The Possible End of Street Photography as we know it in Ireland

EyeBlinks

http://www.politics.ie/news/new-privacy-bill-proposed-senators-next-week-could-potentially-allow-super-injunctions-206.html

Passed, we can effectively kiss goodbye to street photography as we know it. Photographers like, Bourke, Finn, Doyle and many more will be confined to museums as examples of what was, and no new interpreters allowed.

Is this what we want?

Personally, I'd sell up. Vice President (Green tea!) Norris is a supposed supporter of the arts. Come on David, this is feckin' mad.

Street Photography has informed so much of modern art, not least the latest work of Paul Graham , "The Present" and as is said there "Street photography is perhaps the defining genre of photographic art".

Anyone agree, or not. Luminaries welcome!

humberklog

Have to laugh...pic of him with 3 school girls in background.

Don't really get what's going on with the Bill.

EyeBlinks

humberklog wrote: »

Don't really get what's going on with the Bill.

That will be the bit when you're addressing "his/her Honour" :pac:

humberklog

EyeBlinks wrote: »

That will be the bit when you're addressing "his/her Honour" :pac:

Justice Hermaphrodities? I think I've been up in front of her/him a few times:D.

Allyall

So.. Will anyone posting photo's they took in Ireland, on Facebook/Bebo/Myspace etc.. Be arrested?

Arrest the tourists! :pac::pac:;)

EyeBlinks

humberklog wrote: »

Justice Hermaphrodities? I think I've been up in front of her/him a few times:D.

Was that the "red patent shoes and the green white and gold gumshield affair"

:rolleyes::P

EyeBlinks

Allyall wrote: »

So.. Will anyone posting photo's they took in Ireland, on Facebook/Bebo/Myspace etc.. Be arrested?

No, it would be civil law not criminal law.

humberklog

EyeBlinks wrote: »

Was that the "red patent shoes and the green white and gold gumshield affair"

:rolleyes::P

Oddly enough both:pac:.

But gotta catch up in real life and fill me in on this. I'm rubbish at reading stuff on line.

CabanSail

use a person's name, voice or image for commerical purposes without their permission, including using a person's likeness.

You already need a release to use a photo of someone for commercial purposes and street photography is fine. How will this differ?

EyeBlinks

CabanSail wrote: »

You already need a release to use a photo of someone for commercial purposes and street photography is fine. How will this differ?

Well of course it's not defined as yet, but if you earn a living from it, as an non "commercial artist" you probably will come under that .e.g Paul Graham as mentioned above.

Making money from the image in any form would seem to be it. E.g I sell a limited edition street edition with your image in it.

Or of course, if I don't make money (exhibit say) and you simply object.

There are very few if any "street shots" used in advertising.

CabanSail

EyeBlinks wrote: »

Well of course it's not defined as yet, but if you earn a living from it, as an non "commercial artist" you probably will come under that .e.g Paul Graham as mentioned above.

Making money from the image in any form would seem to be it. E.g I sell a limited edition street edition with your image in it.

Or of course, if I don't make money (exhibit say) and you simply object.

There are very few if any "street shots" used in advertising.

to use the name, likeness or voice of the individual, with- 40out the consent of that individual, for the purpose of —
(i) advertising or promoting the sale of, or trade in, anyproperty or service, or(ii) financial gain to the said person

That is the problem there. An Artistic Interpretation clause needs to be added.

EyeBlinks

Yeah, won't happen though. France is the model for this type of crap.

However, I doubt/hope it will be/not passed.

Borderfox

Cant see the news agencies letting this go through, no suprises it coming from FF/PD sources originally

For me personally I would hate to see something like this passed, where does it sit in regards to the constitution?

One more proposal to tack onto that bill, dissolve the Seanad!!

DaireQuinlan

Borderfox wrote: »

Cant see the news agencies letting this go through, no suprises it coming from FF/PD sources originally

For me personally I would hate to see something like this passed, where does it sit in regards to the constitution?

One more proposal to tack onto that bill, dissolve the Seanad!!

There are already provisions in the bill to allow for editorial and news content. There doesn't seem to be any allowance for fine art usage of people's images though.

Borderfox

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

There are already provisions in the bill to allow for editorial and news content. There doesn't seem to be any allowance for fine art usage of people's images though.

The news agencies will see this as a start to errode into what they can and cant publish, the irony of David Norris championing this cause isnt lost on me and certainly not lost on the press at large.

Anouilh

I expect that general street views will not be affected much.

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/anouilh/7013430885/" title="South Anne Street on a Saturday Morning in Dublin by rosewoodoil, on Flickr"><img src="" width="640" height="426" alt="South Anne Street on a Saturday Morning in Dublin"></a>

Borderfox

Who's to the say any of the people in the picture could object to that?

EyeBlinks

Borderfox wrote: »

Who's to the say any of the people in the picture could object to that?

Yeah, but most street photography is not a photo of a street :cool:

Anouilh

Gallopping round to ask everyone's opinion on the street would be one way of being a social nuisance. Most people seem to accept that cameras are a major part of everyday life.

Legislation is fascinating as it tries to keep up with everyday practice...

Anouilh

EyeBlinks wrote: »

Yeah, but most street photography is not a photo of a street :cool:

Perhaps getting up at the crack of dawn, like Atget did, would be one way to solve the problem. No people, no traffic.

magicbastarder

here's a question - let's say i was one of those homeless people some photographers love to photograph, and someone got a shot of me looking decidedly miserable. the current law does not give me any say over the use of that photo, and i would have no say over that photo being hung in the front window of an art gallery.

it's obviously hard to legislate for human decency, but there is obviously an issue with someone profiting from an image, the subject of which would have legitimate concerns over being made public.

EyeBlinks

magicbastarder wrote: »

here's a question - let's say i was one of those homeless people some photographers love to photograph, and someone got a shot of me looking decidedly miserable. the current law does not give me any say over the use of that photo, and i would have no say over that photo being hung in the front window of an art gallery.

it's obviously hard to legislate for human decency, but there is obviously an issue with someone profiting from an image, the subject of which would have legitimate concerns over being made public.

I don't take photos of the homeless (hate them) but I do take lots of street photos. I suppose the above scenario would apply to most of the photos I have taken.

So, we just ban it? Consign this genre to looking at what it was in books by Cartier Bresson/Winograd or whoever or exhibitions in the likes of IMMA?

I hope not.

lisatiffany

pffft a privacy bill won't stop me from doing what i love the most, the police stop me every now and then for taking their pictures but in the end they just drop it and off i go. the only time they really pressed the issue was at a riot, i hung around waiting to get some shots of the public order unit and they finally figured out i wasn't press.. i ran away and they chased me in a van, pulled over and gave me a spiel about seizing my camera/etc ..i said fair enough but i wasn't getting into the van until i called my solicitor then they dropped it and just sent me home. in the UK i got in trouble for photographing the Mi6 building, at the time i lived on the river and used to photograph most of the warf but yeah they were very stickly about it all. in moscow the police broke one of my cameras, again i was shooting a riot and they don't like being seen bashing people over the head. i'll be careful about shooting the police but as for a privacy bill? that's not going to stop me doing street photography, i love it too much and no legislation is going to stop me especially when i ask permission from people in the first place, i shoot the homeless a lot and i give them snacks and things. i shoot the homeless because to everyone else they are invisible, by doing my little thing it forces people to notice but as for your average everyday person on the street they don't care about me snapping them, heck just the other day a woman jumped into my shot shouting "yay i'm on candid camera!", she was in her 50's. a random bloke did that last week too, i was shooting some street art and he ran up and pulled a mad looking pose.

EyeBlinks

lisatiffany wrote: »

pffft a privacy bill won't stop me from doing what i love the most

Well it depends a lot on why you are shooting street photography. If it's to build a body of work, exhibit it, maybe publish, even heavens forbid, sell it, then a bill as outlined above will stop you from doing what you love the most.

Countless people have been successfully sued in France, which used to be the cradle of street photography and where almost nothing is coming out of the country for the last number of years.

AnimalRights

I will continue on as normal.

bullpost

Didn't realise this. Depressing and shortsighted . You only have to look at the wonderful archives of the national library on flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/nlireland/
to understand what a wonderful heritage we have been left by street photographers in the past.
Its almost a duty to the future to ensure we contribute from our time. Needs to be protected - like national sports were for TV.

EyeBlinks wrote: »

Countless people have been successfully sued in France, which used to be the cradle of street photography and where almost nothing is coming out of the country for the last number of years.

gloobag

I've never had anyone really complain about me grabbing a candid shot of them, even cops. A couple of folks gave me the bums rush, and a fella roared at me for grabbing a shot of him having a slash in the middle of the street once, but it never went any further than mild annoyance for those few. Which leads me to wonder, who exactly is this law protecting? Coz' it would appear to me that the majority of people don't give a ****.

Anouilh

I think that being a woman can be an advantage. Nobody seems to take any notice.

However, I had to force myself to get involved with photographing people and it is not really a favourite activity. Architecture and sculpture seem more attractive.

http://shortsights.blogspot.com/2011/07/stepping-out-in-style.html


If there are members here who post to the Boards.ie group on Flicrk, tagging each photo uploaded there with "street" is an easy way to make an album that is ongoing in time.



http://www.flickr.com/groups/boards_ie/pool/tags/street/

dr strangelove

At the risk of sounding a bit dim - can i clarify a couple of points -
1) the legislation is only really affecting those taking pictures for commercial gain
and
2) the legislation is only affecting images containing individuals who can be easily identified

And wouldn't you need a release form from a readily recognizable person if you were going to use their image for commercial gain anyway?

Or did i miss something?

StopNotWorking

Isn't there a difference between commercial gain and use in art? There's a loophole in canadian law which seems pretty similar to this, the idea being a street photograph is a piece of art and isn't treated the same way. Canadian law might be about the use of a person IN a commercial though..which would chuck that out the window. As someone just getting into shooting street this does make me frown though

lisatiffany

I asked a family member whom is in government about this a few hours ago and they had not heard anything about it, they read the article and said i need not worry ..

I think as long as i'm not taking pictures of a mc donalds or something then selling the image as stock i'm okay? i'll keep trying to find out more info but it sounds like even if it does go through it won't really cause problems unless i photograph someone overally recognizable on the street (such as a performer) and they see i sold it on a postcard or something. i'm going to be talking to a minister over the weekend about something so i'll bring along a print of the article and see what they say. :rolleyes:

EyeBlinks

lisatiffany wrote: »

I asked a family member whom is in government about this a few hours ago and they had not heard anything about it, they read the article and said i need not worry ..

I think as long as i'm not taking pictures of a mc donalds or something then selling the image as stock i'm okay? i'll keep trying to find out more info but it sounds like even if it does go through it won't really cause problems unless i photograph someone overally recognizable on the street (such as a performer) and they see i sold it on a postcard or something. i'm going to be talking to a minister over the weekend about something so i'll bring along a print of the article and see what they say. :rolleyes:

Thats a bit of a simplistic view of the world. A government minister is no better or worse to comment on this than anyone else (except of course to get him to vote against it). If it becomes law the minister will have no say on how it's used.

Street photography primarily (not always) involves people. It's been a cornerstone of photography at least since photography became mobile.

lisatiffany

It can be viewed as simplistic sure but its something, unless an actual petition went around to block it from going through there is not a lot people/photographers can do and i'm very interested about it now so any information government or otherwise can't be a bad thing. it would be a sad day in this country if it was brought into law and it meant the end of street photography but when i have an issue with something i also try and do something about it rather than just letting it happen. i mean sure you can say 1 person can't make a difference but you don't get anywhere by saying nothing. i love photography of all types but street photography is one of my favorite, you get to capture society and life as it happens rather than stage it in a studio. i can understand how some people would object because of their image/etc but i enjoy asking people first and its a nice way to mingle with people. that's not to say i don't shoot other things and people without their knowledge, it happens with a zoom lens and a lot of distance - even if i wanted to ask they are too far ahead. the country is full of cameras as it is, i don't regard phone photography as "real" photography that's just me i never could understand it but would the privacy act affect phone photographers too?. fair enough if it passes i'll adapt but i'm still going to approach people who can vote against it because i sure cant.

EyeBlinks

I'll be honest. There is a reason for punctuation. It's so people don't give up trying to read your posts:(

Anouilh

The "Combing the Streets" thread proves that street photography is very popular among members here and looks set to continue, regardless of outside influences from non-photographers who do not really see the full picture.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055564779&page=18

EyeBlinks

Anouilh wrote: »

The "Combing the Streets" thread proves that street photography is very popular among members here and looks set to continue, regardless of outside influences from non-photographers who do not really see the full picture.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055564779&page=18

I think we're missing the point here though.

Passing a law like this won't stop people taking street shots nor will it make it illegal to do so. It will however severly restrict what you can do with those shots and specifically will kill Street Photography as an art form.

Buceph

I wrote a letter to David Norris yesterday afternoon outlining my concerns (my photography concerns at least, I also have broader concerns with the bill.) He wrote back to me this morning. He said I was the second person to write to him about the street photography issue. He said he values street photography, that it is not the intention to stop the street photography.

To be honest, I wasn't very satisfied with his response. I said I was an amateur photographer and he said he wouldn't want to stop me from engaging with street photography. He also said he would not be in favour of anything inhibiting the practice. "I think it would be dreadful if people like yourself were prevented from taking the kind of photographs you suggest." However, he made no direct statement on whether he was in favour or against commercial art prints. Secondly, should the bill be flagged as detrimental to street photography, he was unclear on whether he would change the bill prior to it being signed into law or through an amendment. I have to presume he meant a parliamentary amendment, "if there is a problem I will address the situation by amendment."

At the very least he is aware of the concerns of photographers.

EyeBlinks

I have an email half written as well :cool:

Freddie59

WTF? This is nuts.

BlastedGlute

Where does CCTV sit in all of this?

DaireQuinlan

BlastedGlute wrote: »

Where does CCTV sit in all of this?

There's special provision in the bill for that too :-) They've thought of everything ... except the photographers. WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE PHOTOGRAPHERS !

trooney

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

There's special provision in the bill for that too :-) They've thought of everything ... except the photographers. WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE PHOTOGRAPHERS !

State sponsered stylee or including private cctv?

DaireQuinlan

trooney wrote: »

State sponsered stylee or including private cctv?

Either by the looks of things

5
.
—
(1) It shall be a defence to a privacy action for the defendant to prove that the act in respect of which the action was brought
.
.
.

(d)—
consisted of the installation or operation, in good faith, of a closed circuit television system or other surveillance system—
(i) for a purpose authorised by law, or
(ii) for the purpose of detecting or preventing the commission of an offence or the protection of persons or property,

Complete proposed bill here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/86485216/Privacy-Bill-2012

thebaz

humberklog wrote: »

Have to laugh...pic of him with 3 school girls in background.

its a pity he wasnt so diligent with the truth, concerning his partners past - it is that behaviour I find offensive, rather than most street photography in the public arena

DaireQuinlan

thebaz wrote: »

its a pity he wasnt so diligent with the truth, concerning his partners past - it is that behaviour I find offensive, rather than most street photography in the public arena

uh, just a smidgeon on the off-topic side of things there don't you think ? Norris' past has nothing whatsoever to do with the merits or lack thereof of this bill.

thebaz

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

uh, just a smidgeon on the off-topic side of things there don't you think ? Norris' past has nothing whatsoever to do with the merits or lack thereof of this bill.

If he is dishing out legislation, I think his past does count for something - dont you think

DaireQuinlan

thebaz wrote: »

If he is dishing out legislation, I think his past does count for something - dont you think

Eh, No ? Norris is proposing a piece of legislation. That piece of legislation has to be considered on its own merits, independent of the person proposing it. Norris' past has nothing to do with the strengths and weaknesses of the piece of legislation.

thebaz

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

That piece of legislation has to be considered on its own merits, independent of the person proposing it.

So a persons past should have no bearing on his or her authority to propose and pass legislation for everyone - come on !!!!- perhaps this is what is wrong with much of the irish political system - a cosy wink wink cartel of untouchables.

PS I find some of Norris stated views (Magill) a little worrying , certainly in comparison to the danger posed by most street photography , which include images of children playing - which is the area that causes most concern

DaireQuinlan

thebaz wrote: »

So a persons past should have no bearing on his or her authority to propose and pass legislation for everyone - come on !!!!- perhaps this is what is wrong with much of the irish political system - a cosy wink wink cartel of untouchables.

I suggest you read up on how the irish legislative branch actually works before your outrage grows out of control Norris proposing a bill is the first step in a lenghty process out of which there may or may not emerge actual legislation, but only after it's been discussed at length, thrown to committees, amended, had bits added or excised, then been debated several times in the dail and seanad and FINALLY put to a vote in both houses. Norris can't 'pass' law all by his little ownio

thebaz

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

I suggest you read up on how the irish legislative branch actually works before your outrage grows out of control

give it a rest , I'm entitled to a point of view - ive more to be doing than arguing petantic ****e on a beautiful day - goodbye

DaireQuinlan

thebaz wrote: »

give it a rest , I'm entitled to a point of view - ive more to be doing than arguing petantic ****e on a beautiful day - goodbye

When your point of view is based on complete ignorance, as it seems to be if you think that norris is singlehandedly capable of enacting laws, then I'm equally entitled to correct you. I'm not being 'pedantic', you're just plain wrong.
You can have all the reservations you like about Norris, but they have nothing whatsoever to do with this bill. Trying to conflate the two shows either deliberate sensationalism or ignorance.