The ethics of posting street photography

[mistletoe]

@ Scotty72

>> Firstly, the obvious... if a lady decides to walk topless along Bondi Beach, is it possibly in anyway reasonable for her to demand privacy?

Its perfectly reasonable of her to expect to feel comfortable being topless on Bondi Beach. Its a beach not a studio. If being photographed topless infringes on that then its perfectly reasonable of her to demand some kind of privacy, imo.

>> If you (the general you) and I are in public, what gives you the right to control what I choose to photograph? To do so is to suggest that your rights are superior to mine.

Thats quite right. Her rights to feel comfortable topless on Bondi Beach are, imo, superior to your rights to photograph what you want. In a way this becomes a gender issue. If you give carte blanche to photographers to photograph women topless on the Beach you will by proxy limit womens freedomes. They will cover up if they feel they'll be photographed left right and center.

>> As for the notion that shopping centre security cameras are somehow benign... totally wrong.

You introduced the notion that security cameras are benign, commenting that theives would love a world where security cameras were banned. And you were right before the u-turn. In extreme cases security cameras might be used nefariously, likewise, now and then street photographers might be noticed by their subjects. Essentially though, street photography and cctv are completely different.

>> I wish more people would stop believing that their wishes / beliefs were all that matters.

lol. You're not exactly arguing that your beliefs don't matter. On the contrary, you are arguing that your wish to photograph what you want trumps all other concerns.

Personally, I think the concerns of photographers matter very much here. We might not all be Henri Carier-Bresson but candid photography is important enough culturally to deserve some kind of protection. Equally, in some contexts candid photography is not appropriate and the people being photographed deserve some kind of protection. The trick is to draw a reasonable line that satisfies *both* 'whims'.

[ricktas]

Her rights to feel comfortable topless on Bondi Beach are, imo, superior to your rights to photograph what you want. In a way this becomes a gender issue. If you give carte blanche to photographers to photograph women topless on the Beach you will by proxy limit womens freedomes. They will cover up if they feel they'll be photographed left right and center.

I disagree with that statement. If anyone does anything in a public place, they should expect people to see it, and photograph it. If the lady does not want to be photographed topless, then she should not go topless. If anyone, male or female is willing to go naked, partially naked in public then they have to expect to be photographed. Privacy exists in PRIVATE situations, not on our streets, beaches etc

Have you ever seen video of the drunks at night being idiots on our streets? Do you feel we should not have video of that, and their rights are more important and it should not be recorded. After all video is a series of still photos.

[jim]

Its perfectly reasonable of her to expect to feel comfortable being topless on Bondi Beach. Its a beach not a studio. If being photographed topless infringes on that then its perfectly reasonable of her to demand some kind of privacy, imo.

What if she feels uncomfortable with people looking at her while she walks topless on Bondi Beach? Is it reasonable that she demand you avert your eyes? Possibly there are a lot of things that might make a topless lady feel uncomfortable, and presumably her right to feel comfortable trumps anybody elses interests or activities?

[Tommo1965]

I must admit..if a photographer was taking images of me or mine that we didn't want taken..and they refused to delete them..then it would be on for young and old....what shits me is the presumption that just cause your in a public space you have no right to privacy...what if you were having a conversation with someone..would you like that overheard and repeated without you consent..just because you were overheard in a public space even though the conversation was private ....I really see no difference....every tog should respect the individuals right to say "no Thanks"

[ricktas]

I must admit..if a photographer was taking images of me or mine that we didn't want taken..and they refused to delete them..then it would be on for young and old....what shits me is the presumption that just cause your in a public space you have no right to privacy...what if you were having a conversation with someone..would you like that overheard and repeated without you consent..just because you were overheard in a public space even though the conversation was private ....I really see no difference....every tog should respect the individuals right to say "no Thanks"

But that is the entire point. If you are in public, then you do not have a 'right to privacy' in Australia.

If you are holding a conversation that you wanted kept private, then don't have that conversation where someone else might hear it. By saying "every tog should respect the individuals right to say no Thanks, you are implying that you believe the right of one person, is greater than that of another, whether that be subject and photographer, husband and wife, Local Mayor and rate-payer...

[rellik666]

Wow what an interesting debate.

My feelings are pretty straight forward to be honest, if you are out in public you are fair game. You want to do something private, do it in private. And saying that CCTV is different to the average Joe taking candids in the street is ridiculous, do you know what is happening to those images? Do you know how many days, weeks, years they are being kept? No, yet people don't give it a second thought. You say that the occurrences of people abusing those systems is rare, well how often is someone with a camera doing something bad? I would say rare too. We are all so worried about what might happen rather than just getting on with life.

Arthur, I am interested as to why you don't like your children being photographed?

[geoffsta]

It all depends on the individual. And why take the image in the first place.
If a lady walks along a public beach topless, of course you are going to look. But do you take a photo. I personally wouldn't. What am I going to do with it?
Yeh, I might show a few friends, and have a giggle. But what use is it?

Someone like I @ M might use the image in his portfolio to show clients how good a TOG he is. But he certainly wouldn't use it commercially, and make money out of it without permission from the young lady in question.
Someone else might use it as a documentry type thing to show the community the types of individuals that use the beach.
This theory also includes taking photo's of children in a public place. Why? You can do it. But the reason why is an individual thing.

It's a personal thing.

[Scotty72]

Scotty, read the original post.

It is all about ethics, not rights, law or such stuff.

I'm not a pro (nor it seems is the OP) so am not bound by a code of ethics. You may well mean morals. And morals are what laws are based on. Most people in society believe it is immoral to marry your sister, so we make it illegal.

Answer me, do you feel that by taking an image of said topless lady on the (public) beach that you are actually engaging in a meritorious photographic pursuit or merely snapping a semi naked person for the sake of it?

That would depend. There may well be something extra-ordinary about the top-less lady: I may just think it is cool and want to show my mates: I may just want to practise candids: I may be an immature idiot. I don't see the relevance of your question. It is like me asking you why you bought a picture at a gallery (to admire, investment, use as a dart board, ridicule): the fact is you bought it and it is none of my (or the artist's) business why - it is your property (even if the artist resents the use of his art as toilet paper.)

If that image is one of 500 from the day featuring bare breasted ladies or simply one shot with not much other context other than candidly snapped nudity then I would suggest that you are acting with less than prurient interest. If there are a handful of images of bare breasted ladies in the above mentioned 500 images that feature a real representation of beach goers on that beach on the day then I feel that you are actually involved in a meritorious pursuit.

So what. I may be a breast implant surgeon or simply be an admirer of breasts. If the lady does want me to see or photograph them: cover them up... it is that simple.

If she displays them openly in public: What right does she have to privacy? Of course I have the right to look / photograph it - of course it is moral / ethical etc. (the only proviso would be that I am not sexualising the situation)

It would be like you displaying your latest artwork on a 200 foot wide billboard, then criticising anyone who looks at it.

Forget the "rights and legalese", how do you measure your ideals in that scenario. Are you engaged in an artistic pursuit or are you doing something that could be seen by many as just another dirty old man with a camera?

I might be a dirty old (but 39 is not that old) man - it is irrelevant. If YOU do something in public, of course the public can look at you. You don't own my eyes.

I would not see the photographer as the one with the issue: it is the bare breasted lady whose morals I would question (I would not approve of my daughter doing that).

It is simple: if YOU are in public = the public have the right to look at you. Duh!

Scotty

[Duane Pipe]

I love breasts and if some chick wants to show them I will shoot them But I like a nice bum too
If your in public you are fair game.
I was bush walking some time ago, stopped for a rest standing quietly in amongst the trees when suddenly two young chicks 18+ squatted not to far from me and they were in full view, If I had a Camera I think I would have snapped away JUST for a laugh

[Scotty72]

@ Scotty72

>> Firstly, the obvious... if a lady decides to walk topless along Bondi Beach, is it possibly in anyway reasonable for her to demand privacy?

Its perfectly reasonable of her to expect to feel comfortable being topless on Bondi Beach. Its a beach not a studio. If being photographed topless infringes on that then its perfectly reasonable of her to demand some kind of privacy, imo.

What if the topless woman feels uncomfortable simply because their are men on the beach? Should her right to feel comfortable mean that all men must leave the beach? There was a call by a Muslim women's group to have women only days at a local pool as the felt uncomfortable removing their burquas etc with men around.

So, should we remove men from beaches and pools to allow women to feel more comfortable?

>> If you (the general you) and I are in public, what gives you the right to control what I choose to photograph? To do so is to suggest that your rights are superior to mine.

Thats quite right. Her rights to feel comfortable topless on Bondi Beach are, imo, superior to your rights to photograph what you want. In a way this becomes a gender issue. If you give carte blanche to photographers to photograph women topless on the Beach you will by proxy limit womens freedomes. They will cover up if they feel they'll be photographed left right and center.

I can't believe I need to make this argument but:
If you don't feel comfortable walking nude in public: put some clothes on .... ###?


In this situation, of course my rights should take precedence - and here is why...

I am not asking her to do a damned thing; not requiring her to behave differently; think differently or feel guilty. I am not asking her to change a thing.

She on the other hand, IS asking me to do all the above... she is challenging me... and to do so she better have a very compelling reason.

>> As for the notion that shopping centre security cameras are somehow benign... totally wrong.

You introduced the notion that security cameras are benign, commenting that theives would love a world where security cameras were banned. And you were right before the u-turn. In extreme cases security cameras might be used nefariously, likewise, now and then street photographers might be noticed by their subjects. Essentially though, street photography and cctv are completely different.

Security cameras a neither benign or malicious. It is the person operating them. Exactly the same as a DSLR operator.

My point was that it is usually very obvious if a DSLR is pointing at you - usually not obvious for CCTV.

>> I wish more people would stop believing that their wishes / beliefs were all that matters.

lol. You're not exactly arguing that your beliefs don't matter. On the contrary, you are arguing that your wish to photograph what you want trumps all other concerns.

Yes, as I stated above - I am not requiring forcing anyone to do anything - my wishes don't require you to do anything. She would be trying to force me to do something.

Personally, I think the concerns of photographers matter very much here. We might not all be Henri Carier-Bresson but candid photography is important enough culturally to deserve some kind of protection. Equally, in some contexts candid photography is not appropriate and the people being photographed deserve some kind of protection. The trick is to draw a reasonable line that satisfies *both* 'whims'.

Sitting on the fence usually gets you impailed

[Scotty72]

But that is the entire point. If you are in public, then you do not have a 'right to privacy' in Australia.

If you are holding a conversation that you wanted kept private, then don't have that conversation where someone else might hear it. By saying "every tog should respect the individuals right to say no Thanks, you are implying that you believe the right of one person, is greater than that of another, whether that be subject and photographer, husband and wife, Local Mayor and rate-payer...

1000% right and sensible

In private : expect privacy

In public : expect publicity

Why is this most simple on concepts so difficult to understand?

No one owns the public space.

[I @ M]

I'm not a pro (nor it seems is the OP) so am not bound by a code of ethics. You may well mean morals. And morals are what laws are based on. Most people in society believe it is immoral to marry your sister, so we make it illegal.

Scotty, let it go, nobody anywhere has mentioned "codes" in relation to ethics.

Have a quick google of the word ethics, you may well find that it is often mentioned in the same vein as morals. Yes, some laws in some societies are based upon morals or ethics.

No, not all things that are considered by many / the majority / the minority / some people to be unethical or immoral have prohibitive laws based upon them.

There may well be something extra-ordinary about the top-less lady:

Aint it great that we agree on something, I too believe that if there is a story to be told with an image, if that story comes together in that image with a top less lady on the beach then it is a meritorious pursuit. ( Read my posts above )

So what. I may be a breast implant surgeon or simply be an admirer of breasts. If the lady does want me to see or photograph them: cover them up... it is that simple.

If she displays them openly in public: What right does she have to privacy? Of course I have the right to look / photograph it - of course it is moral / ethical etc. (the only proviso would be that I am not sexualising the situation)

It would be like you displaying your latest artwork on a 200 foot wide billboard, then criticising anyone who looks at it.

I guess that is where you have to work out your own ideals, the OP asked about publishing said images and when you have published those images you have to be prepared to live with the way people view you for publishing them.

I might be a dirty old (but 39 is not that old) man - it is irrelevant. If YOU do something in public, of course the public can look at you. You don't own my eyes.

I would not see the photographer as the one with the issue: it is the bare breasted lady whose morals I would question (I would not approve of my daughter doing that).

It is simple: if YOU are in public = the public have the right to look at you. Duh!

By that analogy, even though you would disapprove of your daughter being topless on a public beach, even when she is of a legal age and not under parental control you would staunchly defend the ethics of the photographer who photographed her and published her images on the net?

[ricktas]

I am so tempted to make next week's Photo of the Week, themed "Topless woman on a beach", just to get a heap of you out of your comfort zones.

[Kerrie]

...haven't seen any photos for cc titled ' topless female candid'

I have seen tasteful nudes though, usually studio types.

Context is important I think.

I just remembered...on aust day I arrived at a river side park to see a bloke urinating in the bush against a tree, 3 mtrs from car park.

My first I thought? ' lol gonna get a shot of that! ' , a captured moment and all that.

2nd thought? It is not gonna look good pointing a camera at a bloke peeing. ( I have no zoom )

I decided not to. But I was tempted lol

[Scotty72]

Scotty, let it go, nobody anywhere has mentioned "codes" in relation to ethics.

Have a quick google of the word ethics, you may well find that it is often mentioned in the same vein as morals. Yes, some laws in some societies are based upon morals or ethics.

No, not all things that are considered by many / the majority / the minority / some people to be unethical or immoral have prohibitive laws based upon them.

Ethics are a shared, systemic of principals usually associated with a class or groups of people. Eg. Professions have a code of ethics.

Morals are personally held (or associated with religious belief).

It is quite possible (and often happens) that people do one action that breaches their ethics but not their morals - or vice versa.

For eg

Having a sex with your boss may be highly unethical but hardly immoral.
A pro footballer may have an affair with a 17 yo girl; many would find it deeply immoral but the various football codes don't seem to have an ethical prob with it.

Aint it great that we agree on something, I too believe that if there is a story to be told with an image, if that story comes together in that image with a top less lady on the beach then it is a meritorious pursuit. ( Read my posts above )



I guess that is where you have to work out your own ideals, the OP asked about publishing said images and when you have published those images you have to be prepared to live with the way people view you for publishing them.

True, people are free to judge us as great or deviant pervs - so what - I and many think that Poker machine operators are thieves who ought to be locked up. They don't care what I think - so I don't care what others feel about my hobby.

By that analogy, even though you would disapprove of your daughter being topless on a public beach, even when she is of a legal age and not under parental control you would staunchly defend the ethics of the photographer who photographed her and published her images on the net?

Yes, I would. I would call her an idiot - hope she learned her lesson.

Before she is of age, if she is out walking naked in public, the cops should come after me - not the photographer - what sort of neglectful parent would I be. Of course I would ask they be removed from Facebook etc but I know I would have no right to force it (unless laws were broken).

If she's of age I'd say, you made your bed... You know, like parents used to do. I was arrested as a 19yo for disobeying a police instruction: embarrassment, court, heavy fine, police chasing me when I didn't pay the now increasing fine etc. My parents didn't bail me out - they told me not to visit until the warrant was lifted (I paid). At the time, I hated them but quickly realized that they did the right thing. I had to sell stuff and scrap together $$$. I eventually had to plead to a magistrate to not record a conviction so I wouldn't be barred from teaching. Taught me a great lesson - I was so lucky to have such great parents... These days... Very rare as parents tend to want to make excuses for their errant kids.

[Scotty72]

I am so tempted to make next week's Photo of the Week, themed "Topless woman on a beach", just to get a heap of you out of your comfort zones.

Great idea, prob is a rarely get to the beach and very rarely see white pointers anymore

[extraball]

another thread, to answer my questioning of legalities

[Steve Axford]

fascinating thread. It strikes me that photographing said topless lady has more to do with the photographers sensibilities than the topless one. After all, if she's topless then she probably is exhibiting her boobs. The photographer may feel like a pervert for photographing them, but that's his (if it was her then there would be a different reason) problem, not the topless one's.
Funny how the thread seemed to settle on sexual morals. Even the link posted by Kym, which was about the horror of war, seemed to get caught up in child porn thing. Is sex really the only thing we get moral about? Maybe!

[bobt]

Even the link posted by Kym, which was about the horror of war, seemed to get caught up in child porn thing. Is sex really the only thing we get moral about? Maybe!

Whoa! Can of worms time!

There are soooo many moral issues around it would be hard to know where to start! War is a whole discussion in its own right as are guns and the right to bear them. I find new moral issues with each year that passes, but only a few get my undivided attention - like Dying with Dignity for example which becomes more relevant as you get closer to needing it!

[Steve Axford]

New thread maybe Bob