Start of the death of street photography in the UK?

DemiLion

DemiLion

Messages
12,783
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
No
Twitter is the first social media company to effectively ban non-consensual photography of private individuals - despite the fact that there is no law against it in the UK (unlike France or several other countries).

How long before others such as Facebook, IG and Flickr follow suit?


https://blog.BANNED/en_us/topics/company/2021/private-information-policy-update
 
DemiLion said:
Twitter is the first social media company to effectively ban non-consensual photography of private individuals - despite the fact that there is no law against it in the UK (unlike France or several other countries).

How long before others such as Facebook, IG and Flickr follow suit?


https://blog.BANNED/en_us/topics/company/2021/private-information-policy-update
Click to expand...
Very interesting. Can understand the rationale, though God knows how they’ll police it. based on that article it looks like only on a complaint:

“When we receive a report that a Tweet contains unauthorized private media, we will now take action in line with our range of enforcement options.”

Just encourages us all to engage more with our subjects I guess (and of course make sure any events work contracts clearly include stipulations of how images maybe used and shared). A lot of that should be happening anyway.

thanks for sharing it, interesting development
 
I must admit I have never understood the need to take and publish photographs of strangers. Perhaps if everything we went out in the streets with our cameras Jo public started taking photos of us all the time we would think differently.

Just like with the scum of the photographic world the Paparazzi thinking they have the right to photograph selebraties regardless of what they are doing in public or private.

We live in much less tolerant times, creating around photographing strangers is only going to attract bad things.
 
Don't see an issue to be honest. They are not banning photographs of people in public, just removing those they get complaints about. Can't see why any self-respecting photographer would not remove a photograph if someone asked them to.
 
Paul-H said:
I must admit I have never understood the need to take and publish photographs of strangers. Perhaps if everything we went out in the streets with our cameras Jo public started taking photos of us all the time we would think differently.

Just like with the scum of the photographic world the Paparazzi thinking they have the right to photograph selebraties regardless of what they are doing in public or private.

We live in much less tolerant times, creating around photographing strangers is only going to attract bad things.
Click to expand...

I don't know exactly where you live but for the average Brit their faces, actions and movements are recorded multiple times during the day, in the street, in the club, the bar, the office ... even the toilets in some instances!
 
gramps said:
I don't know exactly where you live but for the average Brit their faces, actions and movements are recorded multiple times during the day, in the street, in the club, the bar, the office ... even the toilets in some instances!
Click to expand...
However if you take their photograph they don’t like it but yet because the other camera is attached to a building with an operator far away that’s OK for them. Countries like Germany have strict laws which affect street photography but still you can find street photographers from Germany.
 
Just to answer the topic title, I don't think it would be the death of street photography in the UK. It existed before social media but when the various sites became available the genre totally exploded as there were new places to be seen. So, if candid public images were banned on all platforms, there would a decline but it wouldn't prevent everyone from shooting street as new avenues would open.
I think most people shoot street photography and post to instagram, etc.. to be famous/popular and receive love! So it could be interesting to see how motivations and interests change. Pre social media there was only a handful street photographers in London and they all knew each other, and it was a passion with little expectation of fame or money.

As for the announcement from Twitter, I'm not sure why they feel need to go beyond the law with regards to public photography in in order to protect people from harassment? doesn't protections exist in law already? I'm sure I've seen examples of bullying videos/photos on FB and Twitter, and both have refused to take them down when police have been involved.
 
This policy is not applicable to media featuring public figures or individuals when media and accompanying Tweet text are shared in the public interest or add value to public discourse.

However, if the purpose of the dissemination of private images of public figures or individuals who are part of public conversations is to harass, intimidate, or use fear to silence them, we may remove the content in line with our policy against abusive behavior.. Similarly, private nude images of public individuals will continue to be actioned under our non-consensual nudity policy.
Click to expand...
Is Street in the public interest, or does it add value to public discourse?

As art, definitely…
 
Paul-H said:
I must admit I have never understood the need to take and publish photographs of strangers. Perhaps if everything we went out in the streets with our cameras Jo public started taking photos of us all the time we would think differently.

Just like with the scum of the photographic world the Paparazzi thinking they have the right to photograph selebraties regardless of what they are doing in public or private.

We live in much less tolerant times, creating around photographing strangers is only going to attract bad things.
Click to expand...
I’m gonna take a wild guess that you have no interest in photographing people?
Whilst I’m not that keen on Street Photography, the vast majority of images I’ve shot in my 40 years of photography have relied in ‘implicit’ rather than explicit consent.
I’ve little interest in taking pictures of things other than human beings, and given the vast majority of ‘art’ relates to the human condition I’d suggest it’s your thinking that’s out of line with how humans ‘are’. :)
 
DemiLion said:
Twitter is the first social media company to effectively ban non-consensual photography of private individuals - despite the fact that there is no law against it in the UK (unlike France or several other countries).

How long before others such as Facebook, IG and Flickr follow suit?


https://blog.BANNED/en_us/topics/company/2021/private-information-policy-update
Click to expand...

I don't think that photo based social media will survive if they do this.... Anybody can be in the background!
 
gramps said:
I don't know exactly where you live but for the average Brit their faces, actions and movements are recorded multiple times during the day, in the street, in the club, the bar, the office ... even the toilets in some instances!
Click to expand...
There is a complete diference between CCTV/people in the street where there is a finite number of people you dont know seeing you and an image of you being posted to the internet where potentially the whole world can see. I have fallen out with people over their constant need to take photos at social gatherings and feel the need to post them on social media without asking any of the people whether thats ok. I now just do my best to avoid being in any pictures.

Surely this policy is aimed at photos where someone has posted images of a compromising nature rather than street photography. I very much doubt that anyone caught by a street photographer ever gets to see the photo online as they are likely to not follow anyone that uploads or views/shares the images. I doubt any of my family have ever seen a street photograph unless i have shown them.
 
As far as i can tell its just so they can police vile little scum buckets who use photographs to harass, bully, humiliate or otherwise be a total moron towards others.

I doubt very much they will police ALL photographs with people in the background, sounds a bit daft
 
It's all been said as far as the original question goes so expanding the subject a little, what do street photographers actually do with their images. I know there are some well known street togs who produce books etc. but the others? For the handful of half-decent landscapes I have shot I print them and hang them on the wall, would you print and hang a photo of a stranger on your wall? Genuine question ...
 
Phil V said:
I’m gonna take a wild guess that you have no interest in photographing people?
Whilst I’m not that keen on Street Photography, the vast majority of images I’ve shot in my 40 years of photography have relied in ‘implicit’ rather than explicit consent.
I’ve little interest in taking pictures of things other than human beings, and given the vast majority of ‘art’ relates to the human condition I’d suggest it’s your thinking that’s out of line with how humans ‘are’. :)
Click to expand...

Human depiction in "art" is I think usually more posed and consensual than street photography. If we're talking brush or pencil or similar on paper.

I don't usually get excited about the street stuff we see on line and taking or looking at pictures of strangers in town centres at f1.x doesn't hold a lot of interest for me but just now and again I do like what I'm looking at. If the picture captures something significant and a human reaction to it then that's different but most of the street stuff I see doesn't. The street stuff I like most has aged a bit so maybe I'll like todays f1.8 shots of pretty women in town in 30 years time, if I'm still looking. I've watched the Vivian Maier documentary a few times and do find her pictures interesting but not to the point that I'd want one of her pictures of a stranger framed and on a wall at home or want to rush out and try and do it myself. I don't think this makes me less human or less caring about the human condition, it's just that looking at pictures of strangers in dress and situations as they exist today usually doesn't grab my interest but if it grabs others and evokes memories or feelings then good luck to them. As always good luck to those who like taking and looking at pictures of strangers.
 
sirch said:
It's all been said as far as the original question goes so expanding the subject a little, what do street photographers actually do with their images. I know there are some well known street togs who produce books etc. but the others? For the handful of half-decent landscapes I have shot I print them and hang them on the wall, would you print and hang a photo of a stranger on your wall? Genuine question ...
Click to expand...

I got into this in my post above. I do think that some street stuff is possibly best viewed as an opportunity to get out and enjoy a days shooting and if that's the case there's nothing wrong with that and at least there's the possibility of some interaction with people whereas if I go for a walk I might take dozens of pictures of scenes, trees, leaves and other things and never see another person let alone photograph them.

There are a lot of art featuring strangers I'd happily have on a wall but street stuff is for me best viewed on line.
 
sirch said:
It's all been said as far as the original question goes so expanding the subject a little, what do street photographers actually do with their images. I know there are some well known street togs who produce books etc. but the others? For the handful of half-decent landscapes I have shot I print them and hang them on the wall, would you print and hang a photo of a stranger on your wall? Genuine question ...
Click to expand...
Oddly, I had a friend ask for a few prints of my street photography images that include strangers to hang on their wall. The ones she chosen, I wouldn't hang on my wall..

There are a number of sub-genres in street(? if you call it that), where the street image is more focused on the aesthetic - where the focus might be on light and composition, or colours and abstraction - something inspired by Fan Ho or Saul Leiter. It think these images could sell well and look good on a wall.
 
benc98 said:
Oddly, I had a friend ask for a few prints of my street photography images that include strangers to hang on their wall. The ones she chosen, I wouldn't hang on my wall..

There are a number of sub-genres in street(? if you call it that), where the street image is more focused on the aesthetic - where the focus might be on light and composition, or colours and abstraction - something inspired by Fan Ho or Saul Leiter. It think these images could sell well and look good on a wall.
Click to expand...

This I can understand as I can can see the appeal of finding a location or scene and waiting for a person to walk into it to provide a human dimension to the composition and look but street stuff that has a stranger as the main interest is something I (usually) can't really get excited about.

PS.
And actually I do do that sometimes with my walk about stuff.
 
Last edited:
It is going to take a complaint from an involved person or an official, for action to be taken.
In the case of normal street photography that is highly unlikely to happen.
But in any event, street photographers do not usually use Twitter to show their images.

However it does provide some protection from abusive images.
 
AgentOrange76 said:
There is a complete diference between CCTV/people in the street where there is a finite number of people you dont know seeing you and an image of you being posted to the internet where potentially the whole world can see.
Click to expand...
With the proliferation of CCTV TV shows, Youtube etc etc I'm not so sure - though there have certainly been prosecutions for the misuse of CCTV footage.
The truth is that you do not know what is being done with the footage, you can only rely on honest adherence to the Data Protection Regulations by all.
 
gramps said:
With the proliferation of CCTV TV shows, Youtube etc etc I'm not so sure - though there have certainly been prosecutions for the misuse of CCTV footage.
The truth is that you do not know what is being done with the footage, you can only rely on honest adherence to the Data Protection Regulations by all.
Click to expand...

I'd guess that much cctv street footage is wide angle with people being less identifiable and although they may be vaguely aware that they'be being filmed it is perhaps a much less personal and more understandable experience compared to someone pointing a camera at them. Street stuff with a camera may be different in the larger more tourist friendly cities but in other places people may be less sympathetic towards strangers taking their picture.
 
sirch said:
It's all been said as far as the original question goes so expanding the subject a little, what do street photographers actually do with their images. I know there are some well known street togs who produce books etc. but the others? For the handful of half-decent landscapes I have shot I print them and hang them on the wall, would you print and hang a photo of a stranger on your wall? Genuine question ...
Click to expand...

I was watching antiques roadshow the other night and someone took along an oil painting of one of their relatives painted many years ago by a lesser known artist. The expert valued it at around £1500, not enough money to interest a collector so therefore who pays £1500 for an image of a total stranger to put on their wall?

Someone does :thinking:
 
sirch said:
It's all been said as far as the original question goes so expanding the subject a little, what do street photographers actually do with their images. I know there are some well known street togs who produce books etc. but the others? For the handful of half-decent landscapes I have shot I print them and hang them on the wall, would you print and hang a photo of a stranger on your wall? Genuine question ...
Click to expand...
Why does it matter if a picture is hung on a wall? Putting a picture in a magazine or book (or a zine) is just as good a destination for photographs IMO.

What I think is important about 'street photography' (I hate the term BTW), even the seemingly uninteresting, is that with the passage of time the pictures which survive will become fascinating historical documents. that might simply be at the level of, "Did people really wear hairstyles like that?". They will show places, events, objects and lots more that have disappeared from daily life. The casual street photographs will show stuff that is overlooked by more focussed recorders such as the press. They'll show the mundane, the quotidian.

People have a great appetite for looking at photos like that, including family snaps. https://www.instagram.com/thepeoples_archive/

And @Terrywoodenpic, there is lots of street photography on Twitter - https://BANNED/StreetPhotosBW
 
Last edited:
Ed Sutton said:
Why does it matter if a picture is hung on a wall? Putting a picture in a magazine or book (or a zine) is just as good a destination for photographs IMO.
Click to expand...
It doesn't and i never said it did. I am genuinely interested what street 'togs do with their images and just used that as an example of what I do with my landscapes. As has been said above, some people do hang them on the wall and that's great, I'm just interested because I think photos should be seen.

I suppose if they are in a book or zine then I would follow that up with what do you do with the book or zine? If you only print one copy and put that on your coffee table again that's great.
 
sirch said:
It doesn't and i never said it did. I am genuinely interested what street 'togs do with their images and just used that as an example of what I do with my landscapes. As has been said above, some people do hang them on the wall and that's great, I'm just interested because I think photos should be seen.

I suppose if they are in a book or zine then I would follow that up with what do you do with the book or zine? If you only print one copy and put that on your coffee table again that's great.
Click to expand...
I agree photos should be seen. There's possibly more chance of a book or zine being seen by people other than the photographer than a single print on their wall as they are things which can be handed around. That's what I try to do with the zines I make. I have prints on my walls too, but they're a mixed bunch - one is of a stranger and his tractor.
 
Yes. Quite. I was thinking more about the artists alter ego or how they may dress on a weekend. Even lumberjacks sometimes hang around in bars dressed differently to when they're chopping down trees.
 
I can't say anything about the numbers, but street photographs (and documentary photographs, though I realise they aren't the same) still end up in museums, art galleries, commercial galleries, and university departments. Even with TV and smart phones, etc, serious street photography, I think, still provides a unique cultural and social record of our time.

I support Twitter trying to clamp down on the abusive use of photographs, but street photography is part of photography's history, and part of our cultural and social history. I think it would be a great loss to lose this.

EDIT: I feel the need to add, that smartphones are well suited to serious street photography, and that simply using a smart phone doesn't exclude you from being a serious photographer. About half the images in this article were made with a smart phone, the rest with Fujis. All taken by a full time professional documentary photographer

www.nytimes.com

A City Ruptured (Published 2021)

The pandemic’s toll on New York City’s economy and way of life was laid bare on its streets.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Human depiction in "art" is I think usually more posed and consensual than street photography. If we're talking brush or pencil or similar on paper.
Click to expand...
A little wider; I posted art being mostly concerned with the human condition.

‘Art’ including music, poetry, drama, prose, sculpture, as well as the 2d media :)
 
Phil V said:
A little wider; I posted art being mostly concerned with the human condition.

‘Art’ including music, poetry, drama, prose, sculpture, as well as the 2d media :)
Click to expand...


Indeed it is, more's the pity. As a species we are obsessed with ourselves. (Sorry that's a bit of a tangent.....)
 
myotis said:
EDIT: I feel the need to add, that smartphones are well suited to serious street photography, and that simply using a smart phone doesn't exclude you from being a serious photographer. About half the images in this article were made with a smart phone, the rest with Fujis. All taken by a full time professional documentary photographer

www.nytimes.com

A City Ruptured (Published 2021)

The pandemic’s toll on New York City’s economy and way of life was laid bare on its streets.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
Click to expand...

Smartphones may have made photography much more mainstream and ubiquitous than ever and on the whole that's a good thing but I just can't take to taking pictures by jabbing at a screen held at half arms length in front of my face. Millions can, so I do realise that I'm in a minority.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top