Street Photography and Right to Privacy in a Public Place

Anouilh

The discussion about the editing of photographs on Boards.ie has set me thinking again. What is deemed "suitable" for a general forum is worth thinking about, as there is not always consensus about the subject of public spaces and the right to privacy.

I tend to take photos of "pretty" subjects but respect the right of photographers to document all aspects of life on our streets. Driving through Dublin at night is not for the faint of heart and there have been times when I was happy to get home safely. I was mugged once on a bicycle and could have done with some photographer to take photos of the extraordinary person who jumped out of a car to attack me. This was in the 1980's and it is often tempting to think that urban life was once safer. It was not.

However, I keep an open mind on what constitutes street photography. Is every situation fair game for the photographer?

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/articles-interest/162431-photography-law.html

Dan Jaman

That link contains some really misleading info...

An open gate, a roadway that is not signed as private, a welcome sign or mat, a door with a bell, may all imply permission to enter.

That's pretty much wishful thinking, or maybe it's true in Canada. The problem is, such an article can only cover one country and not be a general guide, for the specifics in each country can be a real tripper-up.

Anouilh

I started this thread to try to clarify what I think about street photography myself, as well as to try to understand how it operates in different countries and cultures.

It is often assumed that most posters here live and take photos in Ireland. The link is from Canada, as you point out, but most of the protocols there seem to fit in with European practices. Australia is quite an open country for street photographers but there are many places that have different laws and it is worth knowing about them before running into trouble.

France is far less free, for instance, than the work of the great street photographer like Atget and Cartier Bresson might indicate.

The question that an individual may have a right to privacy in certain situations while in a public space has been the subject of some unusual court cases in the past few years.

Most people do not come up against major obstacles to taking photos in public. This is just another opportunity to share experiences that posters here might have had, as well as offering useful links for anybody travelling abroad.

Anouilh

"An open gate, a roadway that is not signed as private, a welcome sign or mat, a door with a bell, may all imply permission to enter. "

Dan Jaman wrote: »

That link contains some really misleading info...

That's pretty much wishful thinking, or maybe it's true in Canada. The problem is, such an article can only cover one country and not be a general guide, for the specifics in each country can be a real tripper-up.

If you read the sentence you have quoted in its full context, you will see that the writer indicated that the absence of a tresspassing sign does not automatically allow one to take photos.

mehfesto2

Theres some interesting stuff regarding Scientologists and photography on youtube. In a nutshell some guy was taking a picture of their headquarters from the opposite side of the road and the guards were called to move him on. Im not sure how that works!

It seems that it's not really a black and white issue - the law is really ropey about these things. It's probably a matter of ethics more than anything else.

IOP

As someone who's been passionate about street photography for many years I've done a bit of research about this.

Generally in Western Countries it's all about how valid your "Expectation of Privacy" is. If you're running naked down Grafton Street you cannot have a valid expectation of privacy. If you run about naked in private place that is easily viewable from a public place then you don't have much recourse in law either. If, however, you decide to strip all behind a high wall with a deep moat then you have good expectation of privacy.

This varies obviously from country to country. I believe that French law gives people the right to their own image, so photographing them in a public place requires a release form from the subject.

When it comes to Irish Law I found this website very informative

Dave

thebaz

the best images in most realms, are taken when subject is unaware that they are being snapped -- where possible , out of courtesy, I try and tell the person afterwards what I have done, and why I do it - if its an issue I just delete it -- the day I have to carry model release forms is the day I give up doing street stuff -- theres eneogh hassle doing it as it is , with no finacial perks

here is an example of the good natured side to it , the Sister just laughed when I told her what i do

Anouilh

That's a beautiful shot, TheBaz.

Most people don't seem to mind having their photos taken and smile very enthusiastically, as I have found.

Anybody who is prepared to entertain us in the middle of Winter seems to want everybody to take notice, or so I thought when I found this wonderful Limbo Dancer on Grafton Street in November, 2008.

(I pixellated the crowd, as I was not able to ask for permission and there are minors in the group. Really, there is a sort of weird preciousness about street photography when it comes to this.)

sheesh

Interesting......

But there are 2 different things here

1 your right to photograph people in public places

2 publishing the image on a public forum.

one other point

I've done some street photography and I can see the attraction. Capturing moments in time, photographing people in a natural setting or recording everyday scenes. If they survive 10-20 years they become very important record of how life was lived in a particular time.

the other side of the coin is this:

I'm walking down the street and some camera geek or wierdo takes a photograph of me but I don't want him to but at the same time I don't want a confrontation and really its just annoying.

As a photographer do i really want to be that annoying person? Well if I get something good, maybe.

RoryW

as someone mentioned France, I read the following elsewhere on the internet yesterday


"France has introduced Presumption of Innocence and Rights of Victims legislation in 2001. Their law prohibits any publication of photograph of a person without their express consent. No exceptions. This, in technical terms, means you can take a photo but it illegal to show it anywhere. In practice, the law is interpreted by many citizens and police as candid photography of people is prohibited (not true)."

AnCatDubh

RoryW wrote: »

as someone mentioned France, I read the following elsewhere on the internet yesterday


"France has introduced Presumption of Innocence and Rights of Victims legislation in 2001. Their law prohibits any publication of photograph of a person without their express consent. No exceptions. This, in technical terms, means you can take a photo but it illegal to show it anywhere. In practice, the law is interpreted by many citizens and police as candid photography of people is prohibited (not true)."

I wonder does that apply to their national media?

I could see many difficulties from a reportage point of view. Mad riot breaks out in suburbs of Paris (as they tend to do once every couple of years) and the media could be prevented from printing images because no permission exists.

Anouilh

mehfesto2 wrote: »

It seems that it's not really a black and white issue - the law is really ropey about these things. It's probably a matter of ethics more than anything else.

This is the central problem.
Far from being vague, the law is often quite exact on the subject of behaviour in public places. How it is interpreted may be variable, and this is especially so in France where different Departements can have experts who interpret the law in very different ways... or so many French photojournalists claim.

A code of ethics is not necessarily set in law.

The fact that the Treaty of Lisbon addresses intellectual property rights has interested me a lot and it is difficult to find clear information on the subject. EU laws are stronger than national laws in certain circumstances and it would be interesting for anybody who wishes to take street photos across Europe to look at what is happening. Many posters to British sites complain about police controls in relation to tourists taking photos in public places that are considered "sensitive". Some buildings are protected by copyright laws, which is worth knowing, as American bloggers joke about the fact that, in certain cases, photographers have been asked to stop taking snaps of bridges. They wonder, with bemusement, if finally one will be asked to stop looking at the Brooklyn Bridge.

The subject has generated a lot of amusement as well and, as ever, France is to the forefront when it comes to interesting exhibitions of photos that make people sit up and take notice:

http://www.blogarts.net/category/Exposition

silverside

Anouilh, I find it interesting that you felt the need to pixellate the crowd - Grafton Street is the most public place - the kids are standing around smiling - I can see the same thing if I walk out my front door - so why pixellate ?

On street photography in general - I think its completely fine unless someone is having a bad day or a private moment - hungover, snogging, whatever - then I would feel guilty about posting, although legally I would probably be fine.

Anouilh

silverside wrote: »

Anouilh, I find it interesting that you felt the need to pixellate the crowd - Grafton Street is the most public place - the kids are standing around smiling - I can see the same thing if I walk out my front door - so why pixellate ?

On street photography in general - I think its completely fine unless someone is having a bad day or a private moment - hungover, snogging, whatever - then I would feel guilty about posting, although legally I would probably be fine.

Why pixellate? Because I wished to draw attention to the increased sense of paranoia in contemporary society. I discussed this last evening with a friend and we thought about which TV documentaries and news reports blur faces in street scenes and which do not. I am entitled to upload the photo "as is", but I have had many conversations in recent years with people whose sense of threat when it comes to childrens' safety on the street is so acute, that I decided to blur faces.

It opens up discussion a bit. Many street photos taken in France now have less candid shots than was the case before the Loi Guigou came into effect.

sheesh wrote: »

Interesting......

But there are 2 different things here

1 your right to photograph people in public places

2 publishing the image on a public forum.

one other point

I've done some street photography and I can see the attraction. Capturing moments in time, photographing people in a natural setting or recording everyday scenes. If they survive 10-20 years they become very important record of how life was lived in a particular time.

the other side of the coin is this:

I'm walking down the street and some camera geek or wierdo takes a photograph of me but I don't want him to but at the same time I don't want a confrontation and really its just annoying.

As a photographer do i really want to be that annoying person? Well if I get something good, maybe.

In fact there is a third element. The legal situation changes when a photo is offered in exchange for money. One is free to upload photos of street scenes on a public forum. Putting images of people up for sale requires a model release.

The point you make about the difference between being the photographer and being the subject of a street photographer's gaze is important. I like having my photo taken and would not object to being a face in the crowd in another person's work. I have photos taken on the street where people, aware of my camera, have covered their faces with their hand quicker than I could take a photo. Since I was often photographing some object on the street and had not even noticed these people, I have to admit I found their reaction worthy of respect. I would not upload a photo with them in it.

Paulw

Anouilh wrote: »

In fact there is a third element. The legal situation changes when a photo is offered in exchange for money. One is free to upload photos of street scenes on a public forum. Putting images of people up for sale requires a model release.

That is not always the case. It depends on how the image is being sold. Yeah, for stock sites, they require a model release, but there are many other circumstances that don't.

Editorial use, limited edition prints, etc can all be sold without the requirement for a model release.

I also think your pixelation is totally OTT and it detracts from the image.

Here's a similar scene. I think leaving the people, especially the little kid makes the scene. The kid bending while watching the limbo is a great scene.

People are becoming too PC and ruining the world we see.

Anouilh

AnCatDubh wrote: »

I wonder does that apply to their national media?

I could see many difficulties from a reportage point of view. Mad riot breaks out in suburbs of Paris (as they tend to do once every couple of years) and the media could be prevented from printing images because no permission exists.

This reminds me of a time in the late 1980's when I turned on my radio to hear what seemed like the population of Paris bawling "A la Bastille".

There have been major problems in France in relation to the new laws, but people tend to go on as normal.

http://photo.net/street-documentary-photography-forum/005enH

You may find this useful:

http://www.photolawnews.com/

http://www.club-presse-valdeloire.com/article.php3?id_article=66

One detail to keep in mind. It is against the law in France to photograph people who are in handcuffs. I presume this refers to police custody and not to scenes of stag and hen nights like those seen in Dublin where people have been handcuffed to lamp posts as a jape...

Dan Jaman

IOP wrote:

http://www.digitalrights.ie/2006/05/09/photographers-rights/

Very handy, thanks. And there was me, for years, just happily snapping away secure in the knowledge that 'public' meant just that. Damn laws. Actually, one of the best disguises is to dress and act like a tourist of sorts - nobody pays you the slightest bit of attention as you wave your camera around.

41. kim | November 9th, 2008 at 3:33 am
I was delighted to find this site as I took a pic of my hubby with a friend`s horse in the pic….its now on my website just as a cute pic but since the friend is no longer a friend, she is claiming I stole the pic since her horse is in the photo. So relieved to find the photo acutally is mine and I have done nothing wrong. thanks.

Some friend. "Stole the pic" :rolleyes:. Still, that's the kind of utterly nonsensical thing that happens when people fall out.

And this strikes me as a load of mince...

42. Paul Walsh | November 26th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
I contacted the Data Protection Commissioner about the use of images taken on the street. They basically informed me that any such images where someone can be identified must comply with the Data Protection Act. Therefore, use of such images (like posting on Pix.ie or FlickR) would be in breach of that act.
Maybe this needs to be looked at further.

Paulw

Dan Jaman wrote: »

And this strikes me as a load of mince...

42. Paul Walsh | November 26th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
I contacted the Data Protection Commissioner about the use of images taken on the street. They basically informed me that any such images where someone can be identified must comply with the Data Protection Act. Therefore, use of such images (like posting on Pix.ie or FlickR) would be in breach of that act.
Maybe this needs to be looked at further.

Yeah, seems the Data Protection Commissioner has an unusual view of the whole thing. Of course, I don't believe there is yet case law to back this up. It would be hard, almost impossible, to enforce, especially with tourists, etc.

Dan Jaman

Ye don't think they're just making it up as they go along? Surely not; after all, they're highly-paid professionals

Anouilh

It's not worth losing sleep over all this.

However, many Irish Photobloggers are very aware of the law in relation to street photography:

http://inphotos.org/photographers-rights-in-ireland/#comment-66328

Also, anybody who is planning a visit to Quebec should be careful, as the laws there are very different from anywhere else in Canada and the U.S.

http://www.gilbertduclos.com/docu_new1.html

As for who makes the laws and why, citizens always keep themselves up to date on this, I hope.

With changes in the air, I'm beginning to wonder if the attempts to change the blasphemy laws will affect photographic iconography...