Take the damn photos already
A commenter who identifies himself as Wigwam Jones took great exception to our recent writeup on Photography: Rights vs Respect. Personally, I disagree in part, but Jones makes his points so succinctly, that it’d be a shame not to toss it up to a wider audience.
The way photographers lose their rights is by implying to others that they have some sort of right to not have their photograph taken. Eventually, people begin to believe it. There is no ‘right to privacy’ in public in the USA, as you stated. While it is up to the individual photographer to decide if he or she wants to take a photograph of a particular scene or individual, asking for permission is asking for trouble. Take the photo. Do it. Do not apologize, do not ask for permission. Permission is for sucks. Uphold freedom, take the photo.
Did the ATM machine that just took your photo as you walked by ask your permission first? What about the police surveillance cameras on light poles and traffic signals? How about the various cameras in every convenience store, bank, and many other businesses? Just because they are automated, those who put them there are somehow off the hook? No. If a person is in public and I want to take a photo of them, I do. I will not stop doing it. I’m doing the heavy lifting of ensuring continuing freedom of the press and freedom of expression by doing so.
The Amish know perfectly well that they don’t have the right to demand that no one take their photo. They will turn their heads or turn their backs at the last moment to spoil the shot – that’s their right to do so. But their desire is not the same as a right – if I indulge them, it is me indulging them, not their right to demand it of me.
Take the photos. Liberty beckons. Get busy.
Wigwam Jones is a photographer. He is currently working on putting together an on-line photography course, which can be found on Camera Mentor. It’s a work in progress, but we can’t but wish him good luck on his effort!
My day job, if it can be called that, is being a writer. I've got one book out there so far and it's awesome, so go ahead and buy a copy! It's available from 
In front of you, five hyperactive men with guitars, drums, and microphones. Behind you, five thousand fans. In your hands, a camera... You're going to need more than just a little bit of good luck to pull this one off. That's where this book comes in.
Take a Canon EOS 450D. Attach a Canon 50mm f/1.4 lens. Hit the streets of London. See what happens.
Insights, suggestions and comments
This seems a little like liberty for liberty’s sake, and also one-sided. How about the liberty of the subject to go about their daily business _without_ being photographed. Sure, there are cameras pointing at them all the time, that doesn’t mean it’s right.
Secondly, how about respect? It is my right (implied) to walk down the street in a purple and lime-green spandex catsuit, but out of respect for my fellow citizens, I refrain from doing so. (And self-respect, of course!)
I think it’s usually quite clear when someone _doesn’t_ want their photo taking. If they seem happy, snap away… if they _don’t_ seem happy, you have a choice – if it’s in the public interest that this person is photographed (the boss of a business accused of fraud, perhaps), then also go ahead. If it’s just in your interest, or the interest of liberty, then… well, maybe respect their liberty, too and refrain from taking the shot?
This comes from someone who, up to a few months ago, was terrified of photographing strangers. I now find it’s one of the most interesting areas of photography – but does need treating with respect lest we (the photographers) experience a backlash from the public, which then _will_ result in privacy legislation or whatever. If you don’t push the boundaries too much, they won’t come snapping back to bite you on the arse.
Just a few thoughts.
Following the law is not pushing boundaries. Is driving 55 MPH in a 55 MPH zone pushing the boundaries? Does it mean that you should actually drive 45 out of respect? Bollocks. In the US, not only does one legally not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, but the courts have repeatedly and explicitly upheld the right to photograph in public places.
That’s one of the rules of being in public. If you don’t like it, you have choices: wear a disguise, wear something that obscures any part of you that you don’t want photographed (much as you already wear clothing), don’t go out in public, or, as Wigwam Jones pointed out, do your best to not be photographed.
The backlash from the public argument is utterly bogus. First, at a time when photography is practised by more people than ever before in this country, photography by individuals is ironically viewed with great suspicion. There already *is* a backlash against photography, and it hasn’t had the slightest legal effect on the right to do it (see PhotoPermit.org for the former and the diCorcia-Nussenzweig case for the latter).
The right to create visual records in public is incredibly important. The potential benefits to society, in my view, greatly outweigh anybody’s annoyance at having their photo taken. (Think Rodney King.)
How is it OK to strip rights you’d give to others from someone *accused* of fraud? Are we not still innocent until proven guilty? Why would it be OK even if they were found guilty? Does the public’s bloodlust for spectacle and vilification outweigh a fraudster’s desire for the liberty of not having their photo taken?
I believe this—as does pretty much anything else—comes down to an issue of informed consent. Others have the right to take your picture in public, where you have no legal reasonable expectation of privacy. By entering a public space, you inherently consent to being photographed. If we look at your way, Stu, which I gather requires some sort of consent above and beyond that, you aren’t following your own rules by not getting explicit consent before “respecting their liberty”. Having sex with someone while they’re sleeping is still rape; the absence of objection is not consent. After-the-fact consent just means you got away with it.
I’m sorry, but attacking a law that you’re benefitting from and not admitting it is an untenable position. If you really believe that people have the moral right not to be photographed in public if they so desire, how can you not ask permission before taking the shot?
“This seems a little like liberty for liberty’s sake, and also one-sided. How about the liberty of the subject to go about their daily business _without_ being photographed. Sure, there are cameras pointing at them all the time, that doesn’t mean it’s right.”
Liberty for liberty’s sake? Sounds good to me. The boundaries have yet to be defined – not pushing out the sides of the bag means we consent to live within it. Everything must be taken to extremes.
The subject has *no* liberty to go about their daily business without being photographed. “Right” in what sense? Moral, ethical? Perhaps – those things being subjective. In the legal sense? No, not at all. Their choice is to remain out of the public view.
“Secondly, how about respect? It is my right (implied) to walk down the street in a purple and lime-green spandex catsuit, but out of respect for my fellow citizens, I refrain from doing so. (And self-respect, of course!)”
Well, what about respect? Respect can only exist in free societies where people have an option to respect or not respect each other. In societies where politeness is enforced, where ‘feelings’ become law, respect is only a word, because it is enforced with a stick. I respect our freedom, and I ensure it continues by getting in everybody’s faces and taking those photos whether they like it or not. Freedom is not easy.
“…if it’s in the public interest that this person is photographed (the boss of a business accused of fraud, perhaps), then also go ahead. If it’s just in your interest, or the interest of liberty, then… well, maybe respect their liberty, too and refrain from taking the shot?”
Liberty is more important than our discomfort. Liberty is the natural condition of life. Humans choose to live together in societies, and that implies a voluntary limitation of actions we might otherwise engage in. But we are a society of laws, and those laws must be tested, exercised, and the boundaries made as clear as we can make them. Otherwise, the natural response is that they contract. The response to fear is always to remove liberty. Stand up, take the photo, defend liberty.
“…but does need treating with respect lest we (the photographers) experience a backlash from the public, which then _will_ result in privacy legislation or whatever. If you don’t push the boundaries too much, they won’t come snapping back to bite you on the arse.”
There is no such thing as ‘too much freedom.’ All rights must be fought for, or they are worth nothing.
Smooches,
Wiggy
I agree with Wigwam. I do mainly street photography and take shots of people on a daily basis. I do this because I want to document the world. And the world isn’t sugar coated. I certainly use some judgement in what I decide to shoot. Safety outweighs getting the shot.. always. Respect and exploitation both have their place in photography. Its all about the shot you want to achieve. These are artistic and moral decisions. You do what you have to do as long as its within your rights and abilities to do so. If a person exits a privately owned property they should expect to be seen and consequently photographed.
Really, should we be limited as photographers to happy people and criminals? There are certainly as many people in grief or angry or confused as there are happy people or criminals.
People seem the think they own the image light makes when reflecting from them.
Lets take it further, should I be allowed to draw from memory somebody I saw? Of course, and a photograph is no different. Nobody owns sunlight, even if it bounced off of them.
If you don’t want people capturing the light that reflects from you, either stay out of public, or wrap yourself in black felt.
You have no right to privacy in public. That is why we call it public, not private.
Here’s another twist: how do you pretect yourself from someone (say, someone with a crime record) who doesn’t know you have the right to have to take their picture in public and threatens to use violence or legal action unless you – one way or the other – make clear that you’ve deleted the photo.
…I suppose those of us who wish not to be photographed should just stay inside all day hu? Never go to the store to get food, never drive to work, never go outside and play with our kids, never do ANYTHING outside for the fear of a picture being slapped all over the tabloids where any pervert can see it…yeah, that’s freedom…
Share your wisdom