Your views about candid/street photography versus privacy

humberklog

The OP was intimating that the snapper was snapping loads. This has got to be as annoying when it's happening to you as it is looking at some dingbat doing it.
Only my own thoughts here mind but I've a simple equation: the more pictures you take of one subject to get one picture then the worse photographer you are. Also for street photography anything more the a 50mm lens will mean your pictures will be crap. Street photography only requires two primes; a 28mm and 50mm. Anything bigger and you're only fooling yourself that what you're taking is good.

My advice to OP is to walk around with an open bottle of Lucozade and when some dope starts taking a load of snaps of you then throw the contents of the bottle over him and his gear. Simple. You be doing the photography world a big favour.

.Longshanks.

humberklog wrote: »

The OP was intimating that the snapper was snapping loads. This has got to be as annoying when it's happening to you as it is looking at some dingbat doing it.
Only my own thoughts here mind but I've a simple equation: the more pictures you take of one subject to get one picture then the worse photographer you are. Also for street photography anything more the a 50mm lens will mean your pictures will be crap. Street photography only requires two primes; a 28mm and 50mm. Anything bigger and you're only fooling yourself that what you're taking is good.

My advice to OP is to walk around with an open bottle of Lucozade and when some dope starts taking a load of snaps of you then throw the contents of the bottle over him and his gear. Simple. You be doing the photography world a big favour.

I bed to differ.....have a look at this photostream www.flickr.com/photos/from-a2b/

smash

I personally thing that respect for the subject should come before the law that you can snap whoever you want wherever and whenever you want.

Surely your right to snap them, comes after their right to privacy if they want it.

humberklog

kev_Longshanks100 wrote: »

I bed to differ.....have a look at this photostream www.flickr.com/photos/from-a2b/

Ooooh not too keen on that at all Kev I'm afraid and indeed really only underlines my point (in my view). Photos of ramdon strangers? Meh...tbh.

Paulw

steve06 wrote: »

I personally thing that respect for the subject should come before the law that you can snap whoever you want wherever and whenever you want.

Surely your right to snap them, comes after their right to privacy if they want it.

But, there is NO right to privacy when out in public. There may be a desire for privacy though, which is very different.

It's down to each individual photographer, and the individual being photographed. There are no rules. It's a personal thing.

Paulw

kev_Longshanks100 wrote: »

I bed to differ.....have a look at this photostream www.flickr.com/photos/from-a2b/

Have to agree with you there. Some lovely picts.

.Longshanks.

humberklog wrote: »

Ooooh not too keen on that at all Kev I'm afraid and indeed really only underlines my point (in my view). Photos of ramdon strangers? Meh...tbh.

Horses for courses i suppose.....

jpb1974

Photos of ramdon strangers? Meh...tbh.

Did you have a special relationship with that cow in your avatar?

humberklog

jpb1974 wrote: »

Did you have a special relationship with that cow in your avatar?

Yes I do:pac:.

joolsveer

Effects wrote: »

Well it's making sure you don't get spotted so it is sneaky. But street shots taken from a distance at 300mm rarely look as good as something taken closer to the subject.

This is just less than a foot in the imperial system. I would say this is far too close for the subject's comfort!

magicbastarder

Simplicius wrote: »

This is not a moral question ..... people are confusing it. The law says you can snap anyone on the street. end of story.

the law is silent on a lot of w*nkerish behaviour. so saying it's not a moral question because the law allows it is trying to dodge the issue.

edit: that makes it look like i regard street photography as wankerish, which wasn't what i wanted to imply.
but you can't have failed to have noticed the debate in the UK about the prevalence of CCTV cameras; a lot of the issues surrounding that are common to this one.

smash

Paulw wrote: »

But, there is NO right to privacy when out in public. There may be a desire for privacy though, which is very different.

"Although there is not an express reference to a right to privacy in the Irish Constitution, the Supreme Court has ruled an individual may invoke the personal rights provision in Article 40.3.1 to establish an implied right to privacy.[1493] This article provides that "The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizens." It was first used to establish an implied constitutional right in the case of McGee v. Attorney General,[1494] which recognized the right to marital privacy. This case has been followed by others such as Norris v. Attorney General[1495] and Kennedy and Arnold v. Ireland.[1496] In the latter case the Supreme Court ruled that the illegal wiretapping of two journalists was a violation of the constitution, stating:

The right to privacy is one of the fundamental personal rights of the citizen which flow from the Christian and democratic nature of the State.... The nature of the right to privacy is such that it must ensure the dignity and freedom of the individual in a democratic society. This can not be insured if his private communications, whether written or telephonic, are deliberately and unjustifiably interfered with.[1497]"
Source

If someone doesn't want a photo taken they I feel they should be listened to.

Paulw wrote: »

It's down to each individual photographer, and the individual being photographed. There are no rules. It's a personal thing.

You're contradicting yourself, you've already said there are no rights, so therefore it's not down to the individual being photographed, it's 100% down to the photographer.

And anyone who says stuff like "If someone starts shouting at me then I will absolutely no way delete the photo" - well that's just childish, grow up a bit.

IamBlip

Effects wrote: »

Well it's making sure you don't get spotted so it is sneaky. But street shots taken from a distance at 300mm rarely look as good as something taken closer to the subject.

joolsveer wrote: »

This is just less than a foot in the imperial system. I would say this is far too close for the subject's comfort!

I would say "he's talking about the lens"....

Paulw

steve06 wrote: »

You're contradicting yourself, you've already said there are no rights, so therefore it's not down to the individual being photographed, it's 100% down to the photographer.

I'm not. If someone doesn't want to be photographed, they can block/shield their face, or ask the photographer not to take their photo. But, they do not have the right to demand that the photo is deleted.

magicbastarder

they don't have the *legal* right.

smash

Paulw wrote: »

I'm not. If someone doesn't want to be photographed, they can block/shield their face, or ask the photographer not to take their photo. But, they do not have the right to demand that the photo is deleted.

But blocking your face might not stop someone taking your photo, so it's down to the photographer to decide when they want to stop, again it's nothing to do with the individual being photographed.

The same way said individual might not have the right to demand a photo be deleted, but if they do demand it then it's up to them to decide when they want to stop demanding it. Just because a photographer says "you don't have the right to demand that" doesn't mean they can't.

It's all back to respect for the subject, I get the feeling that a lot people don't actually have any because they keep going back to the law and avoiding the moral ground.

joolsveer

I was in manhattan and took a snap which included a police officer. He approached and asked me to delete it. I complied as I felt that I had no choice. Would you think I had?

This was the location http://maps.google.ie/maps?q=police+plaza+manhattan&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=Police+Plaza,+New+York,+NY+10007,+USA&gl=ie

jpb1974

I was in manhattan and took a snap which included a police officer. He approached and asked me to delete it. I complied as I felt that I had no choice. Would you think I had?

Common sense says you're better off just deleting it and moving on irrespective of legalities. It's just the simpler choice.

A stubborn bastid will kick off quoting laws and rights and probably end up having an arguement with the police officer who will eventually find some reason to arrest you and cause you a world of hurt.

Common sense counts for a lot in this life.

magicbastarder

my mother absolutely hates having her photo taken, even by a family member. you can imagine how she'd react if people were even occasionally taking photos of her on the street (in the sense that they were taking photos of her, rather than taking touristy snaps which she just happened to wander through). she'd enjoy going into the city much less.

if i knew that me going out taking photos for my own enjoyment was impacting other peoples' enjoyment of their day out, i'd have to reconsider what photos i took.

charybdis

GavinZac wrote: »

He seems to be keen to portray his shots as being of serious, working, busy people, that he has happened to catch completely unawares. They just seem annoyed to me, and their reaction is just as much a product of his behaviour as if they posed and waved.

Yeah, all of his photographs look like pictures of people thinking "who is this person and why is is taking pictures of me?"

Simplicius wrote: »

This is not a moral question ..... people are confusing it. The law says you can snap anyone on the street. end of story. To moralise this is to move it out of the realm of what is permitted. So in answer to the OP, expect to have your picture taken, you have no right to ask for it to be deleted, but you should ask and the photographer may oblidge.

There's a big difference between what is legal and what is moral, I'm not a fan of legislating morality.

steve06 wrote: »

"Although there is not an express reference to a right to privacy in the Irish Constitution, the Supreme Court has ruled an individual may invoke the personal rights provision in Article 40.3.1 to establish an implied right to privacy.[1493] This article provides that "The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizens." It was first used to establish an implied constitutional right in the case of McGee v. Attorney General,[1494] which recognized the right to marital privacy. This case has been followed by others such as Norris v. Attorney General[1495] and Kennedy and Arnold v. Ireland.[1496] In the latter case the Supreme Court ruled that the illegal wiretapping of two journalists was a violation of the constitution, stating:

The right to privacy is one of the fundamental personal rights of the citizen which flow from the Christian and democratic nature of the State.... The nature of the right to privacy is such that it must ensure the dignity and freedom of the individual in a democratic society. This can not be insured if his private communications, whether written or telephonic, are deliberately and unjustifiably interfered with.[1497]"
Source

If someone doesn't want a photo taken they I feel they should be listened to.

There's a huge difference between the expectation of privacy with regard to being photographed in public compared to the expectation of privacy with regard to what one does in private or being wiretapped.

humberklog wrote: »

The OP was intimating that the snapper was snapping loads. This has got to be as annoying when it's happening to you as it is looking at some dingbat doing it.
Only my own thoughts here mind but I've a simple equation: the more pictures you take of one subject to get one picture then the worse photographer you are. Also for street photography anything more the a 50mm lens will mean your pictures will be crap. Street photography only requires two primes; a 28mm and 50mm. Anything bigger and you're only fooling yourself that what you're taking is good.

My advice to OP is to walk around with an open bottle of Lucozade and when some dope starts taking a load of snaps of you then throw the contents of the bottle over him and his gear. Simple. You be doing the photography world a big favour.

I agree that using long lenses and burst mode for this kind of photography isn't ideal, or at least it certainly isn't street photography in the traditional sense. People seem to be confused between maintaining physical distance from your subject and maintaining psychological distance.

mdebets

steve06 wrote: »

And anyone who says stuff like "If someone starts shouting at me then I will absolutely no way delete the photo" - well that's just childish, grow up a bit.

So you think it's ok for someone to verbally assault a photographer for taking a photo?

smash

charybdis wrote: »

There's a huge difference between the expectation of privacy with regard to being photographed in public compared to the expectation of privacy with regard to what one does in private or being wiretapped.

I was more referring to:

"The right to privacy is one of the fundamental personal rights of the citizen which flow from the Christian and democratic nature of the State...."

It's a personal right which should be respected.

mdebets wrote: »

So you think it's ok for someone to verbally assault a photographer for taking a photo?

I never said that, but behaviour breeds behaviour. A lot of people have said that after a conversation the subject doesn't have a problem with it. Instantly spouting about law and having the attitude "well if he's like that then I'll be like that" is childish.

Effects

joolsveer wrote: »

I was in manhattan and took a snap which included a police officer. He approached and asked me to delete it. I complied as I felt that I had no choice. Would you think I had?

This was the location http://maps.google.ie/maps?q=police+plaza+manhattan&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=Police+Plaza,+New+York,+NY+10007,+USA&gl=ie

I wouldn't be sure about the U.S. I asked a cop in a station in manhattan if I could take photos. He said no problem, so I took some photos until I heard another cop yelling at me. I explained I was told I was allowed but the other cop had left at that stage. She just said don't take anymore and that was it.
If I'm asked to delete an image a lot of the time I just say yes and they don't check to make sure that's what I'm doing. If they make sure to see me do it then I swap the card after the persons gone and just use rescue pro to recover the image.

At the recent Gaza protest this guy told me I couldn't take his picture, another photographer told him to f**k off and that he could do what he wanted. I told him he was in a public place and I was entitled to take his photo. He threatened to smash my camera and kick the s**t out of me. I just doubled back and came around to get a better shot of him second time around.

smash

Effects wrote: »

At the recent Gaza protest this guy told me I couldn't take his picture, another photographer told him to f**k off and that he could do what he wanted. I told him he was in a public place and I was entitled to take his photo. He threatened to smash my camera and kick the s**t out of me. I just doubled back and came around to get a better shot of him second time around.

What was the point? Did you do it out of spite? because he objected? to get a 1 up? Why? I'm genuinely trying to understand here as he didn't even make for a good photo.

jpb1974

He threatened to smash my camera and kick the s**t out of me

What would you have done if he did smash your camera and kick the shít out of you (other than the obvious i.e. roll around in pain screaming 'agghhh my camera, my jaw, my nuts')?

I'm assuming you're male of course.

Effects

steve06 wrote: »

What was the point? Did you do it out of spite? because he objected? to get a 1 up? Why? I'm genuinely trying to understand here as he didn't even make for a good photo.

The point was to get a photo of him that I wanted. Not the one I posted. I have a right to photograph him. If he wants to protest a protest march that's ok with me but if I want to take his picture I'm perfectly entitled to.

jpb1974 wrote: »

What would you have done if he did smash your camera and kick the shít out of you (other than the obvious i.e. roll around in pain screaming 'agghhh my camera, my jaw, my nuts')?

I'm assuming you're male of course.

He wouldn't have kicked the **** out of me, he might have damaged my camera. There were plenty of Gardaí around so I'm sure I'd have no problem getting him to pay the damages

charybdis

steve06 wrote: »

I was more referring to:

"The right to privacy is one of the fundamental personal rights of the citizen which flow from the Christian and democratic nature of the State...."

It's a personal right which should be respected..

There are degrees to which one can reasonably expect privacy. If a person expects to not be photographed in a public place under these rights, can they also expect to not be looked at if they so choose? There is a social contract entered into when someone is present in a populated public space, they cannot expect limitless control over their own appearance when doing so.

That said, I think it is also incumbent upon photographers to act with decorum when operating in a public place. Again, legislation is not the same thing as morality and just because something is legal doesn't mean you should abuse your ability to do it.

As an aside, I also have a huge problem with a Supreme Court judge ruling on the basis of religious principles, whether the constitution espouses them or not.

jpb1974

I'm not sure where I sit in relation to the scenario you mentioned (morally).

Law aside -

If I asked someone not to take my photo and was told to 'f- off' then I'm sure the situation might turn sour... in fact I'm pretty sure it would.

At the same time I suppose if you're taking photos at a large public protest then a large part of me says fair game.

I can live with the idea that you sneaked a pic of him when he wasn't looking... but the guy that told him to 'f off' I'm not so sure about.

magicbastarder

charybdis wrote: »

There are degrees to which one can reasonably expect privacy. If a person expects to not be photographed in a public place under these rights, can they also expect to not be looked at if they so choose?

no, but they should be able to expect some politeness.
to take a clear cut, if somewhat extreme example, if a woman with a birthmark covering half her face walks down the street, she should be able to expect that people aren't going to stop and stare. it's not about what you're can do, it's about what you should do.

smash

Effects wrote: »

The point was to get a photo of him that I wanted. Not the one I posted. I have a right to photograph him. If he wants to protest a protest march that's ok with me but if I want to take his picture I'm perfectly entitled to.

But he didn't want you to, he made that clear. You weren't going to get the shot at that point but you still did it anyway even though he covered his face. Did you do it because he didn't want you to? To exercise your rights to take a photo? So you could somewhat stick your fingers up at him?

I still don't really get it. It seems as if you just took the shot because you could, even though it didn't mean anything, it's not what you wanted and there was no benefit to it.

milos

Let me tell you a true story that might help certain photographers understand the reluctance of a subject.

I worked for a security firm that delivered valuables around Ireland.
Unfortunately I was robbed violently by three armed men in a certain college in Dublin.
When word spread around the campus a number of students with cameras appeared and started to photograph everything in sight including my colleagues and me.
When I pointed out to these students that they were not in a public place and myself and my workmates did not want our photos taken I was met with a torrent of abuse and the old attitude that they had a right to take whatever pictures they wanted.

I brought this to the attention of the Garda on site and he had to aggressively request that the shots of me and my workmates were deleted by the students.

I know this is slightly different to public shots but the attitude of some photogtaphers often colour peoples opinions.

Sorry I will shut up now...

Effects

jpb1974 wrote: »

I'm not sure where I sit in relation to the scenario you mentioned (morally).

Law aside -

If I asked someone not to take my photo and was told to 'f- off' then I'm sure the situation might turn sour... in fact I'm pretty sure it would.

At the same time I suppose if you're taking photos at a large public protest then a large part of me says fair game.

I can live with the idea that you sneaked a pic of him when he wasn't looking... but the guy that told him to 'f off' I'm not so sure about.

I was prepared for the situation to turn sour. It did give me a bit of a kick, I won't lie about that. People were protesting the fact that aid can't be brought to people who need it and nine people were killed trying to do just that. He's obviously on one side and he wants to support a terroist state so he's fair game to have his picture taken. I didn't threaten him, I didn't attack him, I just took his picture even after he asked me not to.

teg23

I'm reminded of an Ian M Banks short story (sci-fi), where one of the characters is disgusted at how we live (on earth). As she's leaving the planet, she notices a sign saying 'no photography' and mutters to herself, 'they even want to own the light'...

Effects

steve06 wrote: »

But he didn't want you to, he made that clear. You weren't going to get the shot at that point but you still did it anyway even though he covered his face.

I got the shot I wanted, in fact I got several. I have shots of him without his face covered and I have shots of him approaching me as he shouted his threats.

Did you do it because he didn't want you to? To exercise your rights to take a photo? So you could somewhat stick your fingers up at him?

Yes to all three.

I still don't really get it. It seems as if you just took the shot because you could, even though it didn't mean anything, it's not what you wanted and there was no benefit to it.

The shots I took meant a lot to me. I got what I wanted. Then afterwards I respected what he regarded as his right to privacy to a certain degree. The only photo that I published of him has his face hidden.

charybdis

magicbastarder wrote: »

no, but they should be able to expect some politeness.
to take a clear cut, if somewhat extreme example, if a woman with a birthmark covering half her face walks down the street, she should be able to expect that people aren't going to stop and stare. it's not about what you're can do, it's about what you should do.

I agree, that's why almost immediately after saying what you've quoted I said:

charybdis wrote: »

That said, I think it is also incumbent upon photographers to act with decorum when operating in a public place. Again, legislation is not the same thing as morality and just because something is legal doesn't mean you should abuse your ability to do it.

My point was about there being a difference between what is legal and what is polite and reasonable.

milos wrote: »

Let me tell you a true story that might help certain photographers understand the reluctance of a subject.

I worked for a security firm that delivered valuables around Ireland.
Unfortunately I was robbed violently by three armed men in a certain college in Dublin.
When word spread around the campus a number of students with cameras appeared and started to photograph everything in sight including my colleagues and me.
When I pointed out to these students that they were not in a public place and myself and my workmates did not want our photos taken I was met with a torrent of abuse and the old attitude that they had a right to take whatever pictures they wanted.

I brought this to the attention of the Garda on site and he had to aggressively request that the shots of me and my workmates were deleted by the students.

I know this is slightly different to public shots but the attitude of some photogtaphers often colour peoples opinions.

Sorry I will shut up now...

Not that I think these photographers were being particularly respectful, but I think it's illegal for the police to order anyone to delete images, even if they were taken in a private area. I'd say anyone to whom the Guard "aggressively requested" that the images were deleted would have fairly good grounds for a suit or at least a very strong formal complaint. I'm disappointed that a member of the police would abuse his power in such a way.

steve06 wrote: »

But he didn't want you to, he made that clear. You weren't going to get the shot at that point but you still did it anyway even though he covered his face. Did you do it because he didn't want you to? To exercise your rights to take a photo? So you could somewhat stick your fingers up at him?

I still don't really get it. It seems as if you just took the shot because you could, even though it didn't mean anything, it's not what you wanted and there was no benefit to it.

I don't know the specifics of how the protester made it clear he didn't want to be photographed, but I think it's probably unreasonable to expect to not be photographed at a high-profile protest and I think he probably forfeited any expectation of mutual respect by profanely and aggressively demanding he not be photographed.

Effects

charybdis wrote: »

I don't know the specifics of how the protester made it clear he didn't want to be photographed, but I think it's probably unreasonable to expect to not be photographed at a high-profile protest and I think he probably forfeited any expectation of mutual respect by profanely and aggressively demanding he not be photographed.

He was quite aggressive from the start and ran towards myself and the other photographer. We were at the front of the march at that point so I doubt he had already confronted anyone else taking his picture at that stage.

milos

Charybdis

What about my right of privacy as I was in a private building.

You cannot walk into the criminal court and take pictures. If you do you will be requested to delete same and put away your camera.

Can the Guard not protect MY right of privacy with an equal amount of aggression as I got from the photographer.

P.S
The aggression was all verbal, nothing physical

charybdis

Effects wrote: »

He was quite aggressive from the start and ran towards myself and the other photographer. We were at the front of the march at that point so I doubt he had already confronted anyone else taking his picture at that stage.

Well then I think that your actions, while not exactly overly-polite, were reasonable given the situation.

milos wrote: »

Charybdis

What about my right of privacy as I was in a private building.

You cannot walk into the criminal court and take pictures. If you do you will be requested to delete same and put away your camera.

Can the Guard not protect MY right of privacy with an equal amount of aggression as I got from the photographer.

P.S
The aggression was all verbal, nothing physical

The issue isn't whether or not they should take photographs, on private property this is up to the owners or those acting in their stead. My problem is that the Guard either effectively performed summary property destruction or exceeded his legal remit by coercing people into destroying their own property under threat.

I don't particularly think these people should've been photographing your situation and I sympathise with your position in it, but I find it grossly offensive that a member of the police would act in this way.

The level of aggression the police use when conducting their work doesn't have to be proportional to whoever they're responding to. They're not a rival gang, they're there to enforce the laws of the state in a measured manner.

Disclaimer (as it applies to everything I say): I'm not a lawyer, I don't have an exhaustive knowledge of the law, no statements I make regarding the law should be taken as unquestioned fact.

smash

Would people class google streetview in the same light? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1290518/Mothers-fury-Google-shows-3-year-old-son-naked-garden.html

padocon

milos wrote: »

I brought this to the attention of the Garda on site and he had to aggressively request that the shots of me and my workmates were deleted by the students.

Sorry to hear.

I thought once a picture was taken you did not have to delete it. Or is that only if it were on public property and not private?

magicbastarder

google streetview is quite a different proposition. different aims, different level of intrusion, less directed. that's not to say there's no debate around streetview, though.

magicbastarder

padocon wrote: »

Sorry to hear.

I thought once a picture was taken you did not have to delete it. Or is that only if it were on public property and not private?

you don't have to delete the photo. i'm not sure what the law might have to say about its use, though.

padocon

Let me tell you a true story that might help certain photographers understand the reluctance of a subject.

I worked for a security firm that delivered valuables around Ireland.
Unfortunately I was robbed violently by three armed men in a certain college in Dublin.
When word spread around the campus a number of students with cameras appeared and started to photograph everything in sight including my colleagues and me.
When I pointed out to these students that they were not in a public place and myself and my workmates did not want our photos taken I was met with a torrent of abuse and the old attitude that they had a right to take whatever pictures they wanted.

I brought this to the attention of the Garda on site and he had to aggressively request that the shots of me and my workmates were deleted by the students.

I know this is slightly different to public shots but the attitude of some photogtaphers often colour peoples opinions.

Sorry I will shut up now...

So this is illegal?

The bother is if the gardi tell you to do something it is hard to refuse, when you don't fully know your rights. Eg in this case.

ozymandius

There was a decision by the ECHR in 2004 which basically accepted that there is a sphere of privacy about a person, even when one is in a public space. At least in the case of 'celebrities' not engaged in a public function. This would supersede the "reasonable expectation of privacy" normally applied.

From a Guardian article - "Essentially, what the ruling means is that privacy as a human right is portable. It attaches to the person who, when engaged in private as opposed to public activities, is entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy."

See also http://www.out-law.com/page-4663

Not sure what the situation is with photographs taken for personal use - i.e. not published.