Street Photography -Privacy vs. Free Speech Rights

[Alan Edward Klein]

Many countries restrict taking photographs of strangers even on public streets. Privacy is the argument for such laws. In the US, street photography is considered constitutionally protected speech and allowed unless the photos are used commercially. How do photographers here feel about the different approaches?

 

[NiallerM]

Many countries restrict taking photographs of strangers even on public streets. Privacy is the argument for such laws. In the US, street photography is considered constitutionally protected speech and allowed unless the photos are used commercially. How do photographers here feel about the different approaches?

Your question is slightly loaded in asking how photographers feel. Should it not be as to how we feel as people?

My view (and one which is covered by law here) is that my image is a key part of my personal data and cannot be used by anyone else with my express permission.

It has to be borne in mind that no rights are absolute before discussion of them. There will always be fudges when they are in competion with other rights, or can lead to compromising public safety etc.

It really isn't a big deal. I take my camera on the streets. So long as I am open about it (the new mirrorless lenses being huge helps that), people will avoid me or not. If someone asked me to delete photos I would oblige. Occasionally, if I saw someone particularly worthy of a photo, I will speak first. Sometimes, no words, but a simple gesture is enough. A nod from them, perhaps. I will always agree to forward an image if requested.

It's a cultural thing, but also a self-defensive thing which is rooted in culture, but has more modern underpinning. If you have been involved peripherally in a case of identity theft, then you will appreciate what can happen with uncontrolled reproduction of your image.

You mentioned in another post that once you're in public you are fair game, but that ignores the amount of personal data that can be gleaned from your appearance, and your movements, and your behaviour.

It's something which is handled with a light touch by the authorities, though.

 

[loccdor]

I've had my picture taken when I was in my backyard, in a place visible from the sidewalk, by a random stranger with a camera passing by. I was just relaxing in some spring sunshine after a long winter and believed I was alone and unobserved.

It made me feel uncomfortable because I had just stepped a few feet from my house onto the porch and it was unexpected. After he took it, he waved at me, I looked confused, and he walked away.

All that being said, I would not want to take away his right to take the picture. Not even if it was used commercially, not even if such a picture was taken for the purposes of carnal gratification. I don't believe that everything which gives me a bad feeling should be illegal - there are too many negative consequences of that mindset.

While I occasionally take pictures of strangers without asking, I don't do it while they're in their homes or on their porches. For me that's where the line between public and private space becomes gray.

 

[dpurdy]

I hate it when someone takes my picture. I tend to treat people like I wish they would treat me.. so I don't snap photos of someone else's life... unless they ask me to.

 

[NiallerM]

Many countries restrict taking photographs of strangers even on public streets. Privacy is the argument for such laws. In the US, street photography is considered constitutionally protected speech and allowed unless the photos are used commercially. How do photographers here feel about the different approaches?

I don't think that privacy is the sole reason - although privacy law does provide a legal path against publication. I think that it is also a cultural thing from both sides of the camera. There is a strong element of intrusion involved. This creates something of a taint of social disapproval.

The resistance to it is not simply legal, but also embedded in the psyche.

 

[NiallerM]

I've had my picture taken when I was in my backyard, in a place visible from the sidewalk, by a random stranger with a camera passing by. I was just relaxing in some spring sunshine after a long winter and believed I was alone and unobserved.

It made me feel uncomfortable because I had just stepped a few feet from my house onto the porch and it was unexpected. After he took it, he waved at me, I looked confused, and he walked away.

All that being said, I would not want to take away his right to take the picture. Not even if it was used commercially, not even if such a picture was taken for the purposes of carnal gratification. I don't believe that everything which gives me a bad feeling should be illegal - there are too many negative consequences of that mindset.

While I occasionally take pictures of strangers without asking, I don't do it while they're in their homes or on their porches. For me that's where the line between public and private space becomes gray.

Nobody suggests that you must be protected from all forms of discomfort. However, feeling discomfort at an event is often a justified response to it.

 

[loccdor]

Nobody suggests that you must be protected from all forms of discomfort. However, feeling discomfort at an event is often a justified response to it.

No disagreement from me. I'm making a distinction between having a justifiable feeling, and in how much that feeling should have the full force of law behind it, rather than being left as an ordinary everyday matter for people to settle on their own.

 

[Don_ih]

my image is a key part of my personal data

Which is bizarre. Your "image" is nothing until it is established in some way. You get dressed, comb your hair, walk outside - you're just a stumbling bundle of cloth and meat. That's not an image. Someone else takes a photo of you, that's their image. They decided how that should look - you're set-dressing. It's especially true if the photographer doesn't know who you are. You could just as easily be a statue or a mailbox or a dog from the photographer's point of view because your identity - your person - doesn't matter for the photo.

 

[BrianShaw]

Don, have you even scanned (reviewed, not digitized) the EU GDPR? The person you are attempting to correct seems to be using words in accordance with the specific EU regulation context rather than common English language usage. Definitions and word usage differences are important…

 

[Dave Ludwig]

Reading a few key points of Carpenter v. The United States I find the following word phrase interesting. People have a “reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of your physical movements, including your movements in public”. I am sorry but I do not see words that declare it an “absolute right”. When checking the word “expectation” against a thesaurus the first alt. word is “Hope”. Like you have a reasonable expectation that driving to work you will not have an accident, but you could, and there is nothing you can do to prevent it. Why, because you are in public.

Then there is privacy pertaining to your “physical movements” including public. A photograph is a static split second and does not show what, why, or any action that you may be thinking to take while in public. This wording does however create a gray area when someone is followed in public and photographed multiple times as they move through public. You are now borderline stalking.

I believe people would be horrified at how much of their actual privacy is an open book. My car snitches on me to insurance companies looking for a reason to raise my rates. Funny thing is I pay for that privilege.

At the end of the day be respectful.

 

[snusmumriken]

What makes photography special in this respect? Would it be more, or less, OK to quickly sketch the likeness of a stranger on the street?

 

[cowanw]

Many countries restrict taking photographs of strangers even on public streets. Privacy is the argument for such laws. In the US, street photography is considered constitutionally protected speech and allowed unless the photos are used commercially. How do photographers here feel about the different approaches?

Which countries in particular? Looking at Canada, Britain, Europe, Australia, and India, I find that taking a picture is not at all restricted but publishing or transmitting it can be. Which sounds substantially the same as your country.
I am sure Matt will comment.

 

[Don_ih]

Don, have you even scanned (reviewed, not digitized) the EU GDPR? The person you are attempting to correct seems to be using words in accordance with the specific EU regulation context rather than common English language usage. Definitions and word usage differences are important…

Why do you suppose I used the specific word "person"?

The whole idea of personal identity is too precious, anyway. For the most part, whoever anyone is., no one else cares.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I just thought that the police follow us around with cameras mounted everywhere. So we have government intrusion into our lives, the worse kind, because it's government we mainly fear from possible harm. Yet, there are few complaints from the public for that surveillance. There's more when some stranger with a little P&S takes our picture when we get really upset, someone who can do little to us.

Are these policed areas where you see bigger challenge to our rights? Which raises the question. If we seek privacy, what's the point if government surveils us as we walk from block to block tracking our every move? Why aren't people complaining about that loss of privacy? Are we confused about where our concerns really should be?

 

[Don_ih]

If we seek privacy, what's the point if government surveils us as we walk from block to block tracking our every move? Why aren't people complaining about that loss of privacy?

Is there an expectation of privacy walking out in the street?

 

[BrianShaw]

I just thought that the police follow us around with cameras mounted everywhere. So we have government intrusion into our lives, the worse kind, because it's government we mainly fear from possible harm. Yet, there are few complaints from the public for that surveillance. There's more when some stranger with a little P&S takes our picture when we get really upset, someone who can do little to us.

Are these policed areas where you see bigger challenge to our rights? Which raises the question. If we seek privacy, what's the point if government surveils us as we walk from block to block tracking our every move? Why aren't people complaining about that loss of privacy? Are we confused about where our concerns really should be?

SOAPBOX topic…

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

SOAPBOX topic…

Well, I have my views on various topics. What do you think about it?

 

[Chuck_P]

Is there an expectation of privacy walking out in the street?

Exacly. In my very first reading of the OP my very first thought was that if you're walking down a public street, what expectation of privacy could you actually claim for yourself that would make any sense? At the moment I can't think of one.

 

[lecarp]

As a person who is also a photographer by profession, I do not believe anyone should be photographed without there knowledge and consent, by anyone or anything.

 

[cliveh]

As a person who is also a photographer by profession, I do not believe anyone should be photographed without there knowledge and consent, by anyone or anything.

How to capture the indecisive moment.

 

[snusmumriken]

As a person who is also a photographer by profession, I do not believe anyone should be photographed without there knowledge and consent, by anyone or anything.

But why? It’s just like seeing them, but you make the moment last a bit longer.

 

[lecarp]

But why? It’s just like seeing them, but you make the moment last a bit longer.

No, it is not. You are creating an object that you can share with others (that did not see them on the street) without their knowledge. That is not the same as sharing your memory of seeing them.

 

[lecarp]

How to capture the indecisive moment.

I do not make a habit of photographing people, so few that I can name each one. I do not take snapshots either.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

As a person who is also a photographer by profession, I do not believe anyone should be photographed without there knowledge and consent, by anyone or anything.

Does that include photojournalism and current news?

 

[lecarp]

I just thought that the police follow us around with cameras mounted everywhere. So we have government intrusion into our lives, the worse kind, because it's government we mainly fear from possible harm. Yet, there are few complaints from the public for that surveillance. There's more when some stranger with a little P&S takes our picture when we get really upset, someone who can do little to us.

Are thrketese policed areas where you see bigger challenge to our rights? Which raises the question. If we seek privacy, what's the point if government surveils us as we walk from block to block tracking our every move? Why aren't people complaining about that loss of privacy? Are we confused about where our concerns really should be?

Which is about to become more disturbing than ever.

Have you ever stopped to read the privacy disclaimer you agree to by stepping into Whole Foods Market! And, they would like you to pay with your hand print. I think not! Everything is really getting out of hand with our lack of privacy.