Candid photos - legality?

One of the arguments heard when talking about street shooting is “Well, if you don’t want you photo taken then don’t go out in public.”
That’s a pretty tall order.
I have no problem with photographers having the “right” to shoot at public events – rallies, sporting events (if photos aren’t banned by the organizers), annual or special community events, etc. No one is required to go to such events. And the person who is involved in an event likely to make the news also is fair game, as are people who hang around to see what’s happening. Absolutely no argument there.
But people going about regular day-to-day activites are different. Most of us, unless we own a farm, have to leave our homes to get groceries and to shop for other necessities. Most of us, unless we are independently wealthy (Leica owners) have to go to and from work and sometimes go out in public as part of our job duties. We may have to take kids to and from school (kids are required to go to school). We have no choice.
Obviously this gets complicated. Is it OK to shoot a photo of someone on their way to buy a new recreational vehicle (certainly not a mandatory trip) but not OK to photograph someone looking for a car that will be their only means of transportation?
Is it OK to photograph people riding downtown on the subway to go to the movies, but not if they are coming home from work?
As oftheherd pointed out, there are legal issues and moral issues here. I don’t have the answer—don’t think anybody does or will. But there are two sides to the argument, as far as I’m concerned.
A photographer believes he or she should be able to photograph any person who is out in public. More and more people believe they have the right to decided to some degree or another, who can record their image when they are out in public but not seeking to stand out from the crowd.
What makes the photographer’s beliefs any more important than those of the subject?—--not “legally”, but morally?
 
kiev4a said:
One of the arguments heard when talking about street shooting is “Well, if you don’t want you photo taken then don’t go out in public.”
That’s a pretty tall order.

It must be very clear - when you are behind your own closed doors, your right to privacy is absolute - 'master of your own castle' and all that. When you are not behind your own closed doors, you have no right to privacy at all. This is simple.


I have no problem with photographers having the “right” to shoot at public events – rallies, sporting events (if photos aren’t banned by the organizers), annual or special community events, etc. No one is required to go to such events. And the person who is involved in an event likely to make the news also is fair game, as are people who hang around to see what’s happening. Absolutely no argument there.

But people going about regular day-to-day activites are different. Most of us, unless we own a farm, have to leave our homes to get groceries and to shop for other necessities. Most of us, unless we are independently wealthy (Leica owners) have to go to and from work and sometimes go out in public as part of our job duties. We may have to take kids to and from school (kids are required to go to school). We have no choice.

The fact that you 'must' go out in public in no way changes the fact that you ARE in public.

Obviously this gets complicated. Is it OK to shoot a photo of someone on their way to buy a new recreational vehicle (certainly not a mandatory trip) but not OK to photograph someone looking for a car that will be their only means of transportation?

That's one of many reasons we don't interpret the law that way.

Is it OK to photograph people riding downtown on the subway to go to the movies, but not if they are coming home from work?

Same reply.

As oftheherd pointed out, there are legal issues and moral issues here. I don’t have the answer—don’t think anybody does or will. But there are two sides to the argument, as far as I’m concerned.

I appreciate your point of view, but disagree with it.

A photographer believes he or she should be able to photograph any person who is out in public. More and more people believe they have the right to decided to some degree or another, who can record their image when they are out in public but not seeking to stand out from the crowd.

It is not a popularity contest. Rights are not decided by popular support of the moment.

What makes the photographer’s beliefs any more important than those of the subject?—--not “legally”, but morally?

Because we do not live in a society that enforces morals as if they were laws (with some few and strange exceptions).

If we decide to live by 'morals' I would demand to know - whose morals? Yours? Mine? The Pope's? Some Mullah? Under one set of morals, I would be required to provide lifelong hospitality to any traveler who asked for it. Under another, I'd be required to murder my sister if she were 'dishonored'.

Extreme examples? Yes, but to prove a point.

We have a set of laws (in the USA) - based on civil rights. And they work. When people start objecting because their feelings are hurt - or they feel they have the right on politeness grounds to demand that their privacy-in-public be respected, they have recourse to the courts, to their attorneys, to their elected representatives. But they have no recourse to me. I have the law on my side when I point my camera at you as you try to take your kid to soccer practice. I understand and sympathize that you're tired, angry, worn out by life, and just want to be left alone and not have your photo taken. I feel that way too, all the time. But you don't get to choose whether or not I take your photo. I do. All you can control is what use I put the photograph to.

I don't like it when the KKK puts up a website. I don't like it when they hold a rally on the courthouse steps, or march through a Jewish neighborhood. I think that morally, they should not be permitted to exist - they are evil, indecent people without a shred of humanity in them. I would not shed a tear if they all died horrible painful deaths. But I will defend to the death their right to exist, to spew their venomous hatred, and to generally annoy me and people like me.

Freedom sometimes hurts. The alternative hurts worse, and it NEVER stops hurting.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
Last edited:
morally, it's not that the law considers the photographer's right more important. the moral thing is to value and protect private and public space equally. you seem to want private space to supercede public space, which as you suggest is unpracticable.
 
So, Bill, if the "law" CURRENTLY on the books said it was illegal to photograph people in public (except in specific situations) would you still argue that this is strictly a matter of law--that personal feels or beliefs should not be a consideration?
 
I want all of my shots to, at some point, be saleable. Even selling them as art nowadays can be a bad thing if you haven't gotten the permission to actually take a photo. I don't do it when I'm in public, such as in a park or at a lake, but when I'm in a building such as a restaurant or a bar I ALWAYS ask. It saves me a lot of headaches.

It is a photographers right to take a photo in public if they want to. I don't dispute that and won't dispute others' methods for doing this type of photography. I was merely stating MY approach to this. I don't like having to do this, but I prefer asking to getting thrown out of a restaurant or bar that I like being in. Everyone is happy this way.

I can readily admit that I'm a hippy. I HATE asking permission because it sometimes ruins the oportunity, especially in bars. I don't like the idea that everyone has become so paranoid all of the sudden. My reason for having my photo taken is merely that I hate the way I look on film. I don't generally say anything when someone snaps one of me. I generally ask to be polite...if they say no, I walk. There will always be another oportunity with someone else who may be more receptive. There are times that I don't ask...usually, those are the times that I bring it up after the fact. The "I snapped a photo of you. Would you like a copy?" thing has generally worked. I don't use it very often, though.

Candid photography has been given a bad name, IMHO, mostly by poparazzi photographers who do crazy and stupid things just to get a shot of some celebrity's flaws. It isn't done for the art of photography, it's done for money. It's a bad situation all around. People are extremely paranoid that people are out to get them all the time. For Celebs, that's generally a true statement and, even if I saw Brad Pitt walking down a public street in broad daylight waving at me (note that this would never happen), I'd still ask if it was alright to take a photo. I'm not trying to 'put ideas into their heads', I'm just trying to be polite. I know how, in this day and age, being polite is looked down upon, but I like to treat people how I would like to be treated if I was in that situation.

To be truthful, it all depends on the situation.
 
I would say that I respect other peoples privacy, that is what private places such as in their own homes is for. In public there is no such thing as privacy and if they are in my picture then as is live.

I would argue that paedophiles (sp?) are going to use P&S Digitals which are small, silent and can be loaded straight onto a computer without all the work involved in processing film etc. Those people are not interested in photography so they are going to use the quickest and simplest methods to get the pictures they want and not a 30+ year old film camera.

If I shoot a scene (I don't do landscapes as I'm no good at them) and there are people in them that will not stop me exhibiting or selling the pictures. As long as a person isn't the main subject of the picture of course, unless I have their permission.

I agree that asking before taking the shot does wreck the point of the picture in many cases. Usually I'll get a shot or two and if they look approachable then I ask their permission for another couple of candids when I'm ready. It might be slightly unethical but if they agree to candids they don't know if they are the ones I shot before or after asking permission and to be honest if they agree it doesn't matter as no harm done. In such cases I usually give them a print which they are happy with and usually it's the ones I got before I asked they prefer 😉
 
TPPhotog said:
Usually I'll get a shot or two and if they look approachable then I ask their permission for another couple of candids when I'm ready.

This seems like a very common MO, and one that works best for me. This may be contrary to what I said earlier about respecting a subject's dignity (I probably said privacy, but that's obviously the wrong word), but it's for the shot. Shoot first, ask acquiescence later. 😛

This thread really has moved on to civility. I don't think any of us here are really arguing legal aspects of shooting or privacy anymore. I'm glad, though, that there are people like Bill around to put out orange alerts about infringements of our rights, and I do pay heed to them. But while public and private are a simple matter, I still prefer to keep it civil outside my home. Maybe the shoot-first policy will annoy some people, but in many circumstances I will stop if reasonably asked to. I feel no need to be a physical reminder of public rights. I'd rather save my agitating for the darkroom. 😛
 
Roger Hicks said:
This is one reason why I like Eastern Europe so much. People regard having their picture taken as a bit of a lark, as they used to in the UK 20 or 30 years ago.

Rural France is pretty relaxed too. I once asked someone if it was OK to publish some pictures I had taken at his circus, insidee the tent -- performing wild boar! -- and he looked at me in surprise and said, "Of course -- they are your photos!"

Ah, I remember that parallel universe well...
 
more on norwegian laws

more on norwegian laws

siverta said:
We have stricter laws on that matter in Norway.
Private places are under the rule of owners, but public places are protected by a law that states that photography taken of people MUST have the subjects approval.
This law goes everywhere, but it is excluded when there are public gatherings (like a demonstration, strike or whatever) that is of public interest.

THe police or other law authorities can not act on their own if someone breaks this rule. They have to act on the subjects (and only him/her) report.

Norwegian laws may sound strict but they are pretty grey and open to interpretation, and lacking legal cases, not really been tested. A text in norwegian at foto.no which is illuminating: http://foto.no/cgi-bin/diskusjon/lesTraadHier.cgi?id=85881

In general, the rules are pretty simple:
- In public areas you can take whatever pictures you want as long as you're not menacing or threatening to a specific person or group of people.

- You can publish and sell what you shoot. But the exception is in general artwork where a photo is considered reproduction and you need permission from the artist. You are allowed to take a shot of a public plaza even if it has a fancy statue though without needing to apply for permission. Pretty grey here as well.

- The other and relevant exception to publishing is that people have the right to their own pictures, ie if I do a portrait of a person in a public space I need his or her permission. But you're allowed to do a shot of a street and the people there, if it doesn't single out a particular person. However, as you say, public events like a may-day rally, or people who actively seek attention in public areas, e.g street musicians, have no such protection. The other exception is if it's a newsworthy, relevant or timely picture, it is also free use.

- The usual rule of thumb is that you can publish photos in a respectful non-slandering manner from public areas if the shot is not too close-up of a person and/or the person has ok'ed you taken the picture. This is generally accepted to use for non-commercial purposes, like an amateur photocontest or artistic use. For commercial use you need permission.

- For streetphotography it's pretty grey, as sometimes you take a picture of a situation rather than a person, sometimes you take a picture of street atmosphere, sometimes you take a picture of an event, e.g a flood which is of public and historical interest, sometimes people are partly non-identifiable.

My rule of thumb is to take the picture, and then later decide if it is publishable.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom