Baby, Subway
A conversation with my sister’s friend that I met for the first time. She wanted to find out what sort of things I shot.
I told her: pretty much whatever is around me. I mentioned that sometimes I shot people on the street, sometimes statues in the park. She was listening to me when it struck her that I was photographing people, sometimes without their knowledge, who were complete strangers.
You know, we are in our own worlds sometimes and I’ve been photographing people with or without their awareness for so long that it just seems natural to me; the way an artist might see something, a face, or a table and pull out a sketch pad.
But the idea that I was photographing strangers shocked her and she wanted to know whether I thought it was right - morally right - to photograph people without asking for permission.
I didn’t have a good answer for that. I’m not sure that I ever thought about it. I was always too concerned with technique. How to do it.
Moral? I don’t know. There is a sense that you are doing something forbidden. There is no law against it. It is considered, part of artistic expression. But still - you are taking something - the person’s privacy - without their permission. You can get away with it, but that doesn’t mean it’s right.
Here, I take the baby’s privacy. Is it wrong? I would argue that it is can be seen both ways, depending on the scope of your approach. Not to be cute - but are you looking at the big or small picture.
Small picture involves you and the subject. At this level, a transaction has taken place and it is hard to defend the photographer. Why should a person agree to have their likeness used, even if they are in a public place, to adorn a blog. Have they given their permission by taking the train. By walking the street? No. It’s not a big sin, but at this micro level - it’s not that easy to justify.
At another level, think of what you offer the world with these attempts at art. You can show what the world is like. You can show moments that are funny, that are tragic, that are uplifting. Who knows how you effect the world when you drop a pebble in the water. You don’t own the pebble. You swiped it from the beach owner. But you send a ripple that can meet another ripple and somewhere in the world change happens for the greater good.
Puddle »
Comments
Comment from dave
Time: February 27, 2008, 6:51 am
It strikes a chord with me - what you say about the novelist who uses their family, friends, etc. for their work. I’ve wanted to write a tome about my family for years, but every time I start I get worried about how family members who read it will be wounded. So - instead of “my family,” as source material - the “stranger,” becomes source material for photographs.
Anyone who’s ever seen themselves on my web site (somehow stumbled across it, or a friend told them) - have been thrilled and just wanted to know if I could send them a print or two.
I guess the point I was trying to make was that you get so wound up in what you’re doing - that you forget that for the average person - this is an odd and possibly bad thing to be doing - and so that was what I was letting out. My own conclusion is similar to yours - in that there is a greater good (if your heart is in the right place) that can smooth over the fact that you’ve crossed the privacy line.
Comment from Miguel Marcos
Time: February 27, 2008, 8:12 am
Here are just some quick thoughts.
I think it’s a much, much bigger issue today than it was in the days when only film was around and there was no widely accessed Internet. How many eyeballs see your pictures regularly nowadays versus, say, 15 years ago if you and your present activity were transplanted back then? The street photographer of years ago depended on galleries, books and magazines, perhaps the occasional newspaper, for exhibiting their photographs. The street photographer’s audience was what, a few thousand, 10s of thousands? Not so now where, potentially, and given the right circumstances, a picture can be seen by thousands or millions of pairs of eyeballs in a day.
I lived in NYC for about 14 years and so much of your subject matter is familiar to me but being NYC, and having the web so accessible I wouldn’t be comfortable putting up some pictures where people are readily identifiable and their faces may express something that may be close and personal. I can see someone not enjoying having their photo being broadcast, a photo of them tired at the end of the day, or forlorn perhaps.
This subject reminds me of the Philip-Lorca diCorcia case a few years ago. diCorcia spent a couple of years photographing people in Times Square. A gentleman who was photographed sued diCorcia after finding out he was in an exhibition. The case was thrown out on the grounds that the gentleman should have sued within a year of publication. In other words, they did not say the artist was right or the gentleman was right.
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/case-over-heads-photo-is-dismissed/
I’m sure there are other similar cases around.
Another way to look at it is if you were the one photographed. I don’t know if I’d like it myself.
I love street photography. For me, the photography of Josef Koudelka, Raghu Rai and such represent one of the pinnacles of photography as an art.
Interesting (and tough) topic…
Comment from D. Brent Miller
Time: February 27, 2008, 12:34 pm
Photographing in public places has always been a fairly safe practice. Every one has a right to be there including the photographer. The danger comes in the right to privacy where an unsuspecting person, who is the subject of the image, is pulled into the public light. It must be proved that the image(s) exposes the subject in a derogatory or defamatory light. Of course, the cost of defending such a lawsuit could be the most damage. An image which shows a group or number of people with no one individual standing out is pretty safe.
If in doubt, ask. It’s okay to ask after the shot, and it may be a way of uncovering more information pertinent to the image: name, age, what they are doing. In the case of the image above: ” Maam, your daughter was looking at me with those big eyes and I just had to take a photo–I’m a fine art photographer. Is that okay? What’s her name? How old is she? (A minor is involved, so …)What’s your name? And, let the conversation continue. You get the idea.
The absolute protection practice is to carry around a stack of model releases for them to sign–I carry some with me, but rarely pull one out. At a minimum, you should hand out a business card to let them know you are an honest-to-goodness, practicing fine art photographer. (The business card may also get you some business. Would you buy a street photograph of your daughter by famous photographer Dave Beckerman? Yeaaahhh!)
I have never had anyone refuse me, and most are flattered that I find them interesting enough to point my camera at them–it may be their 15 minutes of fame.
Brent
Comment from dave
Time: February 27, 2008, 2:12 pm
Brent - this isn’t a legal question. This has more to do with the golden rule. It may be perfectly legal, but you may not want someone to do this unto you without your permission. And in street photography, it is not (in my experience) possible to ask permission.
What I’m saying is that it isn’t an absolute sin - if it is for some greater good. This of course brings you to ends justify the ends. And that can get dangerous.
Comment from D. Brent Miller
Time: February 27, 2008, 2:41 pm
Dave, I understand what you’re saying. My background is photojournalism–storytelling with images. So, that’s where my response above comes from. The dialogue after an image has been taken (when possible) can confirm whether or not the photographer has violated the golden rule. The dialogue can also add meaning to the image when additional information is revealed–the combination of images and words.
A photojournalist who turns in a photo without names, location, etc., probably won’t get the photo published. It’s basic news gathering techniques for the photographer and the publication. Fine art street photography is a little different, but it doesn’t have to be. Think of it as the richness of the communication as a whole, not just the photograph.
Dave, thanks for asking the question in the first place. It is dialogue like this that makes us better photographers and communicators.
Brent
Comment from dave
Time: February 27, 2008, 3:41 pm
Brent - ah. Now I see the framework you’re using. Of course, my framework is so completely different. I see reporters and photographers interviewing people, asking them to sign forms, and the process seems (unless I guess you are very good) to extinguish reality. When someone puts a microphone in my face, I am going to alter my persona 100%. Certainly, if I know I’m being photographed it will take a very good shooter to get me to relax.
Anyway - just one of those ongoing threads that interests me because I don’t see a totally satisfactory answer.
Comment from D. Brent Miller
Time: February 27, 2008, 4:08 pm
Dave, Yes, there are differences in framework, but not so totally different. I see overlap. I think today’s media is so afraid of a lawsuit that they require reporters and photographers to get releases of non-newsmaker subjects–it’s the guarantee that the subject was a willing participant.
As for microphones, that can be even more intimidating to the subject, and yes, persona and character are altered almost immediately. The camera can have the same effect. That’s why I said it’s okay to shoot first and ask questions later. You get a more natural look. When the subject knows you’re photographing (with their permission) you will tend to get a posed look–something we’re trying to avoid. Many times, I have taken the photograph, had a conversation, and then take more photographs. The first photos are the better ones: natural and un-posed. The latter images can be an acknowledgement that the photograph was taken with permission, but they are rarely as good as the first set.
I think it all boils down to personal style and training. And, sharing our styles and choices makes for better photography by all of us.
Brent
Comment from Craig Nisnewitz
Time: February 28, 2008, 2:03 am
I will look up the history of the Philip-Lorca diCorcia case tomorrow, guess being a lawyer helps at times. My recollection is that this may have been the case that a judge decided last year when she held that as long as the images are not used for a commercial purpose, i.e. on a product to sell it, display in a gallery or use for artistic purposes does not violate the subject’s civil rights or right to privacy.
I shall report back on this tomorrow.
Comment from Bill Mitchell
Time: February 28, 2008, 2:10 am
It is no more “wrong” to photograph someone without ther permission than it is to LOOK at them without their permission.
In a sense they are just as much invading your privacy by forcing their image onto your retina and thence to your brain cells and memory.
It is a silly concept. Both are, in fact, silly.
Comment from Miguel Marcos
Time: February 28, 2008, 11:55 am
> It is no more “wrong” to photograph someone without
> ther permission than it is to LOOK at them without
> their permission.
A photo can be reproduced and can actually get out of control of the photographer’s hands, especially nowadays. What you’ve stated is simple and broad brushed and does not take into consideration an individual’s public privacy. You as a photographer do not have an exclusive right to publicly put someone else on view.
Comment from Michael Carrithers
Time: February 28, 2008, 3:49 pm
I’ve just got *The Genius of Photography*, the book of the wonderful TV series which appeared here on BBC4, which is our equivalent of the most obscure public service broadcasting. There is a picture by Helen Levitt (NY c. 1942, from *A Way of Seeing*) of a pregnant woman, and a woman with milk bottles (somehow words don’t quite capture it …) which is quite wonderful. The commentator says that “Levitt always kept her distance from her subjects, but it was a warm distance.” Well that’s what I feel about your pictures. And that’s why I think you don’t have to worry too much.
The previous commentator said that ‘you as a photographer do not have an exclusive right to..put someone else on view.” Fair enough. Lots of other people have a right to do so as well, starting from the newspapers that might publish the pictures, through the history books that might also use them, to the tourist snappers that include you along with their mementos of Central Park and show them to the folks back home. All have a right, and so do many others as well.
A similar point: everything said, everything shown (including photos), needs a context and a genre to make any sense of it whatsoever. The context and genre within which you display photos makes for warm distance, and not at all for cold or invasive distance. So don’t worry, and please for God’s sake keep it up.
Comment from Lester
Time: February 28, 2008, 4:37 pm
Right you are, Carrithers!
Comment from Miguel Marcos
Time: February 28, 2008, 9:13 pm
Newspapers and TV have an excuse under their belt, which is the context of a news item. I don’t think anyone has ever successfully sued either for reproducing an individual’s image without their permission as long as the item was news related.
I’m not against street photography. I just think taking a wanton attitude that “it’s my right” ain’t the way to approach it and not every situation/photo might be right to reproduce.
Comment from Charles Maclauchlan
Time: March 2, 2008, 1:17 pm
It seems to me that there are at least 2 questions here. Is it “Right” to photograph people without their permission and is it “Legal.” I have seen a ton of print on the legality issue and in most cases it is legal to take photos, their use is often another matter. Here’s a web site on the issue. http://rcfp.org/photoguide/
On the “is it Right” question I’m kinda in the camp that all we see ever is reflected light. We use devices sensitive to what we call visible light…our eyes. If I see you or take your picture I’ve taken exactly the same thing from you…absolutely nothing, just used a different light sensor to gather reflected light. Store it in my memory or my cameras…what’s the difference?. We do have a sense of comportment that confers a degree of privacy and it’s that internal censor which we bump up against often, like in even discussing this issue.
Not being an attorney but being relatively well educated I am confused by our “Right” to privacy. I still haven’t seen where that’s written into the constitution. Is our right to privacy like a cloak of invisibility or a protection buffer around us and if so how far does it extend? If we have a right to privacy at all it seems it evaporates when we go out in public.
That being said however, if I am at an event of any sort I engage everyone I can in a conversation about me and what I’m doing. I usually find that not only is it acceptable for me to photograph what I chose but that my work is in demand by the other attendees.
Comment from dave
Time: March 2, 2008, 2:25 pm
There is a major difference between “seeing,” with our eyes and “catching light,” on some other storage media. The difference is that the non-brain media can be passed around, and shown to millions of people.
The memory you’ve stored in your brain can’t be shown with any degree of objectivity - though of course you can write a poem about what you saw. Nevertheless - people recognize the difference between your memory - and an image that has been etched in some way onto a surface.
So where it gets different is that this media can now be passed around. And the moral question (forget the legal stuff for now) - is whether it’s okay to pass these images around. i.e. post images of strangers in this blog for example which I can’t do without a camera.
My own answer - which is what I think I say in the post is that it is okay if some greater good is being served. But that on a one-to-one level, you are invading someone’s privacy.
Now - you say that no one has a right to privacy. Again the “right to privacy,” is a legal matter that I also can’t address. If you want to go to a moral level, you’ll have to bring some religious sort of ideas into play, i.e. do unto others.
In short, I can imagine many instances when I would not like to have a photograph of myself published anywhere without my okay, even though it is perfectly legal.
Comment from Charles Maclauchlan
Time: March 3, 2008, 12:45 am
Dave:
I agree with your sentiments. It is embarrassing to be caught looking too long at someone much less to have someone angry with having their picture taken. This we all understand and which is why street photography can also be called “Candid.” But yet we do look at someone we find attractive in some way and we hope not to get caught staring. I suppose we could rationalize this with discussions of greater good.
What we do with our work is of course another matter, and one with real thorny legal issues. However, myself, I don’t feel I’ve invaded anything taking a picture vs looking. My memory or my memory card, same same.
Regarding privacy, I think we have a right to an expectation of privacy, if we take some action to guarantee it. For instance drink a can of beer on the street or drink something from a cup.
My point here is that as people we have a strong desire to not invade another’s sense of privacy but that as photographers we sometimes do. It is important i think to remember that in this country we almost always have a right to photograph what we see. If we offend we face the consequences meted out by the offended. If we are told we are trespassing and asked to leave we should. We do not however have a requirement to relinquish our camera, film or memory card except to the police and even then only after being placed under arrest.
All this leads to is that no I don’t feel moral qualms about photographing people I see on the street. I take great steps to not offend, but i don’t worry about it too much. Street performers i always pay, buy their work if available, show my camera and ask non verbally for permission. I am always offering my card with the further offer of an electronic copy of the shot if they e-mail me. I talk, joke, cajole, flirt but no, I don’t feel guilty.
Comment from Lester
Time: February 27, 2008, 5:40 am
Consider the writer, who reveals the private lives of family and friends in his novel, thereby subjecting these people to public humiliation. Such invasions of privacy are felt to be justified if the revelations help us reach a deeper understanding of human nature. However, when it’s apparent that the author’s main purpose is to titllate and sell books, we tend to look down upon that as a kind of voyeurism.
The messages that your “stranger” photos convey, Dave, are in no sense voyeuristic. They are celebratory of the human spirit or deeply ironic or just plain beautiful. Even if the subjects of these photos might disapprove of how they are being portrayed, there is a universal message in these photos that justify and protect them as works of art.
I think what frightens a lot of people nowadays, is how easily an image can be mass produced and distributed, manipulated and used for ugly or venal purposes. Ironically, in an age when the image is so easily and commonly captured, people may have become more protective of that image than ever before. They are genuinely afraid of where a picture of themselves might end up.
You have always been tasteful, Dave, in what you post on your site, and, even more importantly, your photos are important and truthful reflections of who we are.