Candid photography and the ethics of non-consent

[byelii]

i think you'll find that if you whip out a 600mm in a neighborhood (where you don't really talk or know your neighbors) like mine, you will get a reaction. the first few times i pulled mine out blinds started going down. it was hard not to laugh. over the last month or so they've realized that i'm just shooting the sky with it. i still don't bring it out in the daytime.

overall i think it's impossible to give a blanket response to this because of all the different types of photos one can take of people. i find the napalm girl and interesting case. mentally i wrote that off as "oh, that's fine. it's news". i completely discounted her as a person. i only noticed that i did so when i thought about how many times i watch the news and have thought "if someone ever were to harm my family and some POS cameraman from channel 4 news showed up and just started shooting the scene without asking i'd belt the guy". it's a complete violation. why? because the subject thinks it is. the feelings of us camera people is irrelevant. remember, the topic here wasn't legally framed, it was ethical in nature. the interesting thing is that ethics wasn't defined. whose ethics? ethics of photographers or humanity? i prefer to follow what i believe to be proper behavior of a person first and as a shutterbug second. on the flip side i would lump in the papparazi who generally act in the reverse.

hmmmm...rambling. i guess my point is that i'm in the school of thought that believes you owe your subjects the respect enough to be given the opportunity to decline. i think post-exposure permission is fine.

[dazedgonebye]

i think you'll find that if you whip out a 600mm in a neighborhood (where you don't really talk or know your neighbors) like mine, you will get a reaction. the first few times i pulled mine out blinds started going down.

I used to take candids of naked women, but the neighborhood watch caught on.

[veronica]

Several months ago before moving in to our new house, husband & I had been given the "retail run-around" when it came time to buy our kitchen appliances.
We'd first ordered five major appliances from a chain, home store, and were told when to expect delivery. (I'll shorten the story right here).In the end, at the very last minute on the day of delivery two months later we were told the order could not be delivered as promised. (Yada-yada-yada) I'm so angry I'm spittin' nails and we go back to the store with a pad of paper, and my camera. I wanted to document the reasons this store had for causing us such hardship. The manager's trying to explain to me how SHE and HER store are not responsible for the incompetence of another employee all the while looking at the camera hanging around my neck. She said to me, "are you going to take my picture?" and I said, "yes, I'd like to, along with your words of explanation." "Oh no, she says, you can't take my picture, this is not a public place." I did not photograph her, but neither did I put my camera away. I began to photograph other appliances in the department while my husband continued taking care of business.
Now, this was an instance of the photographic image used for documentation, as I'd intended to take my problem to higher management and wanted proof positive of employee untruths.
Here is an image in which I asked the people:http://www.pbase.com/veronica/image/3885565 and one in which I didn't: http://www.pbase.com/veronica/image/3885564. Both I treasure & are in my digital beginning days.
So, for months now I've been wondering about the issue of retail stores being considered public space or not. Was I really that bad?
Any thoughts? I'm really not a crazy old lady, honest! It's just left me very unsettled.
Thanks,
Veronica

[marchael]

Retail stores are not considered public space. They're open to the public but privately owned, thereby allowing them to make their own rules as to whether photography is allowed on their premises or not.

I started a discussion about this subject a few months ago after being told that I couldn't take photos of airplanes at a public airport. Security reasons? Who knows, but I think too many people are becoming too paranoid these days.

[kissfoto]

Public photographs are just that photogrphs taken in a public setting and you are not breaking any 'law' by taking the image. What image and how it is used after is the real point. I usually take first and then ask, or show the picture to the person, if I can. Rarely have I been refused permission to use the image.

[purpod]

I am almost always denied permission if I ask first, so I don't any more. I feel it's a public setting & Lord knows there are cameras everywhere's now-a-days~ I can only imagine how many shots of me there are floating around this world!

I think the real issue here is what you do with the snapshots. I very rarely will post something I find offensive or ugly, unless, of course, it has extraordinarily offended me, like the woman from Borders in this shot ~~
~ http://www.pbase.com/image/54057733 As you can see, she was not happy about it either, but considering how they had screwed up the entire order & I had to end up mailing the book myself, I felt totally justified. In fact, I will be doing an update on the incident & it won't be a nice "review".

Usually, I will keep things on the UP side of life. I never would shoot a nude/semi-nude figure without permission.. and I would never post a tramatic accident or some other such personal trama; as that is a violation in my humble opinion. I may shoot the emergency helicopter as it lands, but I refuse to shoot them removing the person from inside it ~

I guess it just depends on the amount of class the person has, eh?

[four12]

My big 'problem' with asking for a release/consent/whatever is how do you do it? What is the conversation/line you use?

Me: Hi, I'm an amateur photographer and I just took your picture. Is it OK if I publish it on the web? I might sell it, would that be OK? Here, sign this legal document releasing your rights to me for this photograph.

I suppose you could come up with a cover story, i.e. freelance journalist or university student taking pictures for a class assignment?

Hmm...

[type]

Just came across this on dpreview:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read. ... e=17676502

A reproduction of an article from the NY Times on an unsuccessful civil case in NY state against a street photographer. The judge ruled that the photo was artistic and that the flow of information and ideas in a free society trumped the right to privacy beyond that which is protected in law. The defence made the case that, were the plaintiff’s case successful, generations of past and future inspirational photography could be mothballed – an argument I made in my original post. What I’d like to know is what case law exists in the UK for a similar situation and what were the outcomes? Does the law tend to come down on the side of the artist?

[jypsee]

right here on pbase where you can debate this "problem"
http://forum.pbase.com/viewtopic.php?t=19335

can you imagine the overwhelming amount of policing this would take on the part of the general public to get enforcement of any laws that gave the right of privacy to a person on the street??
I doubt any court is going to uphold a law that will require such extensive oversight.

[neovolatile]

What ethics are involved in photographing the homeless and the destitute?

I mean, yes, you can photograph people in public places. It is not against any law. But to do it and then blythly hand those who catch you at it your Internet addy (as though they can get to the Internet), is that morally on the level?

Seems to me, and I am still wrestling with this issue, that a better plan would be to take the picture if you want candid, then approach the person and show them the pic on the back of your camera. Tell them you admire their face and ask then for a verbal ok for you to keep the picture. In my case, I am considering offering them a "modelling fee" of $5 for the picture. If they refuse, and some of the street folks are very seriously beset by inner demons, then delete the picture right in front of them.

What candid picture do you have that you have paid nothing for that is worth that kind of energy around?

Don't get me wrong: I strongly defend my shots I paid for and have a model release for. Those are mine, even if the model later changes their mind.

Just offering that folks on the street, like accident victims, like rape survivors, deserve a little more consideration.

My take on the issue,
J. Ellsworth Weaver

[pathfindar]

There are a lot of areas I don't think I would want to walk over and show someone my camera or pull money out.

If someone wants to come over and ask me, I would show them or not use their picture if the requested, but unless they come to me, I usually don't go to them.

[alexphotos]

What ethics are involved in photographing the homeless and the destitute?

I usaly go and ask after if they mind if i took them in photos, if it a great shot i take there info offer to send them a copy and for homeless i ask them if they nees some thing like a smoke ( i dont smoke but they usaly so) and i give thema few bucks even if they dont ask for it.

I am not sure about the canadian law.

[type]

I agree photographing the homeless makes this debate even trickier from a moral viewpoint. It's interesting that the media would never be taken to task for showing extreme deprivation (unless it were a distortion of the truth, and even then...), on the basis that it was newsworthy, while when a photographer without the same reach or authority does it, but with intentions at least as honourable, s/he has more of a case to answer.

To be honest, I tend to resist the temptation to photograph the destitute. I think in our society, which is saturated with 'picturesque poverty' and a grim fascination with the downtrodden, the destitute make too easy and obvious a target - as much as their plight needs to be highlighted. I do make exceptions, though and not always for entirely logical reasons. Sometimes a shot or a scene goes beyond the sort of 2-dimensional, hackneyed document of destitution we are used to. Maybe it's just that the shot gets through to the subject's humanity that much more, or that there is even a kind of beauty or dignity in them. I think that's what motivated my posting this shot: http://www.pbase.com/type/image/53510723 and while I realise that not everyone will see or agree with what I see, the reactions it provoked were interesting.

I'm comfortable admitting that I haven't made my mind up on this area, but rather keep it open. I think one's gut instinct is a good guide in whether to take, keep and post a shot. There are so many scenes I have come across which would have had great 'impact' but I declined to take or post because somehow I knew it would be invasive; exploitative, even. In cases where I take photos of the destitute, I'm normally working on instinct: on the circumstances and the vibe there that says 'this time, this time it's OK', not because of a strict moral-rational code. But instinct is far from infallible - I just hope I don't make the 'wrong' decisions. I accept that there are bound to be times when I do.

Niall

[texces]

It is part of what we do. If we say it is unethical, then our images could not be called candid shots. If I do think a person will have a problem, I have asked them if it is okay to take their picture and have always gotten positive responses. You know when to draw the line.

[gpaai]

I was shooting at a local bike show last Saturday when I spotted a guy with a huge Afro and a beard. His back was to me so I asked my wife to got over to see if he would turn around for me.

Wife: "My husband would love to get a shot of you for his online gallery."

Biker replies: "GET LOST!"

note: His attitude doesn't represent that of all bikers. They are usually pretty cool.

Gary