Law and Ethics in Street Photography

It seems to me that the example of the photographer shoving a camera in a person's face without permission is clearly assault.
An assault is any act (and not mere omission to act) by which a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to suffer or apprehend immediate unlawful violence.
Common Assault – s.39 Criminal Justice Act 1988
Click to expand...
I always attempt to remain unseen by my subjects because I want to capture people naturally.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
It seems to me that the example of the photographer shoving a camera in a person's face without permission is clearly assault.
I always attempt to remain unseen by my subjects because I want to capture people naturally.
Click to expand...

Indeed and Bruce Gilden is the worst for that.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
It seems to me that the example of the photographer shoving a camera in a person's face without permission is clearly assault.
Click to expand...

I agree, if a photographer did that to me he'd certainly get to appreciate what assault meant. I'd call it self-defence, but I doubt he'd see it like that.

Camera suppository anyone?
 
Last edited:
gramps said:
'Assault' only requires the threat of force, so that the recipient of the threat fears that he will be hit.
'Battery' is the actual application of force.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but how can jumping in front of someone and taking their picture imply a threat of force?
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
Fair enough, but how can jumping in front of someone and taking their picture imply a threat of force?
Click to expand...
If you split your comment, "jumping in front of someone" could be taken of as a threat, depending upon circumstances however "taking their picture" is unlikely to be threatening.
But whereas the hairy bricklayer is unlikely to feel 'threatened' by a photographer jumping out in front of him, the whole scenario could be 'threatening' to a young girl.
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
Fair enough, but how can jumping in front of someone and taking their picture imply a threat of force?
Click to expand...
As shown in the second video: someone jumping in front of you could well make you aprehend an immediate threat of violence.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
As shown in the second video: someone jumping in front of you could well make you aprehend an immediate threat of violence.
Click to expand...
Yeah, if someone jumps in front of you in a quiet street or a dark alley, but he was taking photos in a busy street.
I'm not saying I like what he's doing, but it's highly unlikely that he'd be charged with assault.
He's more likely to be assaulted.....
 
www.theguardian.com

Joel Meyerowitz: 'brilliant mistakes ... amazing accidents'

The photographer talks to Sean O'Hagan about his new book, which celebrates his 50 years of finding the 'wow' factor in everyday places
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
'I ask Meyerowitz about the combative, confrontational style of street photography espoused by the likes of fellow New Yorker Bruce Gilden, and he grows visibly angry for the only time in our conversation. "He's a f*****g bully. I despise the work, I despise the attitude, he's an aggressive bully and all the pictures look alike because he only has one idea – 'I'm gonna embarrass you, I'm going to humiliate you.' I'm sorry, but no."'
 
Retune said:
www.theguardian.com

Joel Meyerowitz: 'brilliant mistakes ... amazing accidents'

The photographer talks to Sean O'Hagan about his new book, which celebrates his 50 years of finding the 'wow' factor in everyday places
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
'I ask Meyerowitz about the combative, confrontational style of street photography espoused by the likes of fellow New Yorker Bruce Gilden, and he grows visibly angry for the only time in our conversation. "He's a f*****g bully. I despise the work, I despise the attitude, he's an aggressive bully and all the pictures look alike because he only has one idea – 'I'm gonna embarrass you, I'm going to humiliate you.' I'm sorry, but no."'
Click to expand...

Yep, he pretty much echoes my opinion of Gilden. I'd say I'm amazed that he hasn't been seriously assaulted but, from what I've seen, he selects his "targets" carefully.
 
gramps said:
If you split your comment, "jumping in front of someone" could be taken of as a threat, depending upon circumstances however "taking their picture" is unlikely to be threatening.
But whereas the hairy bricklayer is unlikely to feel 'threatened' by a photographer jumping out in front of him, the whole scenario could be 'threatening' to a young girl.
Click to expand...

Or alternatively the Public Order Act S5
Harassment, alarm or distress.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)uses threatening [F1or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [F1or abusive],

within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

(2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.

(3)It is a defence for the accused to prove—

(a)that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, or

(b)that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or

(c)that his conduct was reasonable.

(4)F2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(5)F2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(6)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

One could ask what is 'Disorderly Behaviour'? In layman's terms if you are not behaving in an orderly way then it is disorderly
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Street photography is more likely to breach the Public Order Act rather than assault; especially Section 5 of the public order act.

ETA - apologies; just seen post No.20 (y)
 
Last edited:
Coming late to the conversation, but as with most things that skirt the edges of what is and what isn't an actual offense, the deciding factors will inevitably come down to intent and perception.
What was the intent of the photographer and how were his or her actions perceived by the person being photographed?
I'm in an irregular street photography collective here in Germany and we have as members, press photographers and 'street' photographers from all over the world. We host exhibitions and seminars fairly regularly (up until Covid, anyway), and these sorts of discussion are common.

Back in the 90s and 00s when I was still in the Army, we started getting mandatory awareness briefings regarding toxic behaviour in the workplace: sexual harassment, bullying, and improper conduct, etc. The key lesson I recall from the discussions following those briefings was that regardless of intent, it's how an action is perceived by the recipient that ultimately decides how an act is classified.
Just because a statement or phrase is intended as 'banter', if the person on the other end of those remarks is made uncomfortable, then it's unacceptable. Just because a friendly hug is meant as reassurance, if the person getting hugged is made uncomfortable by it then it's physical harassment.

While Bruce Gilden's approach isn't actually illegal (in the USA - he might not be so lucky in France or Germany where there are stricter guidelines regarding public privacy than in the US or UK - a person walking in the street is fair game whereas a person sitting at an outdoor table at a cafe or restaurant isn't, for example), it is morally questionable. Making people feel threatened is never a good thing, unless you're a collection agent for the Mob...

Bottom line: If the subject of the photograph feels their privacy is being invaded, then it is. It's also far better to have the consent and cooperation of your subjects than risk antagonising them.
 
Arkady001 said:
Coming late to the conversation, but as with most things that skirt the edges of what is and what isn't an actual offense, the deciding factors will inevitably come down to intent and perception....
...Bottom line: If the subject of the photograph feels their privacy is being invaded, then it is. It's also far better to have the consent and cooperation of your subjects than risk antagonising them.
Click to expand...
It's a good job I sneaked a peek at what you posted here or I wouldn't have realised that you're not just another "street bully".

There is nothing in this post with which I can disagree and I apologise for rushing to judgement on the other thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top