The ethics of posting street photography

[bobt]

I think it is unfortunate, and a little sad, that anyone should rely 100% upon the legality of a situation without having any thought for the privacy of, or respect for individuals. In my view our society is becoming more inclined towards sacrificing basic humanity as a casualty of selfishness. The law is not perfect and cannot foresee every circumstance, and although we may differ on individual moral standards we should all have a fundamental concern towards our fellow man.

The mere fact that an action is legal does not make it right. We often see individuals being pilloried in the press for acting in an amoral way within a legal framework. As photographers, we each represent our fellow photographer in the manner in which the public perceives photographers as a group. If we display a callous disregard for those around us, and shelter behind a legal justification, then we shall be viewed and judged accordingly. Once we lose that willingness to consider the impact of our actions upon others we become less worthy of respect.

Other photographers here can continue to ignore the impact they may have upon others, but I shall continue to factor that into my photography and into my life generally.

[ricktas]

I think it is unfortunate, and a little sad, that anyone should rely 100% upon the legality of a situation without having any thought for the privacy of, or respect for individuals. In my view our society is becoming more inclined towards sacrificing basic humanity as a casualty of selfishness. The law is not perfect and cannot foresee every circumstance, and although we may differ on individual moral standards we should all have a fundamental concern towards our fellow man.

The mere fact that an action is legal does not make it right. We often see individuals being pilloried in the press for acting in an amoral way within a legal framework. As photographers, we each represent our fellow photographer in the manner in which the public perceives photographers as a group. If we display a callous disregard for those around us, and shelter behind a legal justification, then we shall be viewed and judged accordingly. Once we lose that willingness to consider the impact of our actions upon others we become less worthy of respect.

Other photographers here can continue to ignore the impact they may have upon others, but I shall continue to factor that into my photography and into my life generally.

But that is the basic crux of the entire issue of ethics. You have your ethics, I have mine, though they may differ, who is right? Factor yours into your photography and life in general, and I will do likewise, but the big issue arises when someone tries to implore their own set of ethics onto another, which they can negotiate and discuss, but never demand (unless the Law is being broken).

[mistletoe]

Interesting and difficult issues. Great arguments from all sides of the debate.

Personally, I think it would have been unethical not to publish the photo Kym directs us to. It brought attention to the horror of war and our own complicity in that horror.

On the other hand, I suppose its legal to take photos of children in swimwear on a beach but perhaps we do have to question how wise it is to publish them on the internet.

A fair while back there was a photo, which was obviously a candid photograph, of a young woman which to my mind crossed an ethical line. It was exploitative and whilst it rose tremendous applause particularly from male critics, applause concentrating on the young woman rather than the photo in general, I felt it was sleazy and voyeristic. I think it was the fact that this young woman had no choice in being leered over that concerned me.

I do think there is an ethical aspect to photography and that photographers have to be responsible. But, I also think each photo has to be judged on its own merit.

Rick argues:

"but the big issue arises when someone tries to implore their own set of ethics onto another, which they can negotiate and discuss, but never demand (unless the Law is being broken)."

I think that the law is a set of principles which attempt to capture the moral zeitgeist and which are imposed onto individuals. It is through the law that we impose our own moral standards on others. Famously, there were obscenity laws which Larry Flynt spent his life challenging. So, Flynt's values were undermined by the larger society and their set of values were imposed upon him.

I'ld point out that this site has ethical guidelines which go further than the law:

"[22] Because our members are of a wide age range we have to take this into consideration regarding this topic. We will allow tasteful, mature, artistic nude photography, as long as no genitalia is visible, and the poses are not sexually suggestive. No full frontal below the belt shots. All nude photos will be heavily moderated and will be removed by a staff member if we feel it is inappropriate. The moderator's decision is final and we will not enter into discussion on the matter. Most importantly, the model in the photo must be over the age of 18 and has given consent to both the photo being taken and the image posted on a public forum. Photographs that depict, or appear to depict illegal activity, are not allowed on the site".

It is not illegal to take and publish explicit and sexually suggestive photos. However, This site regards that as ethically problematical.

[Kym]

@Chris ... AP as a community has its own 'law', which is enforceable due to the private ownership of the forum.
I.e. Rick and the team can enforce the site rules via various moderation capabilities such as edit/delete posts.
It is part of the conditions of using AP.

The AP community has come up with a framework that ensures the safe sharing of our creativity.

Personally the line is somewhere between paparazzi and street / photojournalism.
That said, if I had the opportunity to take a photo of a celeb in public, I would (and have).
But I don't go out of my way to do so, or stalk, or hide in the bushes etc.

[knumbnutz]

I think you have hit on an interesting point here.

You say it was around 10years ago that attitude changed and I think this is more than coincidence that it the online community started coming of age around this time.

Places like Flickr, Snapfish, Facebook, Youtube and photography forums in general began and it totally changed the way photos were able to be viewed.
It also made it easy for photos to be sought, bought or poached and that time also heralded programs like photoshop and paintshop. Then came affordable CCTV and .... digital cameras.
ALL of which people felt big brother was closing in, and at the same time giving more power to the people through affordable and available technology.

So I think in a world which is far less private than before 2000~, people are either wanting that publicity or running from it.

I've wandered around Belfast in the 80's and 90's shooting some of the most dangerous areas at the time. I've wandered around Harlem in New York without fear or retribution, I've wandered around the slums of Glasgow, Liverpool, taking pictures of people, with and without their permission. I've spent the last 3 decades plus of shooting for my personal satisfaction (and if I'm shooting for clients, will always ask permission and gain a release), I'd never felt threatened until about 10 years ago. Which is when attitudes to photographers or people with cameras began this hypocritical dual path way. Seems its ok to shoot on small cameras or phones, but take out a camera that I would normally use, and its like there is this dual system of acceptability and tolerance - or should I say lack of ?

[Kerrie]

One look at Facebook and most would have to say its not unethical to post a photo of another person publicly for non commercial reason.. Or illegal. And another look one could say it should be lol ( at least your pics would be decent I'm thinking)

Risky? Possibly in some cases.

" hey George , you know when you said you were out of town last month, well I saw a photo on ( Facebook/ Flickr/ ap) of you and some woman in a cafe across town......"

I guess thought that's George's ethics in question, not the photographers


Gee. Wonder if I've ever been snapped candidly


I would just hope it's in creative context

[Mark L]

I think you have hit on an interesting point here.

You say it was around 10years ago that attitude changed and I think this is more than coincidence that it the online community started coming of age around this time.

Nah, I think it had more to do with 9/11.
It is an interesting point, and perhaps worth a thread of it's own.

[Cage]

Interesting thread. Thought provoking to say the least.

I have only had one session on the street, with mixed results, but my underlying feeling of the session was that I was invading other peoples privacy.

Maybe it was because of the generation, baby boomer, that I grew up in. We had different values to what is accepted as the norm today.

[ricktas]

Risky? Possibly in some cases.

" hey George , you know when you said you were out of town last month, well I saw a photo on ( Facebook/ Flickr/ ap) of you and some woman in a cafe across town......"

I would say that if George is meeting with 'some woman' in a cafe, then there is a range of reasons, but it is all about how WE interpret that.

It could be his sister
It could be a work colleague
It could be the teacher of one of his children, that is having trouble at school
It could be his new girlfriend
It could be his wife

If George is doing something 'he shouldn't be' then he should be doing that somewhere private, otherwise he risks being caught. The fact he was photographed is not the issue, it is what his actions are in the first place. This also shows that a photo of a man and a woman in a cafe can be interpreted based on how the viewer sees the photo, not necessarily what is really going on in the cafe. A GOOD photo tells use the story, correctly, by conveying what is happening.

[Kerrie]

I would say that if George is meeting with 'some woman' in a cafe, then there is a range of reasons, but it is all about how WE interpret that.

It could be his sister
It could be a work colleague
It could be the teacher of one of his children, that is having trouble at school
It could be his new girlfriend
It could be his wife

If George is doing something 'he shouldn't be' then he should be doing that somewhere private, otherwise he risks being caught. The fact he was photographed is not the issue, it is what his actions are in the first place. This also shows that a photo of a man and a woman in a cafe can be interpreted based on how the viewer sees the photo, not necessarily what is really going on in the cafe. A GOOD photo tells use the story, correctly, by conveying what is happening.

Yes.....that's what I meant by ' its not the photographers ethics at risk, it's the subjects if they are doing something they shouldn't

these days we post publicly across the world via net.....and given we may not know the people we photograph, or who's seeing the photos that they know....well, they better be behavin! And the photographer should rest easy

[Scotty72]

If it is ethical to look at something - then it is ethical to photograph it

[arthurking83]

As already said, debating the ethics of it all is only going to produce round table, headless chicken arguments as to whether it's right or wrong and as individuals there is only one answer to that question.. your own.

Where the 'ethics' really only enter into the equation is if the subject has any objections to having their image taken without their consent, and the photographer refuses to remove the image either from their archives, or if published, from publication.

I remember the story of the woman that took action against a photographer for not deleting the image he captured of her working at a cafe(in the US) and that he subsequently published.

To me this is unethical practise by the photographer as the woman(a waitress I think) asked for them to be removed and he refused.
It's unethical both in my own personal point of view ... and on the whole, which I think should be reflected in law.

If the subject has no issue with having their image captured then there is no question of ethics, as photographer and subject are in agreement.

If the subject is unaware of their image being captured(in public) then as the law stands they consent to having their image captured by default .. and it's not always an easy task to subsequently ask for their permission either before or after the fact. If possible, then it's simply courteous to do so.

While we do have to accept that while in public, we do give away our right to privacy, it should be expected that we can have a limited right to some privacy in some situations if we wish.
People get into various states of mind at any time of the day and not always in private locations, so to expect that we have absolutely no right to privacy at all in public spaces is ludicrous.

If the photographer has ethical concerns about any genre of photography, then they won't practise the genre .. simple as that!

If I came to point where the issue of ethics was raised in an image I captured, I'd almost certainly delete the images from my PC.

So to the OP, if you have ethical concerns over uploading images you've captured and haven't yet deleted them from your archives, then(I think) there should be no issue in uploading them either.
I probably have very little moral fibre myself, but this is something that I've done, and will always do.
My one and only issue with ethics over any of my images was about photographing a basically empty farm block with lots of discarded rusting metal fragments strewn about the place, and where an old beatup banger of a truck resided in an open shed way out in the distance. The property owner came across and impolitely shoo'd me away and I deleted the images there'n'then.

If 'George' was engaged in a surreptitious activity in a public space, then I'm sure he would a fitting and appropriate fabrication to assist him in his pursuit.
As to whether it's ethical to photograph him during this engagement .. unless he request not too, there is no problem.
If you personally knew George, and knew that this could jeopardise George's relationship in any way, then ethics would come into it ... you probably wouldn't take the shot anyhow(unless you didn't like George in the first place).

It's ethical as long as you believe it to be, and it's not unethical to upload it if you have captured it(and kept it).

[Scotty72]

Just because someone is at work and / or doesn't want to be photographed has nothing to do with ethics.

My work has cameras around and photographs are taken without our consent- is that unethical.
Same with shopping centres, railway stations etc.

Criminals would love your view of things: no-one would ever have any evidence against them.

I don't like paying taxes, is my being taxed when I clearly don't want to be unethical?

Imagine a world where everything we didn't want was banned. We would still be in the dark ages.

[Scotty72]

Kym and William, I think we need to draw a clear line between an individual practising a hobby ( I would think that the vast majority of "street photography" would be done on a non commercial basis ) and photo journalism or presenting newsworthy images in the public interest.
Obviously public interest and history changing images deserve to be captured and published so that we all may be reminded of events.
Celebrity stalking by paparazzi and covert snapping of people that may be morally questionable simply don't fall into either public interest or news worthy categories to me.

Also, William, do you not find it interesting that the moral minority that is photobucket has seen it fit to delete / censor several images in that link you provided?

We already have laws about stalking / harassment / defamation. Why do you want to impose some sort of Orwellian society by banning everything?

If I pass you in the street and you are interesting, I will photograph you. However, your comment about distinguishing between citizen / media etc is dangerous - do you really want a system of licensing reporters etc where only approved voices may be heard?

Having said that, whilst I can and should be able photograph you in any public place (you can always cover your face / turn away), we already have the above laws to protect you from me if I decide to follow you around day after day / use photographs of you to intimidate or threaten you / attempt to unreasonably diminish your reputation etc.

The act of pressing a shutter button should never be illegal - only if I then do bad stuff with the resulting photos should I be called into question.

[knumbnutz]

Or if its paparazzi - then it should leave a lot to editorial interpretation and can grab a headline !

A GOOD photo tells use the story, correctly, by conveying what is happening.

Right now it is a generation of blame !
So it is always the worse not what it could be.

I remember sitting in a thai restaurant and our catholic Parrish priest was sitting at another table.
My parents said exactly the same thing - it could be anyone - his sister - friend - whoever, dont judge until you know the facts.

[knumbnutz]

Hi Arthur,
This statement sort of goes around in circles.
Public is public and private is private.
You are allowed to take a photo in a public space because simply - there is an acceptance from you that you are in a public place and have no real right of privacy.
Its purely a personal choice rather than ethics that you delete someones photo. Ethics is moral based and i dont see any ethical or moral reason to delete a photo that is taken in a public space.
On the hand if you took a photo of someone who is entitled to privacy - some one who is in a private area - whether they knew or not, it then become ethical (not to mention possibly illegal)

While we do have to accept that while in public, we do give away our right to privacy, it should be expected that we can have a limited right to some privacy in some situations if we wish.
People get into various states of mind at any time of the day and not always in private locations, so to expect that we have absolutely no right to privacy at all in public spaces is ludicrous.

If the photographer has ethical concerns about any genre of photography, then they won't practise the genre .. simple as that!.

[ricktas]

Ethics is moral based and i dont see any ethical or moral reason to delete a photo that is taken in a public space.
On the hand if you took a photo of someone who is entitled to privacy - some one who is in a private area - whether they knew or not, it then become ethical (not to mention possibly illegal)

Deleting a photo taken in a public place for an ethical or moral reason. You take the photo of a lady with two children walking towards you across a public park. The lady realises and approaches you, asking you to delete the photo. You decline! She then advises you that she has separated from an abusive husband (abuse directed at her, and her children) and she doesn't want him knowing she is living in your town, and she is concerned if you keep the photo, and put it on Facebook etc, her husband or someone who knows him might see it and it would lead him to her and the children.

There are always times when deleting a photo for ethical and moral reasons is something that is right!

[I @ M]

Why do you want to impose some sort of Orwellian society by banning everything?

I DON'T, please show me where you think that I said we should.

If I pass you in the street and you are interesting, I will photograph you. However, your comment about distinguishing between citizen / media etc is dangerous - do you really want a system of licensing reporters etc where only approved voices may be heard?

I have absolutely NO problem with being photographed in public. If someone feels that I am a subject for a meritorious shot, let them clicketh forth. I DO however have a problem with those that want to photograph people in potentially embarrassing situations. The type of people that hunt down and snap shots of either celebrities for commercial gain or simply prey on attractive members of the public for less than prurient interest really need to examine whether they are photographers or disguising their intentions in the name of an art.

Having said that, whilst I can and should be able photograph you in any public place (you can always cover your face / turn away), we already have the above laws to protect you from me if I decide to follow you around day after day / use photographs of you to intimidate or threaten you / attempt to unreasonably diminish your reputation etc.

All I see here is something along the lines of many posts in the past. I really don't know why you brought it up.

The act of pressing a shutter button should never be illegal - only if I then do bad stuff with the resulting photos should I be called into question.

I totally fail why you see fit to bring law into the discussion seeing as I haven't mentioned legalities in any of my ( quoted by you ) post and neither has the OP.

[Mark L]

.....
But let's take that discussion further, to the publishing of a person's image, that was taken without their consent.
..

What is published?
If it's posted here, then let's be honest, it won't have wide circulation. FB or news media is viewed by a lot more people. Wondering if this makes a difference in what we do?
You capture a fantastic photo of Fred Nile kissing and cuddling someone. Post here and we may think it's a great photo and offer CC. Posted elsewhere, well.......( but it was his long lost cousin from England)!
Two photos of Paris Hilton. One of her being cut out of a car after a motor vehicle accident. Legally OK (under some circumstances)....but intruding on her privacy. Don't publish.
Her (in public space) "getting out of cars without knickers and exposing genitals" is possibly what she wants published. Publish then, though I wouldn't and that has more to do with not offering her publicity than ethics. It may be a great photo. I couldn't publish it here either 'cause of site rules but it would probably be worth a few $$$$.
What is published?
Ethics is individual.

[Scotty72]

The problem with many people (not necessarily you) is that they want their own moral codes reflected laws. The I don't like it, so they should ban it mentality that infects society.