The ethics of posting street photography

[bowjac]

I was thinking of posting some shots of my street photography, but paused as I pondered my own ethical dilemma.

I had no permission. No model release.
I never felt this as an issue until I contemplated posting on a website, open for anyone to see.

Does a person's presence in a public place imply consent to publish their image?

I don't mean people in a crowd, but a full, frame filling face.

I found a thread where Kym proposed...
"Is it ethical to photograph someone without their consent ?
- Yes, with limits, i.e. in public is ok; but not through their bathroom/bedroom window"

But let's take that discussion further, to the publishing of a person's image, that was taken without their consent.

I'd love to hear your views.

[Kym]

The law is relatively simple on this.
Is the subject in public view and the image is not promoting a product (i.e. commercial)? then go for it.

See: http://www.artslaw.com.au/info-sheets/info-sheet/street-photographers-rights/

[ricktas]

Model release is only required where the photos is being used to promote something, advertising as such. So say you took a photo of a girl in front of a bus-stop, where the bus-stop had a big Coca-Cola banner. Then your photo is seen by Coca-Cola and they want to use it..then you need a model release.

For general street photography, you do not!

If the person is not undertaking something that a reasonable adult would expect to be 'private' and you took the photo from a public street, then there is no argument, you are free to post that photo.

If we had laws about privacy and photography, and needed a person's permission to take their photo, every CCTV camera, speed camera, etc in the country would be illegal.

Just post some photos, and enjoy the critique you get.

[jim]

I find it interesting that the OP spoke of ethics, and both replies so far have confined themselves to describing the law. They aren't the same!

Me, I have no problems with posting photos of people without their permission (nobody owns their own image) but I can easily think of instances where I would refrain from doing so, just out of kindness if nothing else.

[Wayne]

I have to agree with Jim, at law is one thing, ethics entirely another. I too am not one who would refrain from posting a lawfully obtained image of a person just because they might not want it posted, or because I never sought their permission, but depending upon what the image depicts I may put aside asserting my legal right and choose not to publish instead.

Think about all we have ever done in view of the public, and then consider if all of those moments might contain a few embarrassing or suggestive images if they were captured, and I'm sure there would be times most of us would rather not see displayed on a website.

[I @ M]

But let's take that discussion further, to the publishing of a person's image, that was taken without their consent.

The bold accent in the quote is mine.

Those two words hold the key to the whole issue to me.

I have absolutely no problems with taking and publishing images of people in public candidly.
I apply my own ethical standards.
I refrain from taking photographs of people that would demean them.
Problem solved, if the image isn't captured then it can't be published.
If you happen to take a photo of someone that fails your own ethical test when you review it, delete it, it cannot be published.
If you continue taking photographs of people that fail simple ethical tests then you really need to question whether you are a photographer or a sensation seeker.

[ricktas]

my ethics are the same as the law here. It is not illegal, and I have no issue, morally, in taking or posting photos as described, therefore I referenced the law, and said, go ahead.

[Kym]

Ethics... Would you have published this image... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TrangBang.jpg (By Nick Ut) ?

[Longshots]

While some beat their chests about what they consider ethical and we all run around in circles like headless chickens, the really sad part about all of this, is that while we have almost millions of images to look back over the last hundred years and more in terms of how we recall the past, how our culture, and our people have progressed, eventually, our childrens children will conclude that "people" stopped going out into the streets after 2000, as there will be very few still images of people in the street.

And yes Kym I would have, and fortunately this image was captured by an incredibly brave photographer, who - among many brave photographers from the Vietnam war - were able to tell a story and deliver a message, and that message worked and eventually stopped the Vietnam war .

Heres a further list of images that changed the world.

http://pinguy.infogami.com/blog/vwm6

These truly demonstrate the saying that an image is worth a thousand words.

[I @ M]

Kym and William, I think we need to draw a clear line between an individual practising a hobby ( I would think that the vast majority of "street photography" would be done on a non commercial basis ) and photo journalism or presenting newsworthy images in the public interest.
Obviously public interest and history changing images deserve to be captured and published so that we all may be reminded of events.
Celebrity stalking by paparazzi and covert snapping of people that may be morally questionable simply don't fall into either public interest or news worthy categories to me.

Also, William, do you not find it interesting that the moral minority that is photobucket has seen it fit to delete / censor several images in that link you provided? :rolleyes:

[ricktas]

The other issues with ethics, is that we all have different ones. I could post a photo that I am happy posting, but someone else's ethics find the photo over-steps their own pre-defined boundaries. Ethics are generally not something that is thrashed out and agreed upon (other than general societal norms). We each have our own, and none of us are right or wrong, about how we define our own set of ethics. So if you are happy posting something, do it, if you are not, don't do it. It really is up to each individual.

The Law provides us with a boundary, a limit, generally based on societal ethics. So Law and Ethics are intrinsically interwoven, and discussing one without the other, is probably unlikely.

[outstar79]

"The law is generally on the side of the street photographer. As long as the subject is in public, and doesn’t have the expectation of privacy, it is legal to take their photo. Common sense needs to come into play as well of course. You can’t disrupt law enforcement or get in people’s way, and for lack of better terms, do something pervy. If it was illegal the paparazzi couldn’t exist the way they do today. However, there’s a big difference between the paparazzi and the modern street photographer. The paparazzi seek to create a story by any means necessarily regardless of the ethics behind it. A good street photographer captures an existing story and leaves it untouched."

http://jasonmcgorty.com/2011/11/the-ethics-of-street-photography/

Myself, If you're out in the public - you're fair game. Everyone has their own strict moral codes and ethics that they live by. Myself, I'm just an artist capturing my muse on my digital canvas.

[Kym]

Thanks William!
I would have published it, I would also publish similar images if I happened to be in the right place at the right time to capture it.
I have taken and published some street images, including homeless persons.

I don't see a difference between photojournalists and amateurs, as they both want to capture and communicate a story.
In fact nowadays we are encouraged to submit images and video to news services, thus in once sense we can all be photojournalists.

I also agree that there is a big difference between capturing a story and creating one.

In the end go out, take photos, and share them. We are all better for it as we learning about each other and society.

[Longshots]

Kym and William, I think we need to draw a clear line between an individual practising a hobby ( I would think that the vast majority of "street photography" would be done on a non commercial basis ) and photo journalism or presenting newsworthy images in the public interest.
Obviously public interest and history changing images deserve to be captured and published so that we all may be reminded of events.
Celebrity stalking by paparazzi and covert snapping of people that may be morally questionable simply don't fall into either public interest or news worthy categories to me.

Also, William, do you not find it interesting that the moral minority that is photobucket has seen it fit to delete / censor several images in that link you provided? :rolleyes:

re the last comment - yes irony in itself - ridiculous.

Street photography is one of those things that is and should be open to anyone - regardless of size of camera, or whether its moving or still images.

I do think that stalking of celebrities is a step too far, although many of them require, encourage, and court the same snappers when it suits them. Most celeberity gossip crap is hugely unnewsworthy to me, but clearly I'm in the minority because they're just feeding the demand - so people out there stop buying the crap, that will sink the market overnight !

And yes what some people regard as unethical some regard as quite acceptable - see the Jetstar photo comp, for a difference in views on that one.

The law however, makes it abundantly clear that taking pics in the street is not a crime, and other than the usual caveat for commercial use exemption, there is no need for permission, this is our free society, it best left like that IMHO.

Its not really on anyone's side btw, street photographers include those with their camera phones.

Go forth and take pics - record the way we live, work and play. Be compassionate, be empathetic, and if someone asks you specifically to remove a pic (my belief is that if they ask nicely there is always a reason which would be fair and reasonable, and doesnt need an explanation about the intricacies of their life), I will do it.

I've wandered around Belfast in the 80's and 90's shooting some of the most dangerous areas at the time. I've wandered around Harlem in New York without fear or retribution, I've wandered around the slums of Glasgow, Liverpool, taking pictures of people, with and without their permission. I've spent the last 3 decades plus of shooting for my personal satisfaction (and if I'm shooting for clients, will always ask permission and gain a release), I'd never felt threatened until about 10 years ago. Which is when attitudes to photographers or people with cameras began this hypocritical dual path way. Seems its ok to shoot on small cameras or phones, but take out a camera that I would normally use, and its like there is this dual system of acceptability and tolerance - or should I say lack of ?

[Art Vandelay]

Aside from legalities, my personal guideline is to reverse the situation.

i.e. Would 'I' be comfortable in that person taking photos of me ?

Would 'I' be comfortable in that person using those images of me on the net or a gallery somewhere ?

[Xebadir]

I tend to think the above poster has a good view. But I totally agree with the sentiment that there is a huge difference between a journalistic image and 'street photography'. The two are not totally disjoint, but I tend to view them as different things. The journalistic image is designed to convey a purpose - more than words (in the cases shown these photographs were necessary to convey things to the public which didn't understand). The picture of the young girl burnt by napalm is a masterclass in journalism as are many of those listed in the great images. The defining difference to what we are talking on here however is they are not Street Photography - they are capturing a moment and placing it into context - Street Photography seems to descend to just snapping people with an almost stalker like quality (not all, but much of what I have seen disturbs me more than the graphic image above as an intrusion of privacy).

Let me paint you a picture. I shoot alot of weather stuff as you all well know, and sometimes get asked to do the journalistic style images for tornado aftermath. Now, picture the situation to what is akin to street photography - your life has just been exposed for all to see, you may have dead family members, you have probably only got the clothes on your back. Are you really going to want someone taking pictures of you, without asking first? I actually don't use the images I have with people in those situations because I don't feel it appropriate - it isn't needed to convey the emotion when people can draw empathy from the contents alone. I still ask permission even though strictly I don't need to, but perhaps thats because I end up in being in a first response situation.

I actually have a real problem with the snapparazzi effect that seems to dominate street photography - its very similar to the personal intrusion presented by the so-called paparazzi of the celebrity culture (In fact I would argue it is the closest form of photography to street photography). I personally don't like street photography, purely because if it came to me having my picture taken without my knowing I would be very unhappy (especially if it appeared somewhere). I think this argument has alot of merit; while it is fine to say there are too many limits on what we can and can't do, there are also a few too many liberties which are taken too far. Its all about moderating both sides of the coin.

[bowjac]

Thanks everyone. This has been a fascinating discussion.

Clearly every photographer has a different ethical standpoint, that they may (or may not) adhere to.

The law then draws a clear line to ensure behaviour does not occur that is contrary to the standards of general society.

[jim]

...

The law then draws a clear line to ensure behaviour does not occur that is contrary to the standards of general society.

That's the theory anyway.

[bricat]

I tend to have a differing view to most expressed above. I have seen photo's of a tennis player with her breast exposed whilst playing a shot, certain "celebrities" getting out of cars without knickers and exposing genitals and of course numerous paparatzie pushing and shoving to take photo's of the latest celebritiy. Is there no more privacy. And I don't think the public want to see these images necessarilly and I would guess they were published without express permission of those photographed. True it may not require permission but it does not make it any less embarrasing.

I do think we need a change in attitude and the law so as to show more respect to people caught in an in-approprite or compromising situation. Some things need to be left unsaid or seen. JMHO cheers brian

[Kym]

Paparazzi is one thing, street photography is another.

See: http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?32857-Paparazzi-as-a-job

[bobt]

I think it is unfortunate, and a little sad, that anyone should rely 100% upon the legality of a situation without having any thought for the privacy of, or respect for individuals. In my view our society is becoming more inclined towards sacrificing basic humanity as a casualty of selfishness. The law is not perfect and cannot foresee every circumstance, and although we may differ on individual moral standards we should all have a fundamental concern towards our fellow man.

The mere fact that an action is legal does not make it right. We often see individuals being pilloried in the press for acting in an amoral way within a legal framework. As photographers, we each represent our fellow photographer in the manner in which the public perceives photographers as a group. If we display a callous disregard for those around us, and shelter behind a legal justification, then we shall be viewed and judged accordingly. Once we lose that willingness to consider the impact of our actions upon others we become less worthy of respect.

Other photographers here can continue to ignore the impact they may have upon others, but I shall continue to factor that into my photography and into my life generally.

[ricktas]

I think it is unfortunate, and a little sad, that anyone should rely 100% upon the legality of a situation without having any thought for the privacy of, or respect for individuals. In my view our society is becoming more inclined towards sacrificing basic humanity as a casualty of selfishness. The law is not perfect and cannot foresee every circumstance, and although we may differ on individual moral standards we should all have a fundamental concern towards our fellow man.

The mere fact that an action is legal does not make it right. We often see individuals being pilloried in the press for acting in an amoral way within a legal framework. As photographers, we each represent our fellow photographer in the manner in which the public perceives photographers as a group. If we display a callous disregard for those around us, and shelter behind a legal justification, then we shall be viewed and judged accordingly. Once we lose that willingness to consider the impact of our actions upon others we become less worthy of respect.

Other photographers here can continue to ignore the impact they may have upon others, but I shall continue to factor that into my photography and into my life generally.

But that is the basic crux of the entire issue of ethics. You have your ethics, I have mine, though they may differ, who is right? Factor yours into your photography and life in general, and I will do likewise, but the big issue arises when someone tries to implore their own set of ethics onto another, which they can negotiate and discuss, but never demand (unless the Law is being broken).

[mistletoe]

Interesting and difficult issues. Great arguments from all sides of the debate.

Personally, I think it would have been unethical not to publish the photo Kym directs us to. It brought attention to the horror of war and our own complicity in that horror.

On the other hand, I suppose its legal to take photos of children in swimwear on a beach but perhaps we do have to question how wise it is to publish them on the internet.

A fair while back there was a photo, which was obviously a candid photograph, of a young woman which to my mind crossed an ethical line. It was exploitative and whilst it rose tremendous applause particularly from male critics, applause concentrating on the young woman rather than the photo in general, I felt it was sleazy and voyeristic. I think it was the fact that this young woman had no choice in being leered over that concerned me.

I do think there is an ethical aspect to photography and that photographers have to be responsible. But, I also think each photo has to be judged on its own merit.

Rick argues:

"but the big issue arises when someone tries to implore their own set of ethics onto another, which they can negotiate and discuss, but never demand (unless the Law is being broken)."

I think that the law is a set of principles which attempt to capture the moral zeitgeist and which are imposed onto individuals. It is through the law that we impose our own moral standards on others. Famously, there were obscenity laws which Larry Flynt spent his life challenging. So, Flynt's values were undermined by the larger society and their set of values were imposed upon him.

I'ld point out that this site has ethical guidelines which go further than the law:

"[22] Because our members are of a wide age range we have to take this into consideration regarding this topic. We will allow tasteful, mature, artistic nude photography, as long as no genitalia is visible, and the poses are not sexually suggestive. No full frontal below the belt shots. All nude photos will be heavily moderated and will be removed by a staff member if we feel it is inappropriate. The moderator's decision is final and we will not enter into discussion on the matter. Most importantly, the model in the photo must be over the age of 18 and has given consent to both the photo being taken and the image posted on a public forum. Photographs that depict, or appear to depict illegal activity, are not allowed on the site".

It is not illegal to take and publish explicit and sexually suggestive photos. However, This site regards that as ethically problematical.

[Kym]

@Chris ... AP as a community has its own 'law', which is enforceable due to the private ownership of the forum.
I.e. Rick and the team can enforce the site rules via various moderation capabilities such as edit/delete posts.
It is part of the conditions of using AP.

The AP community has come up with a framework that ensures the safe sharing of our creativity.

Personally the line is somewhere between paparazzi and street / photojournalism.
That said, if I had the opportunity to take a photo of a celeb in public, I would (and have).
But I don't go out of my way to do so, or stalk, or hide in the bushes etc.

[knumbnutz]

I think you have hit on an interesting point here.

You say it was around 10years ago that attitude changed and I think this is more than coincidence that it the online community started coming of age around this time.

Places like Flickr, Snapfish, Facebook, Youtube and photography forums in general began and it totally changed the way photos were able to be viewed.
It also made it easy for photos to be sought, bought or poached and that time also heralded programs like photoshop and paintshop. Then came affordable CCTV and .... digital cameras.
ALL of which people felt big brother was closing in, and at the same time giving more power to the people through affordable and available technology.

So I think in a world which is far less private than before 2000~, people are either wanting that publicity or running from it.





I've wandered around Belfast in the 80's and 90's shooting some of the most dangerous areas at the time. I've wandered around Harlem in New York without fear or retribution, I've wandered around the slums of Glasgow, Liverpool, taking pictures of people, with and without their permission. I've spent the last 3 decades plus of shooting for my personal satisfaction (and if I'm shooting for clients, will always ask permission and gain a release), I'd never felt threatened until about 10 years ago. Which is when attitudes to photographers or people with cameras began this hypocritical dual path way. Seems its ok to shoot on small cameras or phones, but take out a camera that I would normally use, and its like there is this dual system of acceptability and tolerance - or should I say lack of ?

[Kerrie]

One look at Facebook and most would have to say its not unethical to post a photo of another person publicly for non commercial reason.. Or illegal. And another look one could say it should be lol ( at least your pics would be decent I'm thinking)

Risky? Possibly in some cases.

" hey George , you know when you said you were out of town last month, well I saw a photo on ( Facebook/ Flickr/ ap) of you and some woman in a cafe across town......"

I guess thought that's George's ethics in question, not the photographers


Gee. Wonder if I've ever been snapped candidly


I would just hope it's in creative context

[Mark L]

I think you have hit on an interesting point here.

You say it was around 10years ago that attitude changed and I think this is more than coincidence that it the online community started coming of age around this time.


Nah, I think it had more to do with 9/11.
It is an interesting point, and perhaps worth a thread of it's own.

[Cage]

Interesting thread. Thought provoking to say the least.

I have only had one session on the street, with mixed results, but my underlying feeling of the session was that I was invading other peoples privacy.

Maybe it was because of the generation, baby boomer, that I grew up in. We had different values to what is accepted as the norm today.

[ricktas]

Risky? Possibly in some cases.

" hey George , you know when you said you were out of town last month, well I saw a photo on ( Facebook/ Flickr/ ap) of you and some woman in a cafe across town......"



I would say that if George is meeting with 'some woman' in a cafe, then there is a range of reasons, but it is all about how WE interpret that.

It could be his sister
It could be a work colleague
It could be the teacher of one of his children, that is having trouble at school
It could be his new girlfriend
It could be his wife

If George is doing something 'he shouldn't be' then he should be doing that somewhere private, otherwise he risks being caught. The fact he was photographed is not the issue, it is what his actions are in the first place. This also shows that a photo of a man and a woman in a cafe can be interpreted based on how the viewer sees the photo, not necessarily what is really going on in the cafe. A GOOD photo tells use the story, correctly, by conveying what is happening.

[Kerrie]

I would say that if George is meeting with 'some woman' in a cafe, then there is a range of reasons, but it is all about how WE interpret that.

It could be his sister
It could be a work colleague
It could be the teacher of one of his children, that is having trouble at school
It could be his new girlfriend
It could be his wife

If George is doing something 'he shouldn't be' then he should be doing that somewhere private, otherwise he risks being caught. The fact he was photographed is not the issue, it is what his actions are in the first place. This also shows that a photo of a man and a woman in a cafe can be interpreted based on how the viewer sees the photo, not necessarily what is really going on in the cafe. A GOOD photo tells use the story, correctly, by conveying what is happening.



Yes.....that's what I meant by ' its not the photographers ethics at risk, it's the subjects if they are doing something they shouldn't :o

these days we post publicly across the world via net.....and given we may not know the people we photograph, or who's seeing the photos that they know....well, they better be behavin! :th3: And the photographer should rest easy :)

[Scotty72]

If it is ethical to look at something - then it is ethical to photograph it

[arthurking83]

As already said, debating the ethics of it all is only going to produce round table, headless chicken arguments as to whether it's right or wrong and as individuals there is only one answer to that question.. your own.

Where the 'ethics' really only enter into the equation is if the subject has any objections to having their image taken without their consent, and the photographer refuses to remove the image either from their archives, or if published, from publication.

I remember the story of the woman that took action against a photographer for not deleting the image he captured of her working at a cafe(in the US) and that he subsequently published.

To me this is unethical practise by the photographer as the woman(a waitress I think) asked for them to be removed and he refused.
It's unethical both in my own personal point of view ... and on the whole, which I think should be reflected in law.

If the subject has no issue with having their image captured then there is no question of ethics, as photographer and subject are in agreement.

If the subject is unaware of their image being captured(in public) then as the law stands they consent to having their image captured by default .. and it's not always an easy task to subsequently ask for their permission either before or after the fact. If possible, then it's simply courteous to do so.

While we do have to accept that while in public, we do give away our right to privacy, it should be expected that we can have a limited right to some privacy in some situations if we wish.
People get into various states of mind at any time of the day and not always in private locations, so to expect that we have absolutely no right to privacy at all in public spaces is ludicrous.

If the photographer has ethical concerns about any genre of photography, then they won't practise the genre .. simple as that!

If I came to point where the issue of ethics was raised in an image I captured, I'd almost certainly delete the images from my PC.

So to the OP, if you have ethical concerns over uploading images you've captured and haven't yet deleted them from your archives, then(I think) there should be no issue in uploading them either.
I probably have very little moral fibre myself, but this is something that I've done, and will always do.
My one and only issue with ethics over any of my images was about photographing a basically empty farm block with lots of discarded rusting metal fragments strewn about the place, and where an old beatup banger of a truck resided in an open shed way out in the distance. The property owner came across and impolitely shoo'd me away and I deleted the images there'n'then.

If 'George' was engaged in a surreptitious activity in a public space, then I'm sure he would a fitting and appropriate fabrication to assist him in his pursuit.
As to whether it's ethical to photograph him during this engagement .. unless he request not too, there is no problem.
If you personally knew George, and knew that this could jeopardise George's relationship in any way, then ethics would come into it ... you probably wouldn't take the shot anyhow(unless you didn't like George in the first place).

It's ethical as long as you believe it to be, and it's not unethical to upload it if you have captured it(and kept it).

[Scotty72]

Just because someone is at work and / or doesn't want to be photographed has nothing to do with ethics.

My work has cameras around and photographs are taken without our consent- is that unethical.
Same with shopping centres, railway stations etc.

Criminals would love your view of things: no-one would ever have any evidence against them.

I don't like paying taxes, is my being taxed when I clearly don't want to be unethical?

Imagine a world where everything we didn't want was banned. We would still be in the dark ages.

[Scotty72]

Kym and William, I think we need to draw a clear line between an individual practising a hobby ( I would think that the vast majority of "street photography" would be done on a non commercial basis ) and photo journalism or presenting newsworthy images in the public interest.
Obviously public interest and history changing images deserve to be captured and published so that we all may be reminded of events.
Celebrity stalking by paparazzi and covert snapping of people that may be morally questionable simply don't fall into either public interest or news worthy categories to me.

Also, William, do you not find it interesting that the moral minority that is photobucket has seen it fit to delete / censor several images in that link you provided? :rolleyes:

We already have laws about stalking / harassment / defamation. Why do you want to impose some sort of Orwellian society by banning everything?

If I pass you in the street and you are interesting, I will photograph you. However, your comment about distinguishing between citizen / media etc is dangerous - do you really want a system of licensing reporters etc where only approved voices may be heard?

Having said that, whilst I can and should be able photograph you in any public place (you can always cover your face / turn away), we already have the above laws to protect you from me if I decide to follow you around day after day / use photographs of you to intimidate or threaten you / attempt to unreasonably diminish your reputation etc.

The act of pressing a shutter button should never be illegal - only if I then do bad stuff with the resulting photos should I be called into question.

[knumbnutz]

Or if its paparazzi - then it should leave a lot to editorial interpretation and can grab a headline ! :D

A GOOD photo tells use the story, correctly, by conveying what is happening.

Right now it is a generation of blame !
So it is always the worse not what it could be.

I remember sitting in a thai restaurant and our catholic Parrish priest was sitting at another table.
My parents said exactly the same thing - it could be anyone - his sister - friend - whoever, dont judge until you know the facts.

[knumbnutz]

Hi Arthur,
This statement sort of goes around in circles.
Public is public and private is private.
You are allowed to take a photo in a public space because simply - there is an acceptance from you that you are in a public place and have no real right of privacy.
Its purely a personal choice rather than ethics that you delete someones photo. Ethics is moral based and i dont see any ethical or moral reason to delete a photo that is taken in a public space.
On the hand if you took a photo of someone who is entitled to privacy - some one who is in a private area - whether they knew or not, it then become ethical (not to mention possibly illegal)




While we do have to accept that while in public, we do give away our right to privacy, it should be expected that we can have a limited right to some privacy in some situations if we wish.
People get into various states of mind at any time of the day and not always in private locations, so to expect that we have absolutely no right to privacy at all in public spaces is ludicrous.

If the photographer has ethical concerns about any genre of photography, then they won't practise the genre .. simple as that!.

[ricktas]

Ethics is moral based and i dont see any ethical or moral reason to delete a photo that is taken in a public space.
On the hand if you took a photo of someone who is entitled to privacy - some one who is in a private area - whether they knew or not, it then become ethical (not to mention possibly illegal)

Deleting a photo taken in a public place for an ethical or moral reason. You take the photo of a lady with two children walking towards you across a public park. The lady realises and approaches you, asking you to delete the photo. You decline! She then advises you that she has separated from an abusive husband (abuse directed at her, and her children) and she doesn't want him knowing she is living in your town, and she is concerned if you keep the photo, and put it on Facebook etc, her husband or someone who knows him might see it and it would lead him to her and the children.

There are always times when deleting a photo for ethical and moral reasons is something that is right!

[I @ M]

Why do you want to impose some sort of Orwellian society by banning everything?

I DON'T, please show me where you think that I said we should.


If I pass you in the street and you are interesting, I will photograph you. However, your comment about distinguishing between citizen / media etc is dangerous - do you really want a system of licensing reporters etc where only approved voices may be heard?

I have absolutely NO problem with being photographed in public. If someone feels that I am a subject for a meritorious shot, let them clicketh forth. I DO however have a problem with those that want to photograph people in potentially embarrassing situations. The type of people that hunt down and snap shots of either celebrities for commercial gain or simply prey on attractive members of the public for less than prurient interest really need to examine whether they are photographers or disguising their intentions in the name of an art.


Having said that, whilst I can and should be able photograph you in any public place (you can always cover your face / turn away), we already have the above laws to protect you from me if I decide to follow you around day after day / use photographs of you to intimidate or threaten you / attempt to unreasonably diminish your reputation etc.

All I see here is something along the lines of many posts in the past. I really don't know why you brought it up.


The act of pressing a shutter button should never be illegal - only if I then do bad stuff with the resulting photos should I be called into question.

I totally fail why you see fit to bring law into the discussion seeing as I haven't mentioned legalities in any of my ( quoted by you ) post and neither has the OP.

[Mark L]

.....
But let's take that discussion further, to the publishing of a person's image, that was taken without their consent.
..

What is published?
If it's posted here, then let's be honest, it won't have wide circulation. FB or news media is viewed by a lot more people. Wondering if this makes a difference in what we do?
You capture a fantastic photo of Fred Nile kissing and cuddling someone. Post here and we may think it's a great photo and offer CC. Posted elsewhere, well.......( but it was his long lost cousin from England)!
Two photos of Paris Hilton. One of her being cut out of a car after a motor vehicle accident. Legally OK (under some circumstances)....but intruding on her privacy. Don't publish.
Her (in public space) "getting out of cars without knickers and exposing genitals" is possibly what she wants published. Publish then, though I wouldn't and that has more to do with not offering her publicity than ethics. It may be a great photo. I couldn't publish it here either 'cause of site rules but it would probably be worth a few $$$$.
What is published?
Ethics is individual.

[Scotty72]

The problem with many people (not necessarily you) is that they want their own moral codes reflected laws. The I don't like it, so they should ban it mentality that infects society.

[arthurking83]

What Rick said!

I understand that according to the law, I have a right to photograph a pile of rusting junk sitting in an empty paddock, but my morals in this instance take precedence over what is lawfully allowable.
I didn't take up photography for the purpose of making enemies and foes. This chap requested that I stop as he believed that I was on a recce mission for some apparent lowlifes to come back and pilfer his valuable piles of rust, and I tried my best to assure him that was not the case, and I just photograph things.. or stuff.. weird stuff.

The vast majority of people don't see photography the way we do. We as in us enthusiasts, or professionals if any frequent AP that is :p
They see photography as snaps of their friends/family/pets and or self from arms length. They find no interest in other people the way we may. They see it as perverted and invasive. They have no clue, obviously, and we should operate knowing of this general mindset.
We're already losing too many of our liberties photographically speaking, and there is nothing to say that more won't be lost if we don't act with a level of responsibility.

Sometimes we simply have to accept that we're going to be exposed to the public at some time in our lives, even tho we may not want to be.
Whether that's to go to the shops to get milk, or to the psyche to get treatment or to the chemist to get the prescription, the simple fact of life for 99% of the population is that we need to get out.
Others may not adhere to this principle and become introverted and reclusive.

The question is, of the two necessary evils, which one has a greater weight, or takes a higher priority in life.

This fear of Orwellian regulation, or the mental health of an individual?

I'm with Andrew on this one, I don't care if anyone takes my picture .. they're the one's risking cracking what would otherwise be a perfect piece of glass :p
Had that happen to me too one day.
I'm in the car in traffic in the heart of the CBD. I hear a voice saying hey smile, and I turned and within a second or so posed for a couple taking an image of me stuck in traffic at a tram stop in a beatup, filthy wagon with courier written down the door.
Couldn't care less. But I prefer for people(strange weird creepy people mainly) not to take images of my kids, even when out in public.
I know that there is nothing that can be done about it, and simply accept it, but I'll ask anyone that does so to remove/delete them.(even tho I've posted images of my kids on AP).
But there's no getting around it, I have to take my kids out every now and then, or should I batten down the hatches and barricade the entrances just for the sake of privacy!

The problem is that this is an ethical question on the part of the photographer, and we just have to accept that in life there are extremes to which people believe in.

Some will simply ignore the request of the subject and show a complete lack of respect and hence (what I believe to be a level of morals in respecting others wishes), and others do the opposite and realise that the wishes of the individual subject is greater than a right to practise some silly hobby!

FWIW, I'd loved to have snapped a shot of an extremely interesting(to any guy), attractive(to any guy) and scantily clad young lady, of all places at a petrol station yesterday as she was joyfully prancing toward her vehicle, for this most delightful but brief breezy instance, but ethics would have stopped me even if I had the camera at hand and ready to shoot ;)
Besides... the fear of persecution as a pervert would also have played a major part in stopping me :D

My morals/ethics are that I respect the privacy of the individual more so than my legal right to press the shutter if the situation called for it.
If the subject was unaware of my photograph, then I'd assume that they consented.

Given the nature of the population's view on photography in public places, I think photographers need to tread carefully, lest the law changes against our current wishes.

It's simply a matter of responsibility. Abuse it, and over time the many complaints will turn to anger, and then to a law that may be lacking in some way.
This happens all the time in other aspects of life, and if you blinker yourself to this possibly happening to our avoured hobby, then you risk losing what you currently have.

All it requires is a sensitive judge, or politician, or whatever to begin the process of change, and the general public won't give damn about any change in the current law.

I reckon most people have some story of an ethical or moral level, even if it has nothing to do with the law(or photography).
As an example of what I'm referring too:
We both have a right to become paparazzi if we wish too, as this is apparently a legally allowable employment opportunity.
My ethics/morals or inner philosophical positions(call it what you will) precludes me from entering into such an employment situation. This is not about ability or opportunity(even if I was handed such an opportunity on a plate with acceptable renumeration, I couldn't do it. I'd be deleting more images than I capture, which would help me manage my terabyte of images actually! now that I think about it :p

The problem with morals and ethics is that there is no set boundary for everyone to adhere too. What's unethical to one person is perfectly acceptable to another.
The legality of it is not always a consideration to abide by.
I've also been in a situation where my ethics or morals have lead me to fabricate a more appropriate truth so as to not get a family member in trouble with the law.
I see the concepts of law and ethics as mutually exclusive if the situation calls for it.

Each to their own.

[arthurking83]

The problem with many people (not necessarily you) is that they want their own moral codes reflected laws. The I don't like it, so they should ban it mentality that infects society.

The only way to deal with this is to act responsibly and not allow a sense of ego to override common sense.

Give these types fewer reasons not to infect society with these draconian measures.

If the general public calls for changes to laws to reflect the modernisation of life, this is a democratic function that we can't stop in any way.

hence our(not you and me, but all photographers!) responsibility is to act responsibly to minimise these situations that lead to change.

It's like the cancer that is the speedhump and the local road closure(to locals only)!

There is no law that states you can't use a legally trafficable side road that allows you the option to avoid heavy traffic.

When I started as a courier, I barely remember any roads that had speedhumps, but over the course of time as traffic became heavier and more drivers looked for an escape route, the locals voiced their concerns and the authorities did something about it.
It was subsequently much easier to get out of courier work than to find new roads that weren't infected with this virus. Took me over 20 years to finally do it, but it was inevitable.

[mistletoe]

@Scotty72

>> My work has cameras around and photographs are taken without our consent- is that unethical.
Same with shopping centres, railway stations etc.

Theres a difference between some machine blindly recording a shopping mall and a photographer deliberately focussing on an individual. The recording is unlikely to be published, no particular individual is the focus of attention, the intent is to protect people and their property, and most likely the recording will be wiped after time with any individual's presence on it never seeing the light of day. I think you're comparing apples with pears.

>>Imagine a world where everything we didn't want was banned. We would still be in the dark ages.

Fortunately enough we live in a world where pretty much everything we don't want, things we really really dont want, are banned. That has moved us out of the dark ages. Law is a good thing.

It seems to me that there is a fine line between popping down to Bondi Beach and taking candids in order to document the people there and popping down to bondi beach to take candids in order to enlarge a personal collection of topless women shots without consent. Importantly, I think that a distinction could most likely be made in law between the two with sufficient public debate. Furthermore I think, such debate, would crystalize in the public mind the difference and any subsequent laws distinguishing between them would serve to protect street photography rather than criminalise it.

But then, Im an optimist about the law.

:)

[Mark L]

It seems to me that there is a fine line between popping down to Bondi Beach and taking candids in order to document the people there and popping down to bondi beach to take candids in order to enlarge a personal collection of topless women shots without consent. Importantly, I think that a distinction could most likely be made in law between the two with sufficient public debate.

But how do you know which of these two photos I'm taking?
Also if someone is topless on Bondi Beach, um .......

[Tommo1965]

I think its OK to photograph people in public places , but if I was asked to delete a persons image taken in that environment, then Id compile ...I think people should have the right to ask you not to photograph them...the world needs better values that it currently has...how many of the people here that feel they have the right to use their camera in anyway they see fit..and then possibly turn a profit from a embarrassing celeb shot, also complain about declining values ..

[Colinc1]

Street photography is one of my favorite subjects, i love doing people shots sometimes with my 40D (now use a 7D) or my Lumix LX5.

My favorite areas are in the city(Melbourne) and at weekend markets, and of buskers, beggars, and people going about their daily lives in general

When i am spotted, i usually wave & smile to put the subjects at ease.

[Scotty72]

All,

Firstly, the obvious... if a lady decides to walk topless along Bondi Beach, is it possibly in anyway reasonable for her to demand privacy?

Should she be allowed to dictate the actions of members of the public by demanding that they not look at / point their cameras at her? This is ridiculous.

If you (the general you) and I are in public, what gives you the right to control what I choose to photograph? To do so is to suggest that your rights are superior to mine.

As for the notion that shopping centre security cameras are somehow benign... totally wrong. If I have my camera, you have every opportunity to see where I am pointing it, you can then choose to cover your face / look away etc. Shopping centre cameras, on the other hand are often hidden or behind domes so you can't see them. You don't know if some bored security guard is using the camera to follow you (or your pretty daughter) for his own gratification etc. It has happened before.


I really do not get the speed-bump analogy. However, speed-bumps are generally to deter rat-runners from turning back-streeets into highways... an obvious physical danger (of death) to the residents of a narrow back-street. Therefore any analogy is hardly valid as taking photos is hardly like playing in traffic.


I have (not often) had people approach me demanding I delete my pics. I have always refused, explaining that the photo is my property, but I tell them that if they give me their email address, I'll send them a copy.

I've also had my photo taken when I didn't want it, but I realise that I am not the king of the world and I have no right to subject strangers to my sense of like / dislike - and demand they comply with my whims.

I wish more people would stop believing that their wishes / beliefs were all that matters.

Cheers

[I @ M]

Scotty, read the original post.

It is all about ethics, not rights, law or such stuff.

Answer me, do you feel that by taking an image of said topless lady on the (public) beach that you are actually engaging in a meritorious photographic pursuit or merely snapping a semi naked person for the sake of it?

If that image is one of 500 from the day featuring bare breasted ladies or simply one shot with not much other context other than candidly snapped nudity then I would suggest that you are acting with less than prurient interest. If there are a handful of images of bare breasted ladies in the above mentioned 500 images that feature a real representation of beach goers on that beach on the day then I feel that you are actually involved in a meritorious pursuit.

Forget the "rights and legalese", how do you measure your ideals in that scenario. Are you engaged in an artistic pursuit or are you doing something that could be seen by many as just another dirty old man with a camera?

[jim]

So Andrew is it unethical to take a photo of a topless lady in a public place for entirely prurient reasons?

[I @ M]

So Andrew is it unethical to take a photo of a topless lady in a public place for entirely prurient reasons?



I was thinking of posting some shots of my street photography, but paused as I pondered my own ethical dilemma.



Jim, whose ethics, the OP's, yours or mine?

[jim]

Jim, whose ethics, the OP's, yours or mine?

Are ethics nothing more than a personal hobby then? Surely there can be some common ground between us here.

But I was asking for your take. As for mine, hmm. [Thinks.] Nah, she's good.

[ricktas]

Are ethics nothing more than a personal hobby then? Surely there can be some common ground between us here.

But I was asking for your take. As for mine, hmm. [Thinks.] Nah, she's good.

So, how can you ask another member for their ethics, if you are not willing to oblige us with your own?

Would I take the photo, sure. She is in public, if she didn't want to be photographed topless, she should cover up.

[jim]

So, how can you ask another member for their ethics, if you are not willing to oblige us with your own?



Eh? I just did.

[I @ M]

And my contribution is that if there was something of truly worthwhile value that told a story ( not commercial ) in the image then I would take it as well.
If it were simply an idle snap of a semi naked lady on a beach then I wouldn't bother wasting another shutter actuation.

[ricktas]

Eh? I just did.

Ah. I misread it "But I was asking for your take. As for mine, hmm. [Thinks.] Nah, she's good."... I read that as you meant "Nah, she's good, I won't tell you my take on it"

Sorry

[jim]

And my contribution is that if there was something of truly worthwhile value that told a story ( not commercial ) in the image then I would take it as well.
If it were simply an idle snap of a semi naked lady on a beach then I wouldn't bother wasting another shutter actuation.

Even if she was really pretty?

[I @ M]

Even if she was really pretty?

Jim, I had a young lady ( pretty ) ask me a few days ago to take some photos of her topless at the beach.

The reason --- she had undergone ( reasonably recently ) breast enhancement surgery and wanted some shots to show her parents back in the UK.

No problems at all, images done and she is happy.

Would I have taken her photo as a complete stranger walking along or sun baking on a beach topless as she often does?

No, because there would have to be something more compelling than just a pretty person and bare breasts to make me want to photograph her. On that day there were probably plenty of semi naked individuals on the surrounding beaches, I felt no great compulsion to go snap happy to capture candid nudity however "pretty" they were.

[jim]

It's a good answer, but I can't help feeling that you've dodged the question as to whether it would be ethical or not.

[I @ M]

Anyway, in deference to the OP, the topic seems to have wandered from "street photography" with an emphasis on

I don't mean people in a crowd, but a full, frame filling face. to one of bare breasted ladies so I think we really should stick with the original question. :)


It's a good answer, but I can't help feeling that you've dodged the question as to whether it would be ethical or not.

Jim, read my views based on my ethics in post #54 in this thread.

[jim]

Ok, fair enough. I didn't recognise that as an ethical stance, but I guess it could be one.

Must say that while I'm personally not very much interested in people photos, including candids—topless or otherwise—I am quite interested in the positions people take whenever a hint or sniff of prurience comes up. Ethical, or moral, or just a matter of taste and decorum.

[mistletoe]

@ Scotty72

>> Firstly, the obvious... if a lady decides to walk topless along Bondi Beach, is it possibly in anyway reasonable for her to demand privacy?

Its perfectly reasonable of her to expect to feel comfortable being topless on Bondi Beach. Its a beach not a studio. If being photographed topless infringes on that then its perfectly reasonable of her to demand some kind of privacy, imo.

>> If you (the general you) and I are in public, what gives you the right to control what I choose to photograph? To do so is to suggest that your rights are superior to mine.

Thats quite right. Her rights to feel comfortable topless on Bondi Beach are, imo, superior to your rights to photograph what you want. In a way this becomes a gender issue. If you give carte blanche to photographers to photograph women topless on the Beach you will by proxy limit womens freedomes. They will cover up if they feel they'll be photographed left right and center.

>> As for the notion that shopping centre security cameras are somehow benign... totally wrong.

You introduced the notion that security cameras are benign, commenting that theives would love a world where security cameras were banned. And you were right before the u-turn. ;) In extreme cases security cameras might be used nefariously, likewise, now and then street photographers might be noticed by their subjects. Essentially though, street photography and cctv are completely different.

>> I wish more people would stop believing that their wishes / beliefs were all that matters.

lol. You're not exactly arguing that your beliefs don't matter. On the contrary, you are arguing that your wish to photograph what you want trumps all other concerns. ;)

Personally, I think the concerns of photographers matter very much here. We might not all be Henri Carier-Bresson but candid photography is important enough culturally to deserve some kind of protection. Equally, in some contexts candid photography is not appropriate and the people being photographed deserve some kind of protection. The trick is to draw a reasonable line that satisfies *both* 'whims'.

:)

[ricktas]

Her rights to feel comfortable topless on Bondi Beach are, imo, superior to your rights to photograph what you want. In a way this becomes a gender issue. If you give carte blanche to photographers to photograph women topless on the Beach you will by proxy limit womens freedomes. They will cover up if they feel they'll be photographed left right and center.




I disagree with that statement. If anyone does anything in a public place, they should expect people to see it, and photograph it. If the lady does not want to be photographed topless, then she should not go topless. If anyone, male or female is willing to go naked, partially naked in public then they have to expect to be photographed. Privacy exists in PRIVATE situations, not on our streets, beaches etc

Have you ever seen video of the drunks at night being idiots on our streets? Do you feel we should not have video of that, and their rights are more important and it should not be recorded. After all video is a series of still photos.

[jim]

Its perfectly reasonable of her to expect to feel comfortable being topless on Bondi Beach. Its a beach not a studio. If being photographed topless infringes on that then its perfectly reasonable of her to demand some kind of privacy, imo.


What if she feels uncomfortable with people looking at her while she walks topless on Bondi Beach? Is it reasonable that she demand you avert your eyes? Possibly there are a lot of things that might make a topless lady feel uncomfortable, and presumably her right to feel comfortable trumps anybody elses interests or activities?

[Tommo1965]

I must admit..if a photographer was taking images of me or mine that we didn't want taken..and they refused to delete them..then it would be on for young and old....what shits me is the presumption that just cause your in a public space you have no right to privacy...what if you were having a conversation with someone..would you like that overheard and repeated without you consent..just because you were overheard in a public space even though the conversation was private ....I really see no difference....every tog should respect the individuals right to say "no Thanks"

[ricktas]

I must admit..if a photographer was taking images of me or mine that we didn't want taken..and they refused to delete them..then it would be on for young and old....what shits me is the presumption that just cause your in a public space you have no right to privacy...what if you were having a conversation with someone..would you like that overheard and repeated without you consent..just because you were overheard in a public space even though the conversation was private ....I really see no difference....every tog should respect the individuals right to say "no Thanks"

But that is the entire point. If you are in public, then you do not have a 'right to privacy' in Australia.

If you are holding a conversation that you wanted kept private, then don't have that conversation where someone else might hear it. By saying "every tog should respect the individuals right to say no Thanks, you are implying that you believe the right of one person, is greater than that of another, whether that be subject and photographer, husband and wife, Local Mayor and rate-payer...

[rellik666]

Wow what an interesting debate.

My feelings are pretty straight forward to be honest, if you are out in public you are fair game. You want to do something private, do it in private. And saying that CCTV is different to the average Joe taking candids in the street is ridiculous, do you know what is happening to those images? Do you know how many days, weeks, years they are being kept? No, yet people don't give it a second thought. You say that the occurrences of people abusing those systems is rare, well how often is someone with a camera doing something bad? I would say rare too. We are all so worried about what might happen rather than just getting on with life.

Arthur, I am interested as to why you don't like your children being photographed?

[geoffsta]

It all depends on the individual. And why take the image in the first place.
If a lady walks along a public beach topless, of course you are going to look. But do you take a photo. I personally wouldn't. What am I going to do with it?
Yeh, I might show a few friends, and have a giggle. But what use is it?

Someone like I @ M might use the image in his portfolio to show clients how good a TOG he is. But he certainly wouldn't use it commercially, and make money out of it without permission from the young lady in question.
Someone else might use it as a documentry type thing to show the community the types of individuals that use the beach.
This theory also includes taking photo's of children in a public place. Why? You can do it. But the reason why is an individual thing.

It's a personal thing.

[Scotty72]

Scotty, read the original post.

It is all about ethics, not rights, law or such stuff.


I'm not a pro (nor it seems is the OP) so am not bound by a code of ethics. You may well mean morals. And morals are what laws are based on. Most people in society believe it is immoral to marry your sister, so we make it illegal.



Answer me, do you feel that by taking an image of said topless lady on the (public) beach that you are actually engaging in a meritorious photographic pursuit or merely snapping a semi naked person for the sake of it?


That would depend. There may well be something extra-ordinary about the top-less lady: I may just think it is cool and want to show my mates: I may just want to practise candids: I may be an immature idiot. I don't see the relevance of your question. It is like me asking you why you bought a picture at a gallery (to admire, investment, use as a dart board, ridicule): the fact is you bought it and it is none of my (or the artist's) business why - it is your property (even if the artist resents the use of his art as toilet paper.)




If that image is one of 500 from the day featuring bare breasted ladies or simply one shot with not much other context other than candidly snapped nudity then I would suggest that you are acting with less than prurient interest. If there are a handful of images of bare breasted ladies in the above mentioned 500 images that feature a real representation of beach goers on that beach on the day then I feel that you are actually involved in a meritorious pursuit.



So what. I may be a breast implant surgeon or simply be an admirer of breasts. If the lady does want me to see or photograph them: cover them up... it is that simple.

If she displays them openly in public: What right does she have to privacy? Of course I have the right to look / photograph it - of course it is moral / ethical etc. (the only proviso would be that I am not sexualising the situation)

It would be like you displaying your latest artwork on a 200 foot wide billboard, then criticising anyone who looks at it.




Forget the "rights and legalese", how do you measure your ideals in that scenario. Are you engaged in an artistic pursuit or are you doing something that could be seen by many as just another dirty old man with a camera?

I might be a dirty old (but 39 is not that old) man - it is irrelevant. If YOU do something in public, of course the public can look at you. You don't own my eyes.

I would not see the photographer as the one with the issue: it is the bare breasted lady whose morals I would question (I would not approve of my daughter doing that).

It is simple: if YOU are in public = the public have the right to look at you. Duh!

Scotty

[Duane Pipe]

:lol::lol: I love breasts and if some chick wants to show them I will shoot them:D But I like a nice bum too:lol2:
If your in public you are fair game.
I was bush walking some time ago, stopped for a rest standing quietly in amongst the trees when suddenly two young chicks 18+ squatted not to far from me and they were in full view, If I had a Camera I think I would have snapped away JUST for a laugh;)

[Scotty72]

@ Scotty72

>> Firstly, the obvious... if a lady decides to walk topless along Bondi Beach, is it possibly in anyway reasonable for her to demand privacy?

Its perfectly reasonable of her to expect to feel comfortable being topless on Bondi Beach. Its a beach not a studio. If being photographed topless infringes on that then its perfectly reasonable of her to demand some kind of privacy, imo.


What if the topless woman feels uncomfortable simply because their are men on the beach? Should her right to feel comfortable mean that all men must leave the beach? There was a call by a Muslim women's group to have women only days at a local pool as the felt uncomfortable removing their burquas etc with men around.

So, should we remove men from beaches and pools to allow women to feel more comfortable?



>> If you (the general you) and I are in public, what gives you the right to control what I choose to photograph? To do so is to suggest that your rights are superior to mine.

Thats quite right. Her rights to feel comfortable topless on Bondi Beach are, imo, superior to your rights to photograph what you want. In a way this becomes a gender issue. If you give carte blanche to photographers to photograph women topless on the Beach you will by proxy limit womens freedomes. They will cover up if they feel they'll be photographed left right and center.


I can't believe I need to make this argument but:
If you don't feel comfortable walking nude in public: put some clothes on .... ###?


In this situation, of course my rights should take precedence - and here is why...

I am not asking her to do a damned thing; not requiring her to behave differently; think differently or feel guilty. I am not asking her to change a thing.

She on the other hand, IS asking me to do all the above... she is challenging me... and to do so she better have a very compelling reason.





>> As for the notion that shopping centre security cameras are somehow benign... totally wrong.

You introduced the notion that security cameras are benign, commenting that theives would love a world where security cameras were banned. And you were right before the u-turn. ;) In extreme cases security cameras might be used nefariously, likewise, now and then street photographers might be noticed by their subjects. Essentially though, street photography and cctv are completely different.


Security cameras a neither benign or malicious. It is the person operating them. Exactly the same as a DSLR operator.

My point was that it is usually very obvious if a DSLR is pointing at you - usually not obvious for CCTV.



>> I wish more people would stop believing that their wishes / beliefs were all that matters.

lol. You're not exactly arguing that your beliefs don't matter. On the contrary, you are arguing that your wish to photograph what you want trumps all other concerns. ;)


Yes, as I stated above - I am not requiring forcing anyone to do anything - my wishes don't require you to do anything. She would be trying to force me to do something.




Personally, I think the concerns of photographers matter very much here. We might not all be Henri Carier-Bresson but candid photography is important enough culturally to deserve some kind of protection. Equally, in some contexts candid photography is not appropriate and the people being photographed deserve some kind of protection. The trick is to draw a reasonable line that satisfies *both* 'whims'.
:)


Sitting on the fence usually gets you impailed

[Scotty72]

But that is the entire point. If you are in public, then you do not have a 'right to privacy' in Australia.

If you are holding a conversation that you wanted kept private, then don't have that conversation where someone else might hear it. By saying "every tog should respect the individuals right to say no Thanks, you are implying that you believe the right of one person, is greater than that of another, whether that be subject and photographer, husband and wife, Local Mayor and rate-payer...

1000% right and sensible

In private : expect privacy

In public : expect publicity

Why is this most simple on concepts so difficult to understand?

No one owns the public space.

[I @ M]

I'm not a pro (nor it seems is the OP) so am not bound by a code of ethics. You may well mean morals. And morals are what laws are based on. Most people in society believe it is immoral to marry your sister, so we make it illegal.



Scotty, let it go, nobody anywhere has mentioned "codes" in relation to ethics.

Have a quick google of the word ethics, you may well find that it is often mentioned in the same vein as morals. Yes, some laws in some societies are based upon morals or ethics.

No, not all things that are considered by many / the majority / the minority / some people to be unethical or immoral have prohibitive laws based upon them.



There may well be something extra-ordinary about the top-less lady:

Aint it great that we agree on something, I too believe that if there is a story to be told with an image, if that story comes together in that image with a top less lady on the beach then it is a meritorious pursuit. ( Read my posts above )


So what. I may be a breast implant surgeon or simply be an admirer of breasts. If the lady does want me to see or photograph them: cover them up... it is that simple.

If she displays them openly in public: What right does she have to privacy? Of course I have the right to look / photograph it - of course it is moral / ethical etc. (the only proviso would be that I am not sexualising the situation)

It would be like you displaying your latest artwork on a 200 foot wide billboard, then criticising anyone who looks at it.

I guess that is where you have to work out your own ideals, the OP asked about publishing said images and when you have published those images you have to be prepared to live with the way people view you for publishing them.


I might be a dirty old (but 39 is not that old) man - it is irrelevant. If YOU do something in public, of course the public can look at you. You don't own my eyes.

I would not see the photographer as the one with the issue: it is the bare breasted lady whose morals I would question (I would not approve of my daughter doing that).

It is simple: if YOU are in public = the public have the right to look at you. Duh!

By that analogy, even though you would disapprove of your daughter being topless on a public beach, even when she is of a legal age and not under parental control you would staunchly defend the ethics of the photographer who photographed her and published her images on the net? :rolleyes:

[ricktas]

I am so tempted to make next week's Photo of the Week, themed "Topless woman on a beach", just to get a heap of you out of your comfort zones. :lol:

[Kerrie]

...haven't seen any photos for cc titled ' topless female candid'

I have seen tasteful nudes though, usually studio types.

Context is important I think.

I just remembered...on aust day I arrived at a river side park to see a bloke urinating in the bush against a tree, 3 mtrs from car park.

My first I thought? ' lol gonna get a shot of that! ' , a captured moment and all that.

2nd thought? It is not gonna look good pointing a camera at a bloke peeing. ( I have no zoom )

I decided not to. But I was tempted lol

[Scotty72]

Scotty, let it go, nobody anywhere has mentioned "codes" in relation to ethics.

Have a quick google of the word ethics, you may well find that it is often mentioned in the same vein as morals. Yes, some laws in some societies are based upon morals or ethics.

No, not all things that are considered by many / the majority / the minority / some people to be unethical or immoral have prohibitive laws based upon them.


Ethics are a shared, systemic of principals usually associated with a class or groups of people. Eg. Professions have a code of ethics.

Morals are personally held (or associated with religious belief).

It is quite possible (and often happens) that people do one action that breaches their ethics but not their morals - or vice versa.

For eg

Having a sex with your boss may be highly unethical but hardly immoral.
A pro footballer may have an affair with a 17 yo girl; many would find it deeply immoral but the various football codes don't seem to have an ethical prob with it.




Aint it great that we agree on something, I too believe that if there is a story to be told with an image, if that story comes together in that image with a top less lady on the beach then it is a meritorious pursuit. ( Read my posts above )



I guess that is where you have to work out your own ideals, the OP asked about publishing said images and when you have published those images you have to be prepared to live with the way people view you for publishing them.

True, people are free to judge us as great or deviant pervs - so what - I and many think that Poker machine operators are thieves who ought to be locked up. They don't care what I think - so I don't care what others feel about my hobby.


By that analogy, even though you would disapprove of your daughter being topless on a public beach, even when she is of a legal age and not under parental control you would staunchly defend the ethics of the photographer who photographed her and published her images on the net? :rolleyes:

Yes, I would. I would call her an idiot - hope she learned her lesson.

Before she is of age, if she is out walking naked in public, the cops should come after me - not the photographer - what sort of neglectful parent would I be. Of course I would ask they be removed from Facebook etc but I know I would have no right to force it (unless laws were broken).

If she's of age I'd say, you made your bed... You know, like parents used to do. I was arrested as a 19yo for disobeying a police instruction: embarrassment, court, heavy fine, police chasing me when I didn't pay the now increasing fine etc. My parents didn't bail me out - they told me not to visit until the warrant was lifted (I paid). At the time, I hated them but quickly realized that they did the right thing. I had to sell stuff and scrap together $$$. I eventually had to plead to a magistrate to not record a conviction so I wouldn't be barred from teaching. Taught me a great lesson - I was so lucky to have such great parents... These days... Very rare as parents tend to want to make excuses for their errant kids.

[Scotty72]

I am so tempted to make next week's Photo of the Week, themed "Topless woman on a beach", just to get a heap of you out of your comfort zones. :lol:

Great idea, prob is a rarely get to the beach and very rarely see white pointers anymore :(

[extraball]

another thread, to answer my questioning of legalities :)

[Steve Axford]

fascinating thread. It strikes me that photographing said topless lady has more to do with the photographers sensibilities than the topless one. After all, if she's topless then she probably is exhibiting her boobs. The photographer may feel like a pervert for photographing them, but that's his (if it was her then there would be a different reason) problem, not the topless one's.
Funny how the thread seemed to settle on sexual morals. Even the link posted by Kym, which was about the horror of war, seemed to get caught up in child porn thing. Is sex really the only thing we get moral about? Maybe!

[bobt]

Even the link posted by Kym, which was about the horror of war, seemed to get caught up in child porn thing. Is sex really the only thing we get moral about? Maybe!

Whoa! Can of worms time! :2biggn:

There are soooo many moral issues around it would be hard to know where to start! War is a whole discussion in its own right as are guns and the right to bear them. I find new moral issues with each year that passes, but only a few get my undivided attention - like Dying with Dignity for example which becomes more relevant as you get closer to needing it! :2angel:

[Steve Axford]

New thread maybe Bob