Street Photography Ethics

[kenoh]

And all this over a photo-shopping venture to Costco. Next it will be outrage of images of Furry's at Walmart. Stop the carnage.

Furry’s are the thing that has confirmed to me that I am now very much OLD. I really do not understand the whole Furry thing. It isn’t cosplay which I understand, I wish I had a stormtrooper outfit too, it isnt some weird fetish thing (I think). So what on earth is the deal?

I think this whole thread is a discussion of a well debated topic and it is one of those situations where the law affords the taking of peoples images in public and the general person on the street doesn’t know this hence conflicts.

There is a whole genre on YouTube of so called “auditing” where someone goes to a building and takes video and still images of it to illicit a reaction from security or law enforcement. I think that while they are not acting unlawfully, they are being antagonistic and baiting their prey. It is similar to the Ring doorbell point earlier. The photographer has the right to take pictures in a place accepted as publicly accessible but the occupier of the property has the right to enquire as to your purpose. As to whether either party wish to engage and comply is up to them.

Owners of private property have the right to ask you to stop taking pictures or footage when ON their property but not OF their property from a publicly accessible place. This becomes even more debateable when we talk about flying a drone over places. A property owner may own the property but they have no claim to the airspace above it - this seems to be a new way of winding people up on YouTube. Flying drones over industrial facilities to wind them up.

I mean, yes OK, you are entitled to do that if you want but why fly a done over a water processing plant or the roof of a factory? Yes you are “allowed to” but the hassle of retrieving it if something went wrong is just not worth it.

Picture of police stations is one where I am actually on the side of the police. Although you are legally allowed to take pictures of a police station from a public place, come on, why? Why do that knowing that it is going to be seen as suspicious and if your thing is to do a project of police facilities, then just tell them when asked. Don’t then refuse to cooperate because it just triggers them and gets everyone involved fired up and ruins the rest of your/their day for no real reason.

We all have to take a second before we progress and do a quick Would you - Could you - Should you test

Would you like it if it were done to you regardless of it being lawful?
Could you cause any alarm or distress to the subjects?
In light of the two above, should you carry on?

There is nothing about the original image in question that would raise alarm bells other than the property owners being sensitive about photography in their store - on an actual camera. Like someone said earlier the rules seem to not apply to smartphones. This is funny to me.

I am not understanding why the picture in the original post has been singled out and the topic has been done to death now and all on the assumption that a quick “is it OK if I…..?” hadn’t been done first.

 

[bondr006]

Furry’s are the thing that has confirmed to me that I am now very much OLD. I really do not understand the whole Furry thing. It isn’t cosplay which I understand, I wish I had a stormtrooper outfit too, it isnt some weird fetish thing (I think). So what on earth is the deal?

I think this whole thread is a discussion of a well debated topic and it is one of those situations where the law affords the taking of peoples images in public and the general person on the street doesn’t know this hence conflicts.

There is a whole genre on YouTube of so called “auditing” where someone goes to a building and takes video and still images of it to illicit a reaction from security or law enforcement. I think that while they are not acting unlawfully, they are being antagonistic and baiting their prey. It is similar to the Ring doorbell point earlier. The photographer has the right to take pictures in a place accepted as publicly accessible but the occupier of the property has the right to enquire as to your purpose. As to whether either party wish to engage and comply is up to them.

Owners of private property have the right to ask you to stop taking pictures or footage when ON their property but not OF their property from a publicly accessible place. This becomes even more debatable when we talk about flying a drone over places. A property owner may own the property but they have no claim to the airspace above it - this seems to be a new way of winding people up on YouTube. Flying drones over industrial facilities to wind them up.

I mean, yes OK, you are entitled to do that if you want but why fly a done over a water processing plant or the roof of a factory? Yes you are “allowed to” but the hassle of retrieving it if something went wrong is just not worth it.

Picture of police stations is one where I am actually on the side of the police. Although you are legally allowed to take pictures of a police station from a public place, come on, why? Why do that knowing that it is going to be seen as suspicious and if your thing is to do a project of police facilities, then just tell them when asked. Don’t then refuse to cooperate because it just triggers them and gets everyone involved fired up and ruins the rest of your/their day for no real reason.

We all have to take a second before we progress and do a quick Would you - Could you - Should you test

Would you like it if it were done to you regardless of it being lawful?
Could you cause any alarm or distress to the subjects?
In light of the two above, should you carry on?

There is nothing about the original image in question that would raise alarm bells other than the property owners being sensitive about photography in their store - on an actual camera. Like someone said earlier the rules seem to not apply to smartphones. This is funny to me.

I am not understanding why the picture in the original post has been singled out and the topic has been done to death now and all on the assumption that a quick “is it OK if I…..?” hadn’t been done first.

Very nicely put! I don't know if there is a difference in the real estate laws in the UK, but here in the states, property owners have airspace rights up to 1000 feet above their property, unless they are rural and in the flight path of incoming commercial jets. Then their airspace rights are capped at 500 feet. I am a realtor, and that was one of the many mundane real estate factoids we learned in licensing class.

 

[Nhwhazup]

What is the standard or laws in other countries when it comes to this?

I never think twice when taking photos in public but I also don’t focus in on strangers.

When I was in Germany on a tour of Heidelberg, I went to take a photo of the tour guide all dressed in his costume. I was quickly reprimanded to ask his permission before taking the photo.

 

[olavsu1]

In some countries, a tsunft (photography guild) vest is required when taking pictures. When wearing this vest, you don't have to repeatedly ask for permission to take pictures. I've met a photographer who forgot his tsunft vest in his hotel room and got beaten up by park rangers. When it turned out that the photographer still had a license (tsunft vest) and had been invited to take pictures of the wedding, they said to take the beating as a warning, and the broken equipment and lost teeth were not compensated.

 

[arkitect]

In some countries, a tsunft (photography guild) vest is required when taking pictures. When wearing this vest, you don't have to repeatedly ask for permission to take pictures. I've met a photographer who forgot his tsunft vest in his hotel room and got beaten up by park rangers. When it turned out that the photographer still had a license (tsunft vest) and had been invited to take pictures of the wedding, they said to take the beating as a warning, and the broken equipment and lost teeth were not compensated.

Which countries are those?
Just as a reminder to myself not to go visiting.

Seriously. A tourist with a so so semi pro camera needs a vest or get beaten up?

I do quite a bit of travelling and have never come across something remotely like that.

Not in Europe, not in North or South America, Africa or the Far East.

 

[Jumpthesnark]

In some countries, a tsunft (photography guild) vest is required when taking pictures. When wearing this vest, you don't have to repeatedly ask for permission to take pictures. I've met a photographer who forgot his tsunft vest in his hotel room and got beaten up by park rangers. When it turned out that the photographer still had a license (tsunft vest) and had been invited to take pictures of the wedding, they said to take the beating as a warning, and the broken equipment and lost teeth were not compensated.

This sounds ridiculous and hopefully apocryphal. Park rangers beating up a wedding photographer because he forgot his photography guild vest? Breaking his equipment and his teeth? It strains credulity.

I've had to wear sideline vests at football games and other events, but they are given out at the event, as a way to quickly identify credentialed photographers. The presence of such vests doesn't give anyone blanket permission to assault a photographer who leaves it in the press room by accident.

Likewise I have a reflective vest I keep in my car in case I am photographing around a roadway. The state highway patrol urges all workers who are parked and working near roadways to wear such vests for visibility, but they're not going to beat a working photographer if they don't have one.

This is all in the U.S., and other places have different rules and laws of course. Where did this happen?

 

[mollyc]

It depends on what kind of camera you are armed with. Smartphone or Nikon s3000, take photos of what you want and where you want, except private area, places marked with the InformationLivingStreet sign.

if you happen to have a D850 on your finger, be prepared to be kicked out of most places if don't have a license or invitation. You can only take a picture there if you have been invited there and can prove the existence of the invitation (must wear a spetsific vest). However, it is possible to take a picture in these places before the rooster crows.

In some countries, a tsunft (photography guild) vest is required when taking pictures. When wearing this vest, you don't have to repeatedly ask for permission to take pictures. I've met a photographer who forgot his tsunft vest in his hotel room and got beaten up by park rangers. When it turned out that the photographer still had a license (tsunft vest) and had been invited to take pictures of the wedding, they said to take the beating as a warning, and the broken equipment and lost teeth were not compensated.

I think this poster is referring to Germany.

I found this. Germany seems to distinguish a bit between taking and sharing photos.

Photography laws in Germany

If you take or share photos of other people in Germany, you need to follow certain rules.

allaboutberlin.com

 

[bondr006]

In some countries, a tsunft (photography guild) vest is required when taking pictures. When wearing this vest, you don't have to repeatedly ask for permission to take pictures. I've met a photographer who forgot his tsunft vest in his hotel room and got beaten up by park rangers. When it turned out that the photographer still had a license (tsunft vest) and had been invited to take pictures of the wedding, they said to take the beating as a warning, and the broken equipment and lost teeth were not compensated.

Which countries are those?
Just as a reminder to myself not to go visiting.

Seriously. A tourist with a so so semi pro camera needs a vest or get beaten up?

I do quite a bit of travelling and have never come across something remotely like that.

Not in Europe, not in North or South America, Africa or the Far East.

This sounds ridiculous and hopefully apocryphal. Park rangers beating up a wedding photographer because he forgot his photography guild vest? Breaking his equipment and his teeth? It strains credulity.

I've had to wear sideline vests at football games and other events, but they are given out at the event, as a way to quickly identify credentialed photographers. The presence of such vests doesn't give anyone blanket permission to assault a photographer who leaves it in the press room by accident.

Likewise I have a reflective vest I keep in my car in case I am photographing around a roadway. The state highway patrol urges all workers who are parked and working near roadways to wear such vests for visibility, but they're not going to beat a working photographer if they don't have one.

This is all in the U.S., and other places have different rules and laws of course. Where did this happen?

100% Agree. This is what I was talking about in previous posts and why I disagree so sternly with statements like this.

"the need for controls on photography (all photography) need to be increased and strong due to the insatiable wants and needs of many in society"

I have no desire to live in a country with that kind of control over every thing you do, and even your thoughts. My wife is from China, and even when in Shanghai (her home town), I freely walk around with my camera and take as many photos as I want. In fact, I have never had any problems taking pictures anywhere we've been in China. I am a retired Navy Photographer and have been all over Europe and North Africa taking photos freely also. It will be a sad day when we are forced to live in a dystopian world where all culture and art are dead. Reminds me of a book I read years ago called, Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury.

 

[olavsu1]

Which countries are those?
Just as a reminder to myself not to go visiting.

Seriously. A tourist with a so so semi pro camera needs a vest or get beaten up?

I do quite a bit of travelling and have never come across something remotely like that.

Not in Europe, not in North or South America, Africa or the Far East.

It happened in India, about 500 meters outside the Tāj Mahal garden. Only those who have purchased a license vest from the Tāj Mahal administrators can take pictures there. And this vest must be worn, otherwise the uneducated guards may not understand whether the photographer has permission to take pictures or not.

Even in my home country, Estonia, there have appeared many self-proclaimed inspectors whose hobby is to scold when a photographer happens to have a professional camera. I have been reprimanded three times for taking nature photography. No physical reprimand has yet been received, but threats have been made. That's why I do things to get a similar licence vest. Otherwise, photography here is completely unregulated (everyone makes their own rules) and the reaction of fellow citizens depends on how awesome a camera the photographer happens to have.

Sometimes event organizers offer photographer wristbands and vests that allow you to take pictures at the event.

Once I went to a local beer festival, then I bought a photographer's ticket. It was a wristband that allows take photos at the event.

 

[olavsu1]

I have also been scolded for taking a 500mm telephoto lens out of its bag. Since it was attached to the D5000, the swear words were withdrawn. The D5000 is the entry-level camera here. The images taken by it are not considered suitable for publication in print media.

 

[kenoh]

Very nicely put! I don't know if there is a difference in the real estate laws in the UK, but here in the states, property owners have airspace rights up to 1000 feet above their property, unless they are rural and in the flight path of incoming commercial jets. Then their airspace rights are capped at 500 feet. I am a realtor, and that was one of the many mundane real estate factoids we learned in licensing class.

Wow. No, here in the UK it is

Very nicely put! I don't know if there is a difference in the real estate laws in the UK, but here in the states, property owners have airspace rights up to 1000 feet above their property, unless they are rural and in the flight path of incoming commercial jets. Then their airspace rights are capped at 500 feet. I am a realtor, and that was one of the many mundane real estate factoids we learned in licensing class.

It is normally 500-1000 ft of airspace but a drone under 250g is not subject to that directive or some such caveat.

 

[mollyc]

It happened in India, about 500 meters outside the Tāj Mahal garden. Only those who have purchased a license vest from the Tāj Mahal administrators can take pictures there. And this vest must be worn, otherwise the uneducated guards may not understand whether the photographer has permission to take pictures or not.

Even in my home country, Estonia, there have appeared many self-proclaimed inspectors whose hobby is to scold when a photographer happens to have a professional camera. I have been reprimanded three times for taking nature photography. No physical reprimand has yet been received, but threats have been made. That's why I do things to get a similar licence vest. Otherwise, photography here is completely unregulated (everyone makes their own rules) and the reaction of fellow citizens depends on how awesome a camera the photographer happens to have.

Sometimes event organizers offer photographer wristbands and vests that allow you to take pictures at the event.

Once I went to a local beer festival, then I bought a photographer's ticket. It was a wristband that allows take photos at the event.

I have also been scolded for taking a 500mm telephoto lens out of its bag. Since it was attached to the D5000, the swear words were withdrawn. The D5000 is the entry-level camera here. The images taken by it are not considered suitable for publication in print media.

Thank you for explaining further; it is important to know the rules/laws/customs when you travel; I wouldn't have expected such outrage at the Taj Mahal being such a large tourist destination; I have friends who were there in the past couple of years and took and posted a lot of photos from it (my friend was actually born in India but raised here, so she and her family - now adult children and her US born husband - have been a number of times over the years). I'd have to go back and find the photos, but maybe they only used phones.

It's also equally surprising that "authorities" would know the difference among a bunch of camera makes and models! I am willing to bet that the Nikon D5000 takes images that are definitely print worthy; we all know it's not the actual gear that always makes a difference but the person using it.

But thank you for sharing your stories; it's important to know regional differences and to realize that those of us in the US are afforded a lot of freedoms we take for granted.

 

[olavsu1]

Thank you for explaining further; it is important to know the rules/laws/customs when you travel; I wouldn't have expected such outrage at the Taj Mahal being such a large tourist destination; I have friends who were there in the past couple of years and took and posted a lot of photos from it (my friend was actually born in India but raised here, so she and her family - now adult children and her US born husband - have been a number of times over the years). I'd have to go back and find the photos, but maybe they only used phones.

It's also equally surprising that "authorities" would know the difference among a bunch of camera makes and models!

I can see from 360Cities panos. The compact cameras (like Canon Ixus, Tetenal Kodak M35) are allowed without license. I don't see anyone, who have compact camera, wearing a license vest.
LINK: https://www.360cities.net/image/taj-mahal-sunset-classic-view-india
it is not known how old this panoramic photo is.
//It's taken: 14/09/2009 Google Earth don't show that data.

Maybe the attitude towards wedding photographers is different. Becauce they are profesionals.

I am willing to bet that the Nikon D5000 takes images that are definitely print worthy;

Nikon D5000 is DX, it is despised here, the cameras considered professional are FX and larger.
Although I can see the changes. The Fujifilm X-T5 has appeared in the hands of the magazine's photographers. It's also DX.

we all know it's not the actual gear that always makes a difference but the person using it.

Yes, but having used the D750 model for a while. Don't want to go back to the D5000. Maybe I would take the model with one less zero in the name.

 

[olavsu1]

One official response was received from one local government. I don't translate it.

Vastusena Teie pöördumisele anname teada, et Viimsi Vallavalitsus ei jaga vastavalt tähistatud veste ega märke.

Viimsi valla avalikus ruumis (tänavatel, parkides ja metsades) fotografeerimisel või filmimisel ei ole vallavalitsuse vastavat kooskõlastus või luba vaja, kui sellise tegevusega ei piirata liiklust või ei suleta teid vms.

Kui filmimine / fotografeerimine on kommertstegevuse eesmärgil, tuleb võtta taustale jäävate inimeste nõusolek.

Fotograafina on Teil oluline tunda oma õigusi ja kohustusi, vastavalt situatsioonidele.

 

[bondr006]

One official response was received from one local government. I don't translate it.

Estonian to English translation

”In response to your request, we would like to inform you that the Viimsi Municipal Government does not distribute vests or badges marked accordingly. When photographing or filming in the public space of Viimsi municipality (streets, parks and forests), the corresponding approval or permission of the municipality government is not required, if such activity does not restrict traffic or close roads, etc. If the filming / photography is for commercial purposes, the consent of the people in the background must be obtained. As a photographer, it is important for you to know your rights and responsibilities, according to the situations.”

 

[arkitect]

Thank you for explaining further; it is important to know the rules/laws/customs when you travel; I wouldn't have expected such outrage at the Taj Mahal being such a large tourist destination;

I think people are getting this muddled.

The Taj Mahal site comprises the Garden, Mausoleum and Mosque.

There is no problem taking photographs in the gardens and exteriors of the buildings — which are the photos we often see.

Photography is forbidden inside the actual Mausoleum… and that is to be expected.

The photo of you or companions with the Taj Mahal at the back of the lake is 100% fine.
That is, if you can manage to get there early enough to snap one! 😀

Edit:
Here's an example close to home for me.
In London I can take as many exteriors of Westminster Abbey as I want… but I am not allowed to snap any inside the Abbey.

Even St Paul's used to have this rule, but it seems to have been relaxed.

Estonian to English translation

”In response to your request, we would like to inform you that the Viimsi Municipal Government does not distribute vests or badges marked accordingly. When photographing or filming in the public space of Viimsi municipality (streets, parks and forests), the corresponding approval or permission of the municipality government is not required, if such activity does not restrict traffic or close roads, etc. If the filming / photography is for commercial purposes, the consent of the people in the background must be obtained. As a photographer, it is important for you to know your rights and responsibilities, according to the situations.”

Thanks! 👍

So I fail to see what the fuss is all about.

The Estonian government and authorities obviously have no problem with people taking photos…

There will always, always be rules for commercial photography, but for most people those do not apply.

 

[olavsu1]

However, the rulers of the country are often quite far from real life. They don't care.

The best time for street photography is in the summer on Sunday morning before the rooster crows, when most the albums with the best pictures were taken here. The vast majority of unwanted screamers will then sleep and there is no risk that any of them will disturb you.

There is still no answer from one place.

 

[kenoh]

Here is an interesting read regards the law in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Scotland has a tweaked version

https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/ph/photography-advice/

 

[arkitect]

Here is an interesting read regards the law in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Scotland has a tweaked version

https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/ph/photography-advice/

As much as I despair of the political and economic direction the UK is going in (never mind the drich weather!), I am thankful that I live here.

To quote:

Freedom to photograph and film​

Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel.

However, the rulers of the country are often quite far from real life. They don't care.

Oh believe me, that is not exclusive to your government. 🤬
I have yet to come across any government that actually is in touch with every day life.

Once elected they forget where they come from… that is if they even ever cared.

 

[kenoh]

As much as I despair of the political and economic direction the UK is going in (never mind the drich weather!), I am thankful that I live here.

To quote:




Oh believe me, that is not exclusive to your government. 🤬
I have yet to come across any government that actually is in touch with every day life.

Once elected they forget where they come from… that is if they even ever cared.

Same here. I love living in Scotland even if the taxes are getting hideous.

 

[citysnaps]

If we're discussing ethics, that's personal.

If we're discussing legal aspects, in the United States that's covered in the four invasion of privacy torts: Intrusion (upon seclusion), Appropriation of name or likeness for commercial purposes, Public disclosure of private facts, and Publicly placing a person in a false light.

Not speaking as an attorney, but as a photographer who enjoys making street photos most often with people in the frame.


Regarding my personal ethics... If I'm making canid photos of people on the street I do so openly, without sneaking around, not making hip-shots, not fiddling with my camera while sneaking a shot, not using long lenses (I only shoot with a 35mm lens), not hiding my camera, or other deceptive measures. People on the street are incredibly perceptive and can recognize that a half block away. Photos using deceptive measures always seem to not look very good, anyway.

And with making candid photos out in the open, I'm willing to accept the consequences if someone objects or wants to give me piece of their mind.

I also make a lot of street portraits when I engage a stranger on the street, have some conversation, and a few minutes later hit them up for a portrait. Subjects almost always say yes, and that gives me an opportunity to find some nice light and background.