Should people have the right not to be photographed

D

Dave Routledge

Messages
90
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi everyone

The law is clear(ish). If it is a public place and we are not causing a breach of the peace or collecting information for an act of terror, then as photographers we are at liberty to photograph members of the public without asking their permission. My question is, is this right? Why should we be allowed (provided we are not trangressing all the possible illegal scenarios) to photograph someone if it is against their wish to be photographed? I am not stating an opinion here, merely posing the question.




God bless
Dave
 
i would never take an "up close" photo of someone without their permission.
 
I think it depends how close you are to them and how discreet in taking the shot. I'm assuming here that it is 'people photography' rather than street scenes in general, if they are unaware then probably no harm done, however shoving a camera uninvited into someones face is an intrusion into someone elses life, and if they object, common courtesy should prevail regardless of whether you have the "right" or not in my opinion. For people appearing in a shot though not the specific target I would probably ignore any 'requests' with a polite refusal stating the facts.
 
stokecity_m said:
i would never take an "up close" photo of someone without their permission.
Click to expand...

I don't see the distinction, are you saying it would be okay to take a paparazzo-type shot with a 600mm lens, but not one if you were standing within close (read punching) distance?
 
From a 'hobby' point of view - If I as the photographer knew it was against the subjects wish to be photographed then I wouldn't do it - regardless of the law. It's just manners really.

A crowded street scene - I'd happily take the shot and with the boot on the other foot I'd happily be in the shot.

A street performer - I'd happily take the shot although I'd probably make it obvious i was doing it.

Fire off a dozen shots in a strangers face - I wouldn't do it and I'd not like it done to me unless permission was asked / given.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
I don't see the distinction, are you saying it would be okay to take a paparazzo-type shot with a 600mm lens, but not one if you were standing within close (read punching) distance?
Click to expand...

sorry i didn't word it very well, i mean if say they are the only item in the picture - i'd be fine if they weren't the main focus but happened to be included in the picture.
 
So long as a photographer doesn't get in a persons way.

My pet hate with the paparazzi is that they go right upto people, cause a scene and so forth so then they're not getting the celeb living their life, should the pics be taken from a distance, celebs can't play upto the cameras...
 
the simple reply is yes , i hate having mine taken so i can respect anyone else not wanting to either
 
Dave Routledge said:
Hi everyone

The law is clear(ish). If it is a public place and we are not causing a breach of the peace or collecting information for an act of terror, then as photographers we are at liberty to photograph members of the public without asking their permission. My question is, is this right? Why should we be allowed (provided we are not trangressing all the possible illegal scenarios) to photograph someone if it is against their wish to be photographed? I am not stating an opinion here, merely posing the question.




God bless
Dave
Click to expand...


Of course their wish of not to be photographed should be respected ... many people do not feel comfortable with their image being recorded ... whether it is legal or not is irrelevant!
 
Its a hard question to answer really. It really depends on what there using it for but you can't base a law around that. If its a young lass using it for a college project then that's fine by me but if they post it on facebook or there bedroom dart board then its different.
 
I'm torn 50:50 I think.

I think if the person is the only thing in the photo it's a bit different to if you were taking some building for example and happened to get someone in the shot.

Andy S
 
We are all recorded on camera many times everyday. I behave as if I am on camera all the time - flies done up, clean nose, being relatively good etc etc. My job sometimes involves me getting photographed, just keep smiling. :cool: It's not a big deal.
 
No, however I do find Candids (specifically the closeup variety of random people) a bit odd and I'm not a fan of them. However a shot which happens to include them then fine, or a shot of someone doing something public (haven't explained that well, but I mean street performer, people doing a marathon etc.) also fine.

The problem is if people have the right not to be photographed then it would be very difficult to get any photos in a populated area as technically all people in the shot would have to consent...
 
MagicMynx said:
If the powers that be can record images of everyone in public, then I feel that joe public should also be able to.

Whether or not I wouldn't take someones photo because they don't want it to be taken, is subjective.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with this argument and I hear it used a lot. Let's be clear, these recording devices that put people on camera are there for more than just someones hobby, usually it is for security. You can't compare this to a photographer taking a picture of someone else just for a hobby for their own pleasure.

I don't think it should be against the law but if someone objects or make it clear they are uncomfortable the photographer should respect that and not get annoyed about the fact they don't want their photo taken, unlike some recent rants on here where people seem to think they have a right to take someones photo whether they liked it or not.

It's all about not being a jerk basically
 
No. We should be able to take pictures in public. I'm against restrictive laws.

I think photography plays an important part in documenting social history. To lose that would be a crime.

Look at all the images of things like the miners strike, the social housing changes in the 60's and 70's.

All that will be lost to future generations and that's the real crime.
 
joescrivens said:
I don't think it should be against the law but if someone objects or make it clear they are uncomfortable the photographer should respect that and not get annoyed about the fact they don't want their photo taken, unlike some recent rants on here where people seem to think they have a right to take someones photo whether they liked it or not.

It's all about not being a jerk basically
Click to expand...
That is an issue between the photographer and their chosen subject - not everyone will be happy to be photographed just as not every photographer will want to intrude. Some will. Some have to. Some record events that show life in a way we may not have considered had they not taken those pictures.

To tell photographers 'not to be a jerk' is just putting your own moral judgement on events. Events and issues that you may not even have the capability of comprehending. :shrug:
 
Photographers should have the right to photograph anyone they like in a public place as long as they're not breaking any laws... Having said that, if I took someone's picture and they politely asked me to delete it, then I would gladly do so. On the other hand, if the same person came up to me and launched into a tirade about having their photograph taken, I'd probably tell them to go forth and multiply! :D

I don't tend to do a lot of street photography anyway. It makes me feel a bit uncomfortable and it's very difficult to be discreet with a bloody great DSLR and lens pointed at someone. :)

Si
 
A complex question to be sure - I'd say purely from a liberty point of view if you're in public and people can see you then you can't expect any real privacy.

I think the problem is between stalking type issues and publicising something without permission. For instance, if you wee'd yourself in the street and I took a photo and stuck it on the internet than that would be unacceptable but if I'm taking a piccy of a landmark and you happen to be infront of it then where's the harm.

I'm sick of having my rights trampled on using the excuse of terrorism and this is just the latest step. Can't imagine where it will end - gulags I'd expect!
 
It's a different set of rules for celebs - sorry but it is. They first court publicity and then complain that their privacy is invaded? Double-standards. And half these 'complaints' are made to ensure that there are sufficient numbers of photographers in attendance at their next outing in case 'something' happens.
There are many figures in public life that lead perfectly normal lives - even for the glitterati: all you need to do to achieve this is keep your underwear on when getting out of Limos. Or stop shagging your team-mates' missus...

For ordinary members of the public it's an entirely different story: why should someone just walking down the street, minding their own business be accosted in any way?

I make a point of asking permission before photographing people I encounter.
One of the best ways of getting 'candids' isn't as many people seem to think achieved by doing 'sniper-shots' with a 600mm lens, but by engaging with the subject and putting them at ease first, so that they carry on doing whatever activity it was that drew your attention to them in the first place.
It takes a bit longer, but quite often you get some background information on your subject that makes the image better anyway - and more 'sell-able' if that's your aim - remember, a photo is worthless without a caption.
 
depends how you use it and if it really is an invasion of privacy
in crowd shots you cant avoid getting some closeups especially if the main subject is something else
if i saw my face on a shot and felt it was not on i would contact the photographer if possible and talk about it...to what end?

specific shots of individuals are usually taken when abroad and of photogenic people who may not be able to communicate their approval...children especially



a few pencils and sweets are not on in the uk....but i resolved that that was sufficient
 
I am quite happy that photographers can currently snap people in a public place and would not want to see that law changed. Civil liberties have already been eroded massively and imo that would be just on more gone. If the state can point hundreds of CCTV cameras at us with ever increasing face recognition technology, etc, then it seems somewhat perverse to say that a photographer cannot take a picture of a single moment in time.

Thats my general opinion. My personal feeling as a photographer doing it is that I can easily do the thing of pointing a 24-70 lens at someone, very obviously, and take a shot of them [I was taught by some of the best TP have at that lark :LOL: ]. I realised though, more recently, that I am not actually that keen on doing it. 'Street' in that sense just doesn't 'do it' for me. Mind you, I would still rather do it that way than a 300mm sniper shot.Occasionally I will see someone doing something that pulls me in and I am glad I can take the shot. However, I do like doing slightly wider stuff, it might be quite dull, uninteresting stuff atm, but images that in 30 or 50 years time will serve to remind my grandchildren what life in the early part of the century was like.
 
Yv said:
I do like doing slightly wider stuff, it might be quite dull, uninteresting stuff atm, but images that in 30 or 50 years time will serve to remind my grandchildren what life in the early part of the century was like.
Click to expand...

That's what i am afraid of losing Yv :shrug:
 
Arkady said:
One of the best ways of getting 'candids' isn't as many people seem to think achieved by doing 'sniper-shots' with a 600mm lens,
Click to expand...

I don't 100% agree with the rest of your post - but then my street shots rarely feature people close-up - but this to me is spot on.

Street photography is not covert surveillance done at a distance, you need to be on the ground and close. I rarely see decent stuff taken at longer than 70mm.

As for rights ... I have the right to take your picture. You have the right to shout at me to stop. I have the right to ignore you. You have the right to report me to the plod for being an arsey get and ruin my day.
 
Not everything in life has to be defined by law. That should be reserved for the more extreme cases of what you can and cannot do, everything in between i would like to think would be governed by a bit of common sense and decency.
If, although totally legal, someone object to you taking their photo, don't take it. It's not the end of the world.

A bit of give and take is what we are missing these days, and that spread far beyond photography.
 
Splog said:
Of course their wish of not to be photographed should be respected ... many people do not feel comfortable with their image being recorded ... whether it is legal or not is irrelevant!
Click to expand...

Could you please inform the government, police, council and every other Tom Dick and Harry that I don't want to be filmed by CCTV and they should respect my wishes.
 
joescrivens said:
I don't agree with this argument and I hear it used a lot. Let's be clear, these recording devices that put people on camera are there for more than just someones hobby, usually it is for security. You can't compare this to a photographer taking a picture of someone else just for a hobby for their own pleasure.
Click to expand...

yes, it's a very high security risk, a child going to a school in the wrong catchment area or something equally as trivial on the grand scheme of things, that the CCTV has been known to be used for...or when the CCTV was clearly picking up images in peoples homes in Scotswood all those years ago, or when CCTV security tapes mysteriously disappear after an accident at work...or when the manager of a large firm states to the young woman who has just been stalked in the shadows of the alley to get to work (the staff entrance is in that alley) "it doesn't matter if they'd raped or hurt you, it would have been on CCTV so the police could have got them....but just there where you were, well that doesn't have CCTV" What's the point in all the CCTV when it's used wrongly?
 
whiteflyer said:
Could you please inform the government, police, council and every other Tom Dick and Harry that I don't want to be filmed by CCTV and they should respect my wishes.
Click to expand...



So you don't think it is right, but because someone else does it you are happy to do the same?

That's how downward spirals start.
 
I don't think that there should be one rule for the government and another for the public.
I don't think that we should stop recording life and history as it happens - we've learned so much about our past because of imagery.
I don't think that there should be privacy in public places, because there never has been, privacy is something that is usually "behind closed doors".
I don't think image recording, in any sense, should be used unethically.
I don't think that life is fair, but I don't think that there should be different rules for different people.
 
There's a question of perception to be considered here as well...

Last year I took a walk along the prom here in Aberystwyth with my daughter with the intention of capturing candid portraits. She was using her 400D and 70-200 F4L and I was using a gripped 40D with a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 so neither of us were exactly discreet.

Nobody batted an eyelid at Natty taking photos of them but I got more than a few scowls and dirty looks. My point is that it's more likely that someone would object to having me take a candid portrait than my 17yr old daughter. I think that lady photographers have an easier time of it in this field than the fellas do. I do get pretty annoyed with the whole attitude of the general public which is guided by our esteemed media.

I was a rifle and shotgun shooter for a lot of years and used to get really fed up with being labelled a nutter or potential homicidal maniac just because I enjoyed using guns...

Now we have the same problems with photography... we're considered to be either terrorists, perverts, voyeurs or paedophiles! :bang:

Si
 
I feel uncomfortable taking pics of people when out and about and would never get in someones face to take a pic. Just because the government invade peoples lives with cameras every where doesnt mean we have to take their example. To me its about having manners and treating people the way youd want to be.
 
artyman said:
I think it depends how close you are to them and how discreet in taking the shot. I'm assuming here that it is 'people photography' rather than street scenes in general, if they are unaware then probably no harm done, however shoving a camera uninvited into someones face is an intrusion into someone elses life, and if they object, common courtesy should prevail regardless of whether you have the "right" or not in my opinion. For people appearing in a shot though not the specific target I would probably ignore any 'requests' with a polite refusal stating the facts.
Click to expand...

Shoving a lens in someone face without permission is likely to cause a breach of the peace an we would then be in breach of the law (and common courtesy) (y)

http://www.trekearth.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1111840#post1111840
 
Arkady said:
It's a different set of rules for celebs - sorry but it is. They first court publicity and then complain that their privacy is invaded? Double-standards. And half these 'complaints' are made to ensure that there are sufficient numbers of photographers in attendance at their next outing in case 'something' happens.
There are many figures in public life that lead perfectly normal lives - even for the glitterati: all you need to do to achieve this is keep your underwear on when getting out of Limos. Or stop shagging your team-mates' missus...

For ordinary members of the public it's an entirely different story: why should someone just walking down the street, minding their own business be accosted in any way?

I make a point of asking permission before photographing people I encounter.
One of the best ways of getting 'candids' isn't as many people seem to think achieved by doing 'sniper-shots' with a 600mm lens, but by engaging with the subject and putting them at ease first, so that they carry on doing whatever activity it was that drew your attention to them in the first place.
It takes a bit longer, but quite often you get some background information on your subject that makes the image better anyway - and more 'sell-able' if that's your aim - remember, a photo is worthless without a caption.
Click to expand...

Totally agree with you (y) but I sometimes do sniper shots as well...:LOL:
 
Yup - they should have every right not to be photographed and indeed they already do. They can stay in their house with their curtains drawn.

Personally, if someone asked me or indicated to me that they did not want their photograph taken then out of respect I would not take it. This is a matter of common sense though and I would fiercely protest against it becoming law.
 
No matter our thoughts there's nothing we can do but use our own moarls. Paparazzi - Generally no or very low morals :)
 
As a photographer I've done my fair bit of street photography, and felt a little bad at intruding on peoples everyday lives but in the end just got on with it. The shots were purely personal/coursework. However, having found a picture of myself and my other half printed on the front of the Guardian travel section I felt somewhat miffed. I didn't know I was being photographed, there's no way that they did it within a reasonable distance (talking a seriously good telephoto...which felt worse weirdly) and I felt that I should have been asked permission. The point is that I think there's always going to be a double standard unfortunately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top