Troubles with people :s

gho said:
In Germany, the situation is quite clear. The right on ones own image is part of the personal rights (privacy, informational self-determination, ...). So, as far as I know, if one is taking a photograph of a person without consent and publishing it on the internet or somewhere else without consent, it is already a violation of the law. Even taking a picture without publishing, is in certain cirumstances a violation.
Click to expand...

Which means that 'street photography' is simply forbidden in Germany. We Germans tend to overdo everything.
We mean well (at least in this case, wanting to protect people's privacy) but in the end we're always clearly over the line.

It really sucks. But I can't emigrate just for a hobby. :(
 
Last edited:
JayGannon said:
Street photography is probably the dicipline that requires the least amount of photo skills and the most of social skills something that photographers are not known for.
Click to expand...

As much as I agree with the (not quoted) rest of your posting, I disagree here: I think 'street photography' is the most difficult of all the photographic disciplines. YMMV, of course.
 
gho said:
I just would like to add, that the legal situations seem to differ from country to country. In Germany, the situation is quite clear. The right on ones own image is part of the personal rights (privacy, informational self-determination, ...). So, as far as I know, if one is taking a photograph of a person without consent and publishing it on the internet or somewhere else without consent, it is already a violation of the law. Even taking a picture without publishing, is in certain cirumstances a violation.
Click to expand...

This is correct , but with one important exception: Freedom of the arts. This term is even protected directly in the German Grundgesetz (constitution). The exception is outlined in § 23 para. 1 section. 4 KUG (Kunsturhebergesetz - art authoring law), and defines certain situations in which a consent of the person depicted is of a lesser priority than that of the photographer creating a work of art. Since the law apparently contains several unclear definitions, this can lead to disputes that need to be settled in court on a case-by-case basis. Essentially, a ruling needs to be found whether an image does not unduly infringe on a person's right to privacy (ruling out e.g. photographs of people in embarassing situations) as opposed to limiting the (constitutionally guaranteed) freedom of the arts.

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, just a translator/journalist - if you need to know this in further detail, please consult a German lawyer.
 
Last edited:
First time the other week.
A young lady selling on the street said no photos.
She was I`m guessing from eastern europe and may not have been legal.
I reminded here that we were quite free to take photos on the street in the Uk and continued shooting as she ran away.
Not the most sensitive approach I admit but I think you sometimes have to insist on your freedoms.
 
Michael Markey said:
First time the other week.
A young lady selling on the street said no photos.
She was I`m guessing from eastern europe and may not have been legal.
I reminded here that we were quite free to take photos on the street in the Uk and continued shooting as she ran away.
Not the most sensitive approach I admit but I think you sometimes have to insist on your freedoms.
Click to expand...

I quite frequently encounter situations like this. I personally prefer not to bring anybody into an embarrassing situation (such as potential discovery as an illegal immigrant) and refrain to shoot a picture under these circumstances. I have even deleted pictures from my memory card after the fact if one of the people pictured insisted on it. I also think that a potential criminalization would indeed infringe on that person's right to privacy.

I think we as photographers can best protect our rights by first being respectful and act sensitively towards our subjects - and thus protect our good reputation in the public at large. It might, however, be quite a different thing if police would unduly challenge my rights to shoot in public.
 
Thanks Arjay.
Don`t quite see it that way myself I`m afraid.
Telling people what they can or can`t do on the street seems pretty alien to me.To be fair the police in Britain esp in the north are relaxed about that sort of thing.Usually it`s the private security or the community police who misunderstand the situation.I`m only assuming that this person was an illegal immigrant it could be that they just didn`t have the required permits to trade on the street,assuming that you need such things,I really wouldn`t know.Either way I see no responsibility to encourage or lend support to such obvious illegal activity. Quite the reverse in fact.
 
Michael and Arjay, perhaps the two of you should team up and head to Arizona - Michael will sniff out the illegal aliens, while Arjay punishes them with his DSLR "sword" :D
 
ampguy said:
Michael and Arjay, perhaps the two of you should team up and head to Arizona - Michael will sniff out the illegal aliens, while Arjay punishes them with his DSLR "sword" :D
Click to expand...

:)

Sorry I digressed.The individuals status ,whatever that was ,was immaterial.
The point ,for me, was that in the UK we have no cultural history of an overbearing secretive state.Which is no doubt why we seem happy to accept so many security cameras in our cities.
If such a thing exists they are very good at concealing it and it`s success wouldn`t depend on people on the street with fifty year old cameras.
It therefore seems not only inappropriate but pernicious to encourage that belief in others despite their obvious different cultural memory.
Pernicious to the extent that to do so may in some way encourage the the myth to become a reality .
That is how freedoms are often eroded.
 
Arjay, I am not a lawyer either - as you will probably guess from the following, although funnily enough my cousin is a judge in Muenchen and I will quiz her on her views on the subject when I next speak to her. But, to get back to the point, it is interesting to read in your post that the rights of the artist is enshrined in the BRD 'Grundgesetz' - as it is in the US 1st Amendment. Here in the UK we famously don't have a constitution, but regardless, it seems when common sense fails, things have to be tested by case law everywhere. Personally I'd rather not want to face the prospect of some nutter, chancer, egotist or policeman (or possibly all four) testing me and my work as an artist in court, but there we are. I think if someone is out on the streets in a public place then they have put themselves in the 'public domain' and have no special copyright to their own image. As long as the photographer is not making a nuisance of h/himself or holding his subject up to ridicule, then any objection in my view, is unjustifiable vanity; simply trivial and vexatious. It is also not for me to pre-judge whether someone might have something to hide, or is illegal - this is in turn could be construed as patronising and prejudiced on my part.
I sympathise with Michael's view too, but for me the bottom line is that if I genuinely believe a subject caught in frame would be genuinely upset, then I'm sensitive enough to demure. However, this 'self censorship' is very pernicious - the thin end of the wedge artistically, and erodes our own freedom of expression, as Michael has already said.
 
Last edited:
People frequently tell me I'm a bit crazy for doing what I do alone and they're probably right but I do have a habit of getting involved in areas with known social problems but only because I'm interested, and want to seek out positives and experiences from places people overlook.

Numerous times for Impression Milton Keynes I have been told I have been brave, it doesn't feel like that, I'm an instincts person and I'm street wise with my wits about me.

That said, I had a very scary encounter about a month ago where I was taking pictures in a precinct in an area of town that is known for real big problems and was taking pictures of the precinct and buildings (had no interest to do candids in such a location) -- it would have made good photos. Unfortunately a group of 5-6 young men (probably no older than 20) thought I was taking photos of them. As I walked up and went to go past them (I always make a point of not hiding myself to people, a trust-rapport thing I sorta do) they called me over saying "You taking pictures of us?"

The conversation got rather tense with accusations of me breaking the law, abusing their rights (it was a public space), that they wanted to see the pictures (I only use film) and that I should e-mail them the pictures. Then they came out with kids being around the place (which there were somewhere but not near where I was taking pictures!) Then I got accused of being the police!!!

I apologised for making them feel uncomfortable and explained what I was doing etc. I carried on down the path between the buildings about 75 yards at a very casual pace, aware of them behind me, turned the corner...

And ran ****ing hell for leather out of the area... Thankfully they were not behind me for long as they walked off somewhere else.

Annoyingly none of the pictures were much good of the precinct area. A lesson learnt.

I found out that day, about 20 minutes before I turned up taking pictures an assault had happened right where I was taking photos which ended up in some nasty punch up in a shop there.

Most people are intrigued and interested that I should even be interested in photographing their everyday environments and are really encouraged someone is taking notice.

Vicky
 
I would point out this is the only trouble I have ever had. I've not been shooting street for years and years (probably about 4-5 years) but my general attitude is just watch the reactions around you and if it feels 'not right' move on, some other day. Usually talking to people loosens them up, I've been able to shoot plenty a Big Issue seller by just talking to them about their day and whatever's being going down, in fact that's more interesting than the taking of the photo really.

It's a tricky one though, but I have no problems asking people saying what I'm up to if need be and thanking them after if I want something a bit more considered.

I just always show my face, walk slowly, and never hurry, I've got nothing to hide, I want people to feel as though they can approach me if they take issue.

But back to talking to people, it's those chats over garden fences and all the rest of it that really illuminate the photography for me around neighbourhoods, whether I'm successful at capturing that as well as making a technically competent picture is anyone's guess but I'll keep trying.



In that one the guy with the bongo or whatever it was spotted me taking the picture but I just removed the camera from my eyes smiled and gave them a thumbs up, flicked a coin into the hat and took the snap, they were more than happy with that.

Vicky
 
Last edited:
Lilserenity said:
People frequently tell me I'm a bit crazy for

I found out that day, about 20 minutes before I turned up taking pictures an assault had happened right where I was taking photos which ended up in some nasty punch up in a shop there.



Vicky
Click to expand...

I glad you had your wits about you Vicky, and managed to get yourself out of that situation fast, well done :cool: There we are, if some 'nutters' just want to pick a fight, then all bets are off and one just needs to get out of it asap.:bang:
 
Lilserenity said:
I would point out this is the only trouble I have ever had. I've not been shooting street for years and years (probably about 4-5 years) but my general attitude is just watch the reactions around you and if it feels 'not right' move on, some other day. Usually talking to people loosens them up, I've been able to shoot plenty a Big Issue seller by just talking to them about their day and whatever's being going down, in fact that's more interesting than the taking of the photo really.

It's a tricky one though, but I have no problems asking people saying what I'm up to if need be and thanking them after if I want something a bit more considered.

I just always show my face, walk slowly, and never hurry, I've got nothing to hide, I want people to feel as though they can approach me if they take issue.

But back to talking to people, it's those chats over garden fences and all the rest of it that really illuminate the photography for me around neighbourhoods, whether I'm successful at capturing that as well as making a technically competent picture is anyone's guess but I'll keep trying.



In that one the guy with the bongo or whatever it was spotted me taking the picture but I just removed the camera from my eyes smiled and gave them a thumbs up, flicked a coin into the hat and took the snap, they were more than happy with that.

Vicky
Click to expand...

V, that's good advice, thanks for sharing.
 
If you point you camera at people, either do it casually, like a sort of tourist let's say, keep your camera at the eye and go on aiming at something else after talking your pic.
Otherwise it seem to be a sense of politeness to ask the people for taking their picture; I do that everytime (here in the UK), and some people are fine, some people refuse; well, I never tried to stole pics from people uncomfortable with being pictured; neither the hipshot technique. Street photo does mean imho sharing with people and an opportunity to talk with them, get closer;
so far never got assaulted for being polite or even cheeky from asking bluntly "would you mind me taking a picture where you could appear into?"... :)
 
Michael Markey said:
:)

Sorry I digressed.The individuals status ,whatever that was ,was immaterial.
The point ,for me, was that in the UK we have no cultural history of an overbearing secretive state.Which is no doubt why we seem happy to accept so many security cameras in our cities.
If such a thing exists they are very good at concealing it and it`s success wouldn`t depend on people on the street with fifty year old cameras.
It therefore seems not only inappropriate but pernicious to encourage that belief in others despite their obvious different cultural memory.
Pernicious to the extent that to do so may in some way encourage the the myth to become a reality .
That is how freedoms are often eroded.
Click to expand...

Point taken, Michael. You are right, my feelings toward governmental authority in Germany are somewhat different, having been formed in the days of the 1968 student riots and the terrorist hysteria in the 1970ies. My trust in a government that treats its citizens fairly and transparently obviously is lower than yours, and I guess both of us have sound reasons for our positions.

I am not advocating self-censorship, but common sense in the way I interact with other people as a photographer on the streets.

It is neither my task nor my duty to determine if there are people on the street that shouldn't be there or to ask why they woudln't want to be recorded on film or an image sensor - my interest rather is to steer clear of trouble. The best way to do that is to not antagonize the people I deal with.

As to state authorities, I do have a fair share of scepticism, and I intend to keep it that way. Giving in to those folks would indeed be preemptive obedience and self-censorship - that's not my cup of tea.
 
Last edited:
Arjay said:
I am not advocating self-censorship, but common sense in the way I interact with other people as a photographer on the streets.

It is neither my task nor my duty to determine if there are people on the street that shouldn't be there or to ask why they woudln't want to be recorded on film or an image sensor - my interest rather is to steer clear of trouble. The best way to do that is to not antagonize the people I deal with.

As to state authorities, I do have a fair share of scepticism, and I intend to keep it that way. Giving in to those folks would indeed be preemptive obedience and self-censorship - that's not my cup of tea.
Click to expand...

That all seems a sensible strategy to me.
I think that we need to try and maintain what independence we have as individuals and think carefully before we heed the sirene voices that would have us all tagged and identified for our own safety.
In the Uk we have seen off ID cards for the moment but pictures on driving licence cards seem to have crept in.
You can still however walk about without the legal requirement to identify yourself.
Likewise resist the blandishments of some shopping complex managers who on the one hand want to encourage photography but insist on having the final say as to what photography is allowed.
Such a case recently in Manchester.
I must have missed the point at which high court judges started to run shopping malls or indeed when shop managers became the final arbiter on the finer points of English civil law.
Difficult and trying times and I`m sure that we will not always judge it correctly.
I suspect that I won`t for one.
 
Oh dear :)
I don`t know what I`d have done if confronted with the horrible situation that you had to deal with.
I`m begining to think that taking pictures of horses is actually much safer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom