wanting a close-up & I spotted her, I blurted, "Oh, go away." She said, "OH... " & my name as if I was being a silly child. Same tone she'd use with one of her kindergarten students if they were having a fit over some silly thing.
Now that I'm not really worried about the stalker anymore, I realize my primary objection is when people don't ASK. If they ASKED, I might say ok. I don't appreciate people sticking a camera in my face & shooting away. I appreciate even less that THEY get miffed when I object.
Rude.

[Rupert]

Your rights as a photographer do not trump the rights of a person not to be photographed.

In most cases that is simply not true.....if you have a right to see the person walking down the street, you have a right to photograph them, otherwise they need to stay off the street and behind a tall privacy fence. If you were right, (and the law says you are not), then someone could be prosecuted for just "looking at you". Of course, there is the "courtesy factor" and most use it, but it is not law, just like farting in a crowded airliner is not kosher...but not against the law.

Regards!

[magkelly]

You know it's funny as much as I love being on the right side of a camera I have never liked having my own pic taken and I don't think I ever will. I started out street shooting and doing candid stuff but I stopped when one day I really thought about it and realized I was doing exactly what I didn't like to be done to me. We live in a world where cameras are everywhere we go. Before the advent of cell phone cameras it wasn't nearly as big of a deal. People did have cameras but you could see them coming and you could either just duck out of their way or decline to be photographed. But now?

It's so bad you you have to watch what you wear to the grocery store, on the subway, practically everywhere you go lest you end up as a joke pic on someone's candid cam. In some big cities they're actively warning women not to wear skirts on public transit because you have guys apparently running around taking upskirt pics for their sex related websites. Apparently pics of some strange woman's panties (or lack thereof) that's big business in the XXX industry these days.

A few months ago I was at a friend's wedding and this woman absolutely insisted upon running around with her I-phone to take pics of everyone at every table to put up on her Facebook page. Forget my stalker, the woman next to me was all nerves out on her first date post nasty divorce and her abusive ex was still pretty livid at the idea that she actually went to divorce him. She finally invited a friend from work, someone she felt she could be comfortable with so she wouldn't have to come alone but a pic of her pic with her date? That would have likely lit a huge bonfire under her ex one that might have led to even more abuse.

Fortunately the bride stepped in and took the woman's phone away. They had a no cell phone cameras rule actually on the invite. It made me shake my head to see it, but I got why. Who wants to see shots of your wedding up on someone else's Facebook page before you even get a change to put your own wedding photos up?

The woman with the camera of course made a scene, demanded her phone back. Well, she got it back, but not till after they'd deleted all the photos she'd taken. They then escorted her out and I think about 3/4 of the people in the room cheered at that point. She was totally incensed at the idea that she wasn't allowed to take photos though. It never even occurred to her that she was being incredibly rude and that despite the fact that "No cameras, regular or cell, please." was actually on the invite.

When I am out in public I never take pics anymore that include other people unless you can't quite see their faces. I do like having people in the photos, suggesting movement or whatever, but if I want to capture their faces generally I will ask first. Usually when I do I actually get better photos out of them than I would otherwise. People like it when you ask and they tend to be more cooperative I think.

But sneaking up on people with a lens? That's just not something I like to do anymore. I've just come to think of it as being very rude, shrug. That's not to say I can't admire street shots if they are good, but if I put myself in the shoes of the people in them? I'm just not very comfortable with how they were taken sometimes...

As for the law that's changing now in some places and out of necessity, I'm afraid. It's not the art photographers that are so much the problem really. It's everyone else with a camera or a cell phone. That right to photograph thing can really lead to abuse of it. There are communities now that do not allow strangers to photograph kids in parks for instance. Some people don't like that. But I'm kind of getting why parents want it. I don't know that I'd want some stranger having pics of my nieces. Might be totally innocent their intent, but it still weirds me out sometimes when I see people shooting away at kids in playgrounds...

[Alliecat]

The woman with the camera of course made a scene, demanded her phone back. Well, she got it back, but not till after they'd deleted all the photos she'd taken. They then escorted her out and I think about 3/4 of the people in the room cheered at that point.

So, no other cameras, then. Too bad no one else could get photos of her being escorted out, to pass around to her facebook friends. I'm sure she wouldn't mind...