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

[ham]

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.

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

[Busted Knuckles]

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.

[ddt0725]

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

Just call me sparky!

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!