Street Photography - Right or Wrong and When Does it Cross the Line?

I have always loved street photography and admire the photographers that capture those interesting shots. Although I have always been hesitant, I have taken a few and then I always back off afraid someone will get upset if they notice their picture being taken.

A number of photos in the news recently question how far a photograher should go to get the shot. I'm sure many have read about the police officer who bought a pair of shoes for a homeless man only to find out he isn't really homeless. The photo of the two men has been seen on many websites. Now there is this that I read in The New York Times this morning ..."Mr. Hillman, 54, was by turns aggrieved, grateful and taken aback by all the attention that had come his way — even as he struggled to figure out what to do about it. “I was put on YouTube, I was put on everything without permission. What do I get?” he said. “This went around the world, and I want a piece of the pie.” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/03/ny...oots.html?_r=0

Another infamous photo in the news today is the recent subway photo printed by the New York Post. http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/04/us/new...html?hpt=hp_t3

Also, we have all seen those moving photos online of a homeless man holding his dog as they sit cuddled together on a cold street. I saw yesterday that a site is holding a contest for the best "Homeless Person and Their Pet" photo.

I've taken a few shots myself that I have questioned if it was right or wrong ...a neighbors house burning and even a simple shot of an unsuspecting woman reading a book by the lake. Is it an invasion of her privacy? I took this shot of two homeless men, one wanting the food that another took out of the garbage. I have others where one of the men is facing the camera and somewhat distinquishable. Again, does it even go to far? Does it invade their privacy? If it were a closer recognizable shot of them, would it cause them or their family undue embarrassment if they saw it posted?

The above is just to spark conversation on when does street photography go to far. When does it stop being interesting photos and start being morally and ethically wrong? Opinions?

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8062/8...d586ce9a_z.jpg
Hunger In America_3 by Denise Trocio ( www.dtrociophotography.com), on Flickr

No answers, but I will be watching this discussion with interest. Recent events have had me thinking a lot about some of the same issues. I love street photos and have always wanted to get out there do it myself, but I've always been hesitant and unsure.

I have seen dozens of debates about what is legal and what is not. What a person would think is moral and ethical and what is legal to do may be two diffrent things.

Talking candid street photography;
Personally, if I think in my mind does this bother this person, I choose to not take the picture out of respect for that person whether I know they approve or not. Not to say I am not tempted occasionaly.
Everyone will have their own moral compass on this, and I am not saying any one shouldn't be a street photographer they have the right to do it.
This is one reason I wouldn't ever be a street photographer, I avoid these kind of conflicts.

Of course I have always enjoyed messing with the street photographer in the same subtle way they try and get their pictures without the subject knowing, say move in to their background and give them half the peace sign or something similar. Of course I will smile for the picture, it is legal to do and the way I see it my moral compass has as much right as theirs. Maybe I am twisted this way, but if we are ever in a picture together watch out for horns.

jrw, I think that is the moral dilemma a professional would face. Since he has the forum to change lives then he would have to weigh it out.
But, if you are like most of us our forum is limited and our ability to change is limited. In my mind the professional is more justified in his moral decision to not help, than I would be. After all this is a hobby to me, not a profession. With the exception of a few individuals, we are not obligated to help in an emergency. I think I would rather be the guy helping than the one holding the cell phone.

First of all, that is a very moving photograph, Denise.

The age old photojournalist dilemma – help or assist. I don’t think that there is a generic answer. The photographer in the NY subway incident claims he was too far away to help and was using his camera to flash the train driver. Who knows?

One thing is sure, however. We can never deny anyone the right to record those images or to publish them.

Larry

I think you've got two questions here:

1) should a photograph ever exploit someone eg. the homeless, or the man on the tracks.?

2) is it right to take pictures of people without their permission?

I think the answers are quite obvious (to me at least): 1) No, never and 2) Yes, as long as the law of the land allows it (and even sometimes when it doesn't).

I've taken pictures of homeless people, but only ever shown two of them:

This one, the chap called me over, and said he wanted his picture taken, but that it'd cost me a pound. I have no idea if he was/is really homeless, but I accepted his offer and gave him the change in my pocket (~£1.50). If I wasn't in a hurry, I'd have rather asked if he was hungry and bought him a sandwich and a coffee, but I do not felt I was exploiting him in any way at all.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Z...514_0082bw.jpg

And this one, was definitely not to exploit the homeless-person. It was more an observation of the bloke walking past and looking. People normally ignore the homeless, but this guy didn't, he looked at every one of them with concern, and bought a sandwich for one of them that was awake.

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-q...pr-28_0052.jpg

As for the second question. I fully believe in my right to take photographs of the public. And luckily, the UK law permits me to do so in any public location. I make no money from my art, and I respect anyone who chooses not to take pictures of the public, but personally I don't find anything wrong with it as long as it is done in good faith.

This is the type of photography that I love, I just wish I had the talent to be one. I often think the the term street photography is wrong, it should be called photojournalism or a picture that tells a story. I have taken many such photos but its extremely rare for me to post any as I regard such photos as an invasion of privacy.

The man on the train tracks is just the latest in a long stream of images that make us question our values, and the values of those who look through the lens. While we can say the photographer should have helped and not taken the photo, we (the public) are also to blame because we buy the papers. We are the reason why the shot is so valuable.

I think that all of us would like to think we would do the right thing, but life has convinced me that we have no idea of how we would react until we are tested.

Street Photography and Photojournalism are different though. I see SP as photography for artistic expression in public, whereas PJ is a recording of news in as unbiased a fashion as possible.

Also confused by what you mean. You love this type of photography but think it's an invasion of privacy?

I'm not being confrontational at all, just intrigued as to your position.

Look at some past Pulitzer Prize images and you'll see people on the brink of death. One that I recall showed a mother and her daughter falling from a burning building. The mother died, the daughter landed on her mother and lived. It's a haunting, disturbing image. The famous shot of the Challenger explosion catches the moment of death for 7 brave astronauts, albeit not as up-close-and-personal as the subway shot. It's a very gray area indeed. Shots of homeless people are also two sided. They can raise awareness and compassion for a troubling societal issue, but they can also seem like an invasion of privacy and an assault on the dignity everyone deserves. Tough call.

I've done some street photography, but only of people who were not "in distress" shall we say. I don't feel I invaded their privacy as the shots only show what they were doing in public view anyway. And there was no loss of dignity. But I agree with Denise that there are times when your moral compass is having a hard time pointing north when deciding whether to take the shot or not. Even with the subway shot, some folks feel it was ok to print and others are horrified by it. I guess our moral compasses don't always point to the same north.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ham

Street Photography and Photojournalism are different though. I see SP as photography for artistic expression in public, whereas PJ is a recording of news in as unbiased a fashion as possible.

Also confused by what you mean. You love this type of photography but think it's an invasion of privacy?

I'm not being confrontational at all, just intrigued as to your position.

---

All comments and criticisms are very welcome. One of the things I like most about this forum is that free expression is allowed, nobody gets to precious about their work (although I wish Joel, Bob, Sean, Denise and many others would post a few duds just to show the rest of us that they are human).

I don't see PJ as showing truth or even being unbiased. There are so many shots that I can remember that cause you (the viewer) to ask what is going on here, in other words it tells a story. Many images may even grab you and disturb you. This is what I feel PJ is about and if you look at many of the images under the term street, they are easily to pick.

I was out with some work colleagues and as normal I was discreetly using my P&S (f1.8 no flash). A woman received a photo call that her brother was uncontactable after the Tsunami in Indonesia (2004). A few days later after mobile coverage was restored she found out he was safe.
Some days later I was reviewing the shots I had taken at home, when I realised I had taken a shot of that womans face as she was receiving the call. Even though I did not tell my girlfriend what the photo was about, she cried when she saw it and I still find the image of her face haunting. I have never shown that image to anybody else or even tell anybody it exists, for some reason I have never deleted it. I regard that image as a gross intrusion into her life.

This is the conflict I see in this type of photography, the images that I remember the most are the images I wish I had not taken.

What would you have done?

Lately, I've been getting a lot more interested in Street (or whatever you want to call it). I went to an exhibition in The Hague when I was there a few years ago, it was all photos taken in the 1950s and 1960s, just life on the streets, people going about their daily business, "this is how they lived back then" kind of shots.
And I really liked it, both as a photographer and audience. As photographer I could enjoy the lighting and the mood, the expressions and the composition and all that.
But as someone who didn't live in The Hague in the 1950s (being 30 years before I was born on the opposite side of the world), I could appreciate the scenery, the buildings that had changed, the ones that hadn't, the post-war poverty that a lot (including my dad and his 13 brothers&sisters) lived through, the fact that both then and today there are people riding the same Oma Fietsen to the same spot to eat the same raw herring (and now i've gotten myself hungry).

Anyway, that was one of my "i wanna do this stuff" moments. For people (even if it's only me) in 50 years to be able to look back at something I took and think, "wow, so much/little has changed", and "did it really used to be like this?".
I work out in an industrial estate and drive through some pretty dodgy suburbs to and from work, the views I see are more remeniscent of what I'd imagine 1940s Segregated South USA to be like, not in 2012, 4km from the centre of Australia's 5th largest city. (actually, I took a photo of a church the other day out there, it could have fit in either of the 'test of time' or (out in the) 'sticks' assignments, but i didn't like the resulting shot. As i took the photo I half-imagined that a 10 year old Ray Charles might be walking out of the place right then).
Anyway, that's what's been becoming important to me recently, I feel that this kind of stuff should be documented (ok, so maybe it's Documentary photography, not Street), especially to show that although we're one of the best (non-scandinavian) countries of the world to live, high incomes, economy is one of the few still growing, and yet there's all this poverty still going on.
I've even bought myself a Bessa L (i'd call it a rangefinder but there's not rangefinder, nor a viewfinder, just ttl metering hyperfocal point&shoot) and 21mm Skopar to go with it, to be a bit more discrete (it's not the kind of place i'd be walking around with $3000 worth of digital around my neck, i'm also practising shooting from a moving vehicle whilst driving).

So, back to the original point. Denise's trashcan photo sits exactly in with where i'm thinking right now. That stuff needs to be documented. And as others have said, maybe by documenting and showing it, people might wake up to what's happening and change might come about. Think about some of those famous photos that did that. The screaming naked girl in Vietnam, running away from her napalmed-village. The kodakchrome refugee girl huddling in a corner. I can't think of any others right now, but I'm sure there's some non-war ones. That photo of the cop giving the guy shoes, that's also in the same vein. It made people sit up and take notice, maybe not of the poverty but also the random acts of kindness that happen and never get reported. So in that way i've got nothing against that photo (or at least the idea of that photo).

But then, it's what happened after the photo that's the thing. Yes, I can understand that the homeless guy in that cop photo feels a bit miffed. Worldwide attention, the cop is famous, he gets nothing (well, at least he got a pair of shoes, even if he doeesn't wear them). But what of the photographer?
"the Police Department posted the photo of him and Mr. Hillman, taken by an Arizona tourist, on its Facebook page."
An Arizona Tourist, how nice. Not even a name? Did he/she give unconditional rights to the police department for the photo? Did he/she get any royalties from it being reprinted? Yes, the homeless guy has a right to feel exploited, but he's not being exploited by the photographer, for all we know the photographer is being exploited too. The only people cashing in on this shot are the newspapers and whoever is reprinting it and making a buck.

But that happens every day anyway, whether it's a Street shot, landscape, or a horse. Read this from the point of view of a photog who had his photo stolen and re-posted everywhere. That's different, of course, because he earns his bread from photography, and at least he was the only one who got hurt (i'm sure the subject didn't mind too much).

As for the subway, that's definitely in the Princess Diana kind of grey area. Her story was the most tragic, it's quite probably that it was the photogs that caused the crash, not least that they made her life hell before it anyway. Did that guy in the subway have enough time to think "hmmm, wow, I can make money from this shot", then pull his camera out, frame, shoot, then run towards the guy? Was he 2m away with a wide-angle, or the other end of the platform with a 300mm? If he had his camera out already, he would still have had to put it down to help. Had he acted differently, would he have gotten there in time anyway? What about everyone else on the platform, where were they in all this? Maybe he is telling the truth and he thought his flash would alert the driver? (everyone acts differently in split-second things like that)
And most of all, why are we talking about the photographer at all, wasn't he pushed? Why aren't we decrying the actions of the pusher?
So to me that all depends on the circumstances, which a) I don't know, and b) are probably his word vs anyone's, before i can decide whether or not i hate the photo, or the photog.
Of the newspaper that printed it? How is this shot different to the napalm girl? Both shot a few seconds before (potential) death. OK, the napalm girl shot helped change public opinion of a war, i don't think this subway shot will. But it might, we won't know for many years. (I should probably mention at this point that no, I personally don't like the thought of this photo, so I'm not going to view it in itself).
The way the newspaper reported it and the headline "Doomed, pushed on the subway track, this man is about to die." is more deplorable than anything that could possibly be in the photo. That's definitely in the same vein as the Princess Diana shots. And it's we the public to blame, for lapping it up (well not me, I don't buy women's magazines or newspapers, but that's besides the point).

But then sometimes it does have a happy ending. The story of the napalm girl for instance. The photographer got the shot, but then drove her to hospital and saved her life. Read this for the full story.

You never know what's going to happen to your photos, and whether you've got control over it (ask any teenage girl who's taken a naked shot of herself and sent it to her bf). If you don't want to be exploited, or your subjects to be exploited, don't take the shot. If the photo tells a story that is more important than the feelings of the individuals involved (including yours), then take the chance. It might change the world, it might not. You might get rich and famous like Steve McCurry, you might change the course of a war or at least save a life, or you might end up like just another Tourist from Arizona.

Some powerful stuff posted above to think about! I took the photo of the two men a few weeks after getting my first camera and kit lens just a few years ago. I was down by the lake in freezing cold shooting anything and everything. When I got my camera, I thought this was the type of photography I would be doing. Something that would move people, bring awareness and make a difference. It took that photo to make me realize I didn't have it in me.

Getting back to casual street photography of people going about their day doing there normal daily outdoor things. Put yourself on the other side of the camera. If you were at the beach with your family and someone was taking random shots of people at the beach would it bother you if it were your children that were in some of the shots? Would it make a difference if it were a casual hobbyist such as myself or the local newspaper photographer doing a story on the latest heatwave?

What makes me ask this is the summer after I took that shot above down by the lake, there was apparently another hobbyist photographer in the area where I always shoot down there. Turns out he took hundreds and hundreds of photos of kids at the beach and the photos were plastered on literally every inch of the walls, doors, kitchen cabinets, etc. inside his house. When he got busted, believe me you didn't want to be seen down by the lake with a camera in your hand for quite awhile! To this day, I think people around here are very unaccepting of street photographers and if you are down by the lake ...you had better be taking photos of the birds and boats!

Yeah, you've just touched on another point that I didn't make (I thought my post above was long enough).
There's definitely parts of "real street" photography that I'm not comfortable with. In most cases I try to think "would I like someone else to take a photo of me doing this?" and the answer is generally no (part of the reason I have a camera is to make sure i'm always on the viewfinder end of it). But then I have to weigh it up against 'everyone else is doing it' and 'even if there's not photographers around, i'm on CCTV 24/7 anyway'.
There's a guy over at CR, he takes his 1D mkIV and 400/2.8 on a tripod, down to the local drinking strip at 2am, and photographs drunks coming out of pubs and occasional street fights. Safety-concerns aside (I wouldn't be lugging $10k worth of gear to a place full of violent drunks), that kind of photography doesn't sit well with me. Yes, shots like that can be useful evidence in criminal cases if anything goes wrong (but that's what cctv is for). But what about the guys there? I'm sure they don't want their bosses seeing them like that. What if they've gone drinking straight after work, wearing a shirt with a company logo, have a shot taken of them near a fight (even if they're not involved), boss sees the photo and decides it's a bad image for the company and they get fired? (obvious answer would be to get changed after work, or that maybe just being in that place in that state is reason enough, the photo is just the evidence). Living your life like someone's always pointing a camera at you is not a bad way to live, i suppose.
And then there's another counter-argument to that. Lately I've had a heap of friends get married, with the inevitable bucks' shows that end up at titty bars. I don't mind being seen going into one, but the thing is, I didn't. I don't have any major moral objection, but normally by that time of night i'm about to fall asleep anyway, and they're expensive to get into. But I have been lining up with the people who were going into them, I went into the entrance foyer to say goodbye to the buck and all the rest going in, before I left to grab a taxi home. Would I have minded if someone had taken a shot of me then, lining up or leaving? Strangely enough, no, had i gone in and enjoyed the show. But had someone taken a shot of me, accused me of going in when I hadn't, that I would have a problem with (maybe I'm just weird).

I don't know, it's all mixed shades of grey area, so that's why I shy away from that sort of 'candid street' photography. If you can't see the faces or anything else that makes the subject readily identifiable, then it's fair game, I suppose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raid

All comments and criticisms are very welcome. One of the things I like most about this forum is that free expression is allowed, nobody gets to precious about their work (although I wish Joel, Bob, Sean, Denise and many others would post a few duds just to show the rest of us that they are human).

I don't see PJ as showing truth or even being unbiased. There are so many shots that I can remember that cause you (the viewer) to ask what is going on here, in other words it tells a story. Many images may even grab you and disturb you. This is what I feel PJ is about and if you look at many of the images under the term street, they are easily to pick.

I was out with some work colleagues and as normal I was discreetly using my P&S (f1.8 no flash). A woman received a photo call that her brother was uncontactable after the Tsunami in Indonesia (2004). A few days later after mobile coverage was restored she found out he was safe.
Some days later I was reviewing the shots I had taken at home, when I realised I had taken a shot of that womans face as she was receiving the call. Even though I did not tell my girlfriend what the photo was about, she cried when she saw it and I still find the image of her face haunting. I have never shown that image to anybody else or even tell anybody it exists, for some reason I have never deleted it. I regard that image as a gross intrusion into her life.

This is the conflict I see in this type of photography, the images that I remember the most are the images I wish I had not taken.

What would you have done?

---

I'd tell her about the photograph and see what her reaction is. If she approves, I think, given the emotional reaction it caused in your wife, it's perfectly suited to Street Photography.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ddt0725

Some powerful stuff posted above to think about! I took the photo of the two men a few weeks after getting my first camera and kit lens just a few years ago. I was down by the lake in freezing cold shooting anything and everything. When I got my camera, I thought this was the type of photography I would be doing. Something that would move people, bring awareness and make a difference. It took that photo to make me realize I didn't have it in me.

Getting back to casual street photography of people going about their day doing there normal daily outdoor things. Put yourself on the other side of the camera. If you were at the beach with your family and someone was taking random shots of people at the beach would it bother you if it were your children that were in some of the shots? Would it make a difference if it were a casual hobbyist such as myself or the local newspaper photographer doing a story on the latest heatwave?

What makes me ask this is the summer after I took that shot above down by the lake, there was apparently another hobbyist photographer in the area where I always shoot down there. Turns out he took hundreds and hundreds of photos of kids at the beach and the photos were plastered on literally every inch of the walls, doors, kitchen cabinets, etc. inside his house. When he got busted, believe me you didn't want to be seen down by the lake with a camera in your hand for quite awhile! To this day, I think people around here are very unaccepting of street photographers and if you are down by the lake ...you had better be taking photos of the birds and boats!

---

The children thing is always dodgy, my view is that whether people like it or not, I am doing nothing wrong by taking someone's photograph in public. I am always prepared to explain what I'm doing, who I am, give someone links to my facebook page, and why I do it. If they still strongly object to me showing the image, I'll consider not showing it.

I don't think a paedophile having been in the area or whatever should be a reason not to take photographs of children, but a reason to be more willing to explain the innocence of what you're doing, offering to send a copy to the parents etc. But then I will also think "does this photograph identify that child at all", i.e. I wouldn't post an image of them near a school, or in a school uniform, or outside their house, do you know what I mean? I'll be more careful about saying "I shot this last week in X town", but I'll still share it. And thankfully, the law is on my side.

As for the stuff about "would you want your boss to see that?". My view on that is: don't do it in public. My intention, obviously, as a photographer is not to show somebody up, or document their darkest deeds, so I'm unlikely to be shooting people doing things like that anyway, but if they happen to be in shot doing it, then... tough luck.

Doc mentioned CCTV, which is one argument I always think about, CCTV is a constant recording of our lives. Outside nightclubs and bars, it catches and records loads of the above. What is the difference between that, and taking photographs in the street, when my photographs will not be used to prosecute anyone for any wrong doing, but CCTV will?

Again, I might come across as argumentative, it's because I'm rushing, not my true intention :)

1st. Denise "spark" is something you definitely did :)

There are so many lines that we trundle upon in modern society. Privacy vs. public right to know - at what point does privacy rights overtake knowledge rights? Document vs. Assist? Commercial censorship vs absolute censorship - do we draw the line differently if it is someones profession i.e. Kennedy Assisiation vs. Princess Di?

I think there are very few situations that can get answered from a single perspective. I believe the direction I prefer, however distasteful at times, is sharing knowledge - censorship is a personal decision whether or not to share. Freedom of experession is not free, one must be willing to face the consequences of the expression - be it a Pulitzer or being ostracized. If you are unwilling to face the consequences, clearly your expression is not free.

Raid makes an interesting point. The subject is most likely not at all aware that a photo has been taken, her life is not pinched or harmed in anyway.... Until Raid shares. At that point the consequences begin.

IF the subject is aware of the photo, the consequences have already begun.

Lastly, intentions are largely meaningless - no intended for Princess Di to crash - it the consequences that we must face. If you are content with facing the consequences, please share - I can look away if I choose.

I think if you point your camera at something and you feel something uncomfortable or have any doubt about whether or not to push the shutter....don't do it. Go by your "gut" or "conscience". I would err on the side of preserving someone's privacy. I definitely am not comfortable taking images if anyone without their knowledge and permission. Just my own gut feelings. I do not in any way want "dis" those who do this type of work, it's just not for me.

After reading several threads on this subject over the years what I find interesting, that if I exercise my first amendment right and said that certain types of photography, such as some practiced by poporatzi is immoral, disgusting and without merit, those who may practice and support this type of photography would be offended that I exercised my first amendment right. However, if their type of photography offended and the subject complained, they would point out that there right to take such pictures is protected under the first amendment.

Some would and have aruged if the person is in a public place it never crosses the line.

Food for thought;

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/artic...A13_spanc08444

Obviously the law needs to be amended there. In no way should "upskirting" be legal. But there's something very different going on when someone drops to their knees and and places a camera below a person's clothing to take a photograph of their genitalia.

Paparazzi type photography is also different, it's no longer art, and I think you have to be a specific kind of person to be happy to completely forgo someone's comfort, privacy, and dignity for your own financial gain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

Some would and have aruged if the person is in a public place it never crosses the line.

Food for thought;

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/artic...A13_spanc08444

---

What the heck!!?? That is about as screwed up as the law can get in regard to privacy! And I thought it was pushing the limit when I found out that Sears has cameras in their dressing rooms!

EDIT: I stand corrected. My daughter just told me that our Sears at least took the cameras out of the dressing room because people complained.

Denise

I think dumpster diving hobo pictures seem very harmless in comparison.

It would be assault to touch a photog who is in the right.

My thoughts are this, in Tulsa assault and battery carries a $1,500 fine, no fine if I can convince the judge the guy was fighting as well.
I would pay the fee and consider it a small price if this photog (if you can call him that) was doing this to my daughter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busted Knuckles

1st. Denise "spark" is something you definitely did :)

---

Just call me sparky! :p

This thread and all the comments above definitely has me searching the web for info on laws, etc. Apparently the guy that I mentioned above was completely within his legal rights to take those photos at the beach and plaster his house with them ...it's everything else they found in his home that sent him away for quite awhile!

I was reading this article ...

http://www.webdesignshock.com/photog...release-forms/

and I found these statements interesting (yet confusing to some extent) ...

"You can photograph anybody who’s is in public view and doing anything not considered private. People on sidewalks, parks, beaches and other public spaces are considered subject of legal photography."

"Yes you can take pictures of children without their parents permission, but as long as you are not invading the child’s privacy. And as long as your photos are for private use only."

"You are ok to sell your photographs of people without any release forms if your photographs features unrecognizable subjects, (crowds for example) or your photographs have editorial, factual, and newsworthy purposes."

To make sure I have this straight from a legal standpoint, for personal use anything is fair game as long as it is an "in public" shot.

Recognizable shots of people can be sold as long as it is as stated above "newsworthy" etc. EXCEPT when it comes to children, then you need a parents release? What about all those shots posted of Suri Cruise?

What about photos that you take and post on the web ...on flickr, facebook, TDP, etc just for public viewing but not for commercial profit? They are obviously more than for personal use but you are not selling them. For instance, I have a photo on flickr of a cute little girl that I took on kite day down by the lake, it is just a cropped photo of her looking upward but nothing else is in the photo, no other people, no kites. She is recognizable except for the sunglasses she is wearing covering her eyes. It's a public event but you couldn't tell that from the photo because it is cropped. So, this photo is illegal? People are posting photos all the time of recognizable people on subways, at a bus stop walking down the street. Are they all illegal once they hit the internet for public viewing but not for sale? Yet the guy that takes a shot up the 16 year olds dress in Target for his "personal use" is not illegal?

Either I am really confused or the laws are really messed up!

I read somewhere, can't remember exactly where, that if you're in public, you give up your "right" to privacy. You are in the public view, and pictures can be taken. If you used a long zoom, and took a shot through someone's window, you are invading their privacy. But, other than that (and, of course, such examples of shooting up a skirt), then anything that you can see, can be photographed. I thought it became an issue when you published pictures, for profit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shutterdown

I read somewhere, can't remember exactly where, that if you're in public, you give up your "right" to privacy. You are in the public view, and pictures can be taken. If you used a long zoom, and took a shot through someone's window, you are invading their privacy. But, other than that (and, of course, such examples of shooting up a skirt), then anything that you can see, can be photographed. I thought it became an issue when you published pictures, for profit.

---

That is what I have gotten out of what I have read so far. Except most that I have read states "for private use" and "for commercial use". What category does posting on the internet just for public viewing for comments and opinions fall into?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ddt0725

That is what I have gotten out of what I have read so far. Except most that I have read states "for private use" and "for commercial use". What category does posting on the internet just for public viewing for comments and opinions fall into?

---

That's the 'grey area' where lawyers make their money I presume. If I post a picture of someone else for you guys to comment on, I would consider your comments as 'my private use', because the only benefit that I'm gaining is your guys' help and (presumably) critique to improving my photo skills. The subject may argue back that even if i'm not making any money off it, by posting on the internet it's not longer for 'my private use'.

In the UK there's not even an issue with commercial use, unless of course, you're causing defamation of character by showing someone doing something they wouldn't want public. At least that's my understanding. You have no right to your own image in the uk. But in places like Germany you do. And can sue if you are the subject of a photograph that you didn't give permission for. (the subject bit covers crowd shots)

Just as this subject appeared here, a US documentary was shows on Aus TV and it looks as though its still showing in the US. I would recommend it to others, although there are some disturbing images.

http://www.deadlineeverysecond.com/

Wow! I most definitely could not be a photojournalist and put my life on the line like that every day!

Here is another video that I found very interesting to watch regarding photographers in general but and is definitely a must see for anyone considering photojournalism.

http://laughingsquid.com/chimping-a-...tojournalists/

We touched on the somber aspects of this type of photography.

Now something different, at the Rush Springs annual watermelon festival they had a Elvis impersonator.
It was amazing, he came out and all the 60 and 70ish grandmas started screaming like 16 year old girls. Two granny's got up on the benches and started dancing and screaming. I tried to take there picture but they caught me and sat down. I felt guilty because they kept looking back at me to make sure I wasn't trying to take their picture.

I felt guilty, should I have tried to take their picture. I can see the benefits of the point and shoot. What to do in this situation?

FYI he was the fat version of Elvis.

Get a P&S? Do you have a secret cure for L-disease or something?!? No, you need a longer telephoto! :)

Thats funny, I had the 70-200mm, they spotted that thing from 50' away. Maybe the 300mm I could have been far enough then.

First off, I got a tad sidetracked with your post ...I'm wondering when I will go from being a grandma to being a granny? NEVER! Thank goodness I am nowhere near 60 yet!

Ok, back to your original reason for the post. Many, many times at events I have adults and kids coming and asking me if I work for the newspaper or a magazine. I'll bet these ladies thought they were running the risk of having their pictures in the paper dancing up a storm. If they knew you were just taking the photos for the fun of it they probably wouldn't have minded so much.

Before my DSLR days, I used to go every year to Country Thunder with VIP tickets and backstage passes. That is about a total of 100 nights of concerts and being up close with all the latest and greatest country stars. If I had a DSLR back then, I would have been trigger happy with taking photos of everything and everyone. Sorry, that is in my opinion, something that should be expected to happen at something like that. I am sure someone out there has plenty of pictures of me dancing on top of benches, tables, etc! I am sure there are even plenty of pictures of me covered head to toe in mud since I had been through a tornado ripping the stage down almost right in front of me and mudslides galore, pretty much torrential downpours every year at some point of the 4 day weekend! Would I be upset knowing they took these photos? No, I just wish I had copies of some of them!