"No single shot I take is worth ruining someone else's day", what really struck me the most in this video. Thank you Sean for educating everyone! more power to your channel.
Also ... "If somebody asks me to delete that photography, I'll delete it". It's only a photo, you've got the rest of your life to take more, many & varied.
Superb and highly valuable content as usual. I shall direct people to this every time I get people asking these same old legal questions on my Photographing Strangers video. Congrats on hitting 300K subs too.
I just watched the Photographing Strangers video. I’m a big fan of both of you. You’re both great creators. It’s awesome to see two people/channels that I admire supporting one another!
As a lawyer (England & Wales) and photographer, this is an excellent video and helpful. The law can be open to interpretation and changes to that interpretation. But when it comes down to it, and like most things in life, it is a judgment call; and do what is right and fair in the circumstances. I agree entirely with your comments about boundaries and ethical boundaries. Thank you
I am not a lawyer but I would never settle until a court tells me otherwise. I will not make it easy for someone especially if I do not feel that I have done anything which requires payment (street photography)
United States this isn't an issue, now if you're some obnoxious photographer then you might have issues. Also, in the United States, folks are captured at least 10-15 times a day w/o their knowledge on all the other surveillance devices
@M3sterX Agreed. All they can do it kick you out. They cannot confiscate any footage you have taken or restrict how that footage is used. They can bar you from the establishment so there are some courtesy and respect issues you might want to take into account.
@M3sterX Actually, the property owner can set rules of behavior for people in/on their property. If you violate the rules you can be asked to stop or to leave. If you refuse, in most places you would then be criminally trespassing and subject to arrest.
NB This applies to the USA, UK and Germany. Get a lawyer. 7:00 "You can photograph anybody but..." 7:30 "Generally speaking... commercial use is the promotion of a product service or brand." 8:41 Artistic practice defined as derived from an exhibition. It's ok to sell prints and books based on an exhibition, but beyond that, it gets blurry and might be commercial use. 9:27 GDPR - a photo with an identifying marker makes a photo classed as personal data, and thus subject to GDPR. "It shouldn't affect your ability to make pictures." 10:10 GDPR has two exceptions - artistic use, and journalistic use. 11:30 Difference between a consent form and a model form. You really want a contractual model release form, where it's key that the model gets something for something, quid pro quo, to avoid issues in the future. 13:00 Key differences in Germany: It has greater breadth of privacy law than the aformentioned Anglophile countries. 14:15 Key differences in the USA: There's federal and state law. When you deal with confrontation, be nice... 17:38 Ethical considerations. We need to make ethical considerations before we consider the law. 18:09 Sean's boundaries that you shouldn't cookie cut. I won't copy it here, and will just say for me , the commenter, what is truly ethical is the unprecedented, a decision that only you can make. That said, for me, photography should have the potential for convivial conversation with those in the frame.
I think "to celebrate people" is one of the keys for street photography. it speaks of the beauty you want to capture, respect and making something nice to share. thanks, as always interesting and helpful and above all inspiring.
Adam MacKintosh Photo and if your photography is 100%, then the photos will be amazing, but you might come of as a little unkind. So I think 10% photography is actually quite true because I spend most of my time telling people why I’m taking the photo, this means that I can walk away not feeling uncomfortable about lying to someone about my intensions, or not being clear in what I wanted the photo for.
I'll try to make this short, but awhile back around the 4th of the July I went out walking with my camera taking pictures of the American Flag that people were flying on the sides of their houses. An off-duty police officer notice what I was doing and followed me around. At the time I didn't really pay much attention to it, but I saw him stop and make a call on his cellphone. A short time later a marked police car approached me and the officer got out of the car. The officer asked me what I was doing as he got a complaint from an off-duty officer and I told him I was taking pictures of the American flag. The officer said that he got a complaint that I was entering people's backyards and that I had taken pictures of a fellow police officer's house. I thought to myself this officer is a big time idiot, but I kept that to myself and simply said "Why would I go into people's backyards when I have this type of lens? Besides I am taking photos of the American flag from a public sidewalk. As for the officer, how would I know what house is his?". Just as I was finishing speaking the officer excuse himself to talk to a man that came walking up and he didn't say who it was, but one didn't need to be a rocket scientist to know who it was. He came back and after taking my personal identification info (which I also didn't particularly like either) started giving some lame excuse about having to protect police officers after 911 - he let go on my way. First, I did nothing wrong taking pictures of the American flag from a public sidewalk and second the police is hired to protect and serve the general public not only his fellow officers. My point is even if you do everything right there is still a chance that some people will think what you're doing is illegal even though it isn't. The odds that it happening are slim, but just keep in the back of your mind that it could.
Friend of mine in Nicaragua had to show the cops what he was photographing twice. One group was fascinated by the photos of mating falcons, but finally said they had to go back to work. Other time was photographing parrots on a park dedicated to The Revolution. And this was after riots in 2018.
17:31 "Long before we hit the boundaries of the Law, we need to make ethical decisions for ourselves." Thanks for that point. it sometimes disappoints me how many people I talk with who will dismiss any concerns about what they say or do to other people, as long as they can't be arrested for it. Just because "it's my right!" doesn't mean I ought to do it. pretty basic stuff, I know. but if I had a dollar for every time someone's conflated ethics with legality in defense of being an ass.....
For film users, who can't delete or show an image: carry a small thin book/zine with some examples of your 'intentions' or; photographs to show if anyone needs to know why you just took their picture. This video was very useful, thank you.
I've thought about this - however, what about the people just getting into street photography? If you've got nothing to show, any ideas for what to do?
A little late, but you can always show them pictures from other street photographers you like, tell them you're trying to get into the hobby and that you want to take pictures like the ones you're showing them.
I've actually considered printing out Cards to deliver to people I shoot with a message saying "Smile, you've just been photographed ! If you would like to see your photo please head to [...]" I think that would help with both the situation and your personal growth to the public. But maybe I'm wrong 😅
I love photography and street photography but this is the one aspect of photography I hate. They say if you're pictures are not good enough, it's because you're not close enough, well that's where you start to invade people's personal space and conflict arises. It's also a reason I'm drawn to landscape and wildlife photography. You never get a mountain complain about having their picture taken, no need to get a model release from a puffin. I've never understood why some people object to their photo being taken but then again they probably don't understand why anyone would want to take their picture either.
That's a very intelligent and fair comment. I think it is ok to invade certain privacies if you keep it to yourself. The can of worms open when you publish it.
Sounds like the right thing, and I don't doubt you're sincere. But put yourself in the place of your subject: they see someone take a picture of them and disappear. They don't know you won't publish the photo, and even if you tell them, they have no reason to believe it. I also would never publish without permission, but when people signal that they don't want me to photograph them, then I don't. It's called respect. If I would ignore their feelings about it, that would be called selfishness. (And then I'm not even talking about how bad pictures can be when the subject is uncomfortable, or even annoyed.)
I have a question. At 4:00 in the video, Nick Dunmur says: “If you are in a public place you can photograph anything.” What if you (the photographer) are located in a public place, but the subject (for example, a person) is not located in a public place? To use the example Nick gives about the South Bank, in London: if I was on the public walkway part and I took a photograph of a person on the non-public part (they were sitting at a table on the terrace of a cafe, for example), then could I use that photograph?
Im not sure about in the UK but when I researched this it was completely legal to do in Ireland and a lot of Irish law is the same as the UK's. You can stand in public spaces and shoot through a window into someones house however ethically/morally dubious it may be. The only restrictions were that you weren't impeding somebodies ability to exit somewhere from what I remember.
You're still taking an image OF a private place, but it really shouldn't be a huge deal, unless you're shooting someone's private home on a public street
Just did a night time shoot on Thursday with around 10 members of my Camera club in Glasgow city centre. We weren't shooting people as such, more nightscapes, but there were people in the images. We did not have one adverse comment the entire night, even when shooting in a funfair with kids around. No one questioned us or our motives, most people were interested in what we were doing and when we explained it they were happy. Nearly everyone that walked in front of our cameras accidentally apologised. No doubt we were picked up quickly on the City Centre CCTV, but as we were lugging tripods around, it was clear we were not up to anything nefarious. Closest we came to being 'questioned' was outside Princess Square photographing the entrance when a security guard wandered out, looked at us for a couple of minutes, go bored and wandered off. I generally have no problem explaining what I am doing, but I do resent being told in public that I can't photograph without everyone's permission (which has happened.)
Dominic Smith I am so surprised to read this; I am from just outside Glasgow but now live in London and I was in a group doing a night shoot in soho and I had a few people coming up being a bit funny with cameras around.
@@rachelscott7348 That is a shame. London is more cosmopolitan than Glasgow and with Soho being what it is and it's reputation as a Red Light District (not sure if this is still entirely the case,) it may be a bit more problematic to photograph there. However, as you were part of a group, I think it would be fairly obvious to those not a little drunk, that you were taking the pics for your own benefit. Can you give us some examples of who approached you and what they said? Generally if I am approached in the town centre, I give a brief explanation along the lines of, "just taking some personal photo's," and if that doesn't work, I point out the CCTV cameras that invariably cover the area we are in. I was once stopped by the crew of a TV show that were filming in George Square, Glasgow and 'told' that the Producers didn't want any pics taken by the general public of the filming. I politely pointed out to him all the other members of the public filming the filming with their camera phones and that if they didn't want an pics taken then they should have stayed in the studio and not ventured into a public place. Basically, I wasn't interfering with their production so 'tough pal.'
@@photodom2000 It was right before christmas and I wasn't even photographing people I was trying to shot the lights down one of the lanes just off of Carnaby street and a drunk person kept insisting they didn't want their photo taken despite telling him he wasn't in the shot (he was also behind me), I explained as well it was a photography class. I just left and went to another lane and he left me alone.
@@rachelscott7348 You did the right thing Rachel. Some people just want to make trouble, even more so when they are drunk. In Glasgow you normally get Photo Bombed.
@@photodom2000 that dose not surprise me one bit! I have never taken my camera out in Glasgow but the buildings are so beautiful! with the right light I can imagine you would get some stunning photos!
The most important point made by Sean is that each person must utilize their own ethics in the pursuit of street photography. Once you understand the specific privacy and governmental regulations you are on your own to craft a process that suits your form of expression. There is an implied bias I'm afraid with videos like this one that tend to lean to the light forms/geometric and less intimate forms of street photography. Nick Dunmur is clearly on that side of the fence giving advice that will keep photographers out of trouble. I get that as hes giving quasi legal interpretive advice and the AOP isn't going to stick their necks out. Photographers Tatsuo Suzuki and Bruce Gilden have styles that deliberately seek tension and conflict. They are clearly on the opposite end of the spectrum and have a legitimate right to do what they do. Finding our own voice and style is what is critically important to be able to say what we want to. What is ethical to Donald Trump is repulsive to others. Many of us deplore what he says BUT we are fortunate that our democratic freedom of speech protects those rights. So we are left with the careful balance of the ethical argument and its direct impact to our work. As we struggle with this balance in the pursuit of our voice we need to overcome the fears/intimidation that restrict us from pushing boundaries at the cost of creative work.
In Sweden we have even better laws. A place is considered a public place when the public has access to it, so shopping malls, stores, and streets are public and not private.
jack Watsonepic same as Australia. Privately owned but the act that deals with photography defines the place as public. So an owner of the private land can ask you to leave the property if they wish but can’t stop you from taking photos or deleting those you have already taken.
Thank you! I live in Germany and rarely shoot there (I prefer to shoot on a holiday being a tourist...) because I am afraid of doing something illegal. I know it is easy to get information about it, but this video cleared a lot of questions I had in mind. I still try to find my way of doing street photography, e.g. I love taking shots of peoples faces but I rarely to never publish them on my Instagram; mainly because I think: If I don't feel well uploading my siblings like that, then am I in the right/ is it ethically correct to upload strangers like that? Just like you said, I try to take "positive" pictures and ones, that are celebrating beauty and art. I would never publish photos I wouldn't publish if the person/motive was me. It's hard but I'm slowly finding my own way of doing street photography and respecting privacy as much as possible and needed. I loved this video so much! Thank you!
@@RolandsDad watching Sean for more than a year now and having a chance to meet and listen to him, I understood that he is the strictest critic for himself and that's what I admire about him. And with every video, even the most ''boring'' (the ones usually popular for casuals), he puts his energy and time to do it 100%. Imho I believe that he wouldn't put video out, if he would feel like he's not improving or he didn't put enough effort in it.
@@RolandsDad Well I'll stoke the fires of jealousy then... I've enjoyed a handful of meets with him. What you see in these films is completely what you receive in real life. Honesty and integrity.
Probably my favorite production related thing about Sean's videos is the lighting, his face half exposed and the other obscured in shadow. He doesn't use clickbait titles. He isn't inflammatory or imposing. He asks you to think. He is thought provoking.
EVERY photograph of ANY person is a potential intrusion, if they did not in advance give you permission, and particularly so if they are the exclusive person in a given shot. This makes street photography a subject which implies a very heightened sense of responsibility. Take for instance the now utterly cliched shot of a craggy-faced shepherd or street seller in the third world. Somehow most photographers suspend their normal rules about intrusion, yet the invasion of that person's privacy and space is every bit as serious as if they'd snapped a shot of some diva in their private space who then threatens to sue. The linking of this subject with model "releases" or contractual considerations is a mistake. The two scenarios are ENTIRELY different. The salient subject is the INVASION of the privacy of a person who never invited you, nor elected to be represented in some ambitious photographer's portfolio. The yardstick to consider includes whether YOU, the photographer, would ever consent to be a similar subject in similar circumstances. I'll give another example. You are at a PRIVATE party where you can be yourself and not feel restricted, and find that days later your movements, speech, and possibly temporary inebriation, is suddenly published worldwide without your permission on a video on facebook. The currently accepted notion is that because it happens globally it is of no consequence. That's wrong. All photographers, whether professional or amateur, and whether the medium is a video or a still, really need to think carefully about how THEY would feel if some random shot of themselves appeared, usually out of context, in a video or shot about which they had no prior knowledge. For all these reasons, I am no longer a street photographer, unless I can satisfy myself that I am not using another person in an intrusive way. The only exception is where people are seeking political power and are subject to a reasonably higher degree of scrutiny, but even then, privacy lines get blurred.
I think this video answers my question in regards to publishing a book or selling street photography prints. From this video it is 100% legal to do. Except, if I’m using it to promote my business actively but I’m able to sell it as an artistic body of work.
Hi Sean. Great vid subject. My experiences.... I've been shouted at by people who were working for local authorities before when taking photos of scenes across a lake where boating activities were being undertaken.. a voice shouted at me across the water saying " Oiy you stop taking pictures of the kids" in my efforts to defend myself and explain the guy was non receptive to anything I had to say and i just felt awful. I went to speak with his manageress... we had a fairly decent chat about legalities but again she had been brainwashed by her employers that i must be some sort of weirdo. Took me a long while to get over that horrible feeling. Some time later a ParkRun event took place around the same lakes. I decided to brave up and took a bunch of really great images of runners in mid flow... all black and white.. portrait style... a few first class images in the mix. I went to the race director and asked for an email address... and sent him all of the images for the runners. His reply was to thank me for the images but was unable to use them unless I signed up to his organisation as an official volunteer photographer to protect the rights of the runners and a measure of safe guarding and security should anything go wrong in having taken and distributed the images. I just couldn't get my head around that. I never replied.. and the poor runners obviously never got to see their images. I've never done anything with the images since and probably never will out of sheer fear of their attitude. Such a shame... but that's how it is. I love photography.... but I certainly hate the negativity it can create.
Steve - sign up as a ParkRun volunteer and shoot away! As a ParkRunner most people don't mind. Basically the director let's people know there's a photographer on the course beforehand and gives them a signal that'll tell the photographer that they don't want the image published. Hope that helps...I'm planning on doing this at my local ParkRun soon.
@@robspedding9520 thanks Rob.... I'll consider it. It would be useful and I would be grateful if you let me know how that all works out for you. If you did this photography for them as a signed up photographer and for example took a shot of a lifetime.... could you use it on your social media, website etc... or have you signed your rights away.?? Kind Regards.... Steve
I consider myself as a hobby street photographer who'd like to post stuff on Instagram without making money to simply share some stuff with others. I'm really unsecure about doing it because I don't want to make others uncomfy.. Anyone got any tips? .-.
I'm 1.90 and 140 kg, if you don't want your picture taken, make me!... Just kidding :) I work in media field for 15+ years now. There is no win in this "war", unfortunately. Even if you know in detail what law stipulates, it only takes one police officer or even a door guard to NOT know it. And who cares you were right from the beginning? Having said that, with practice one can learn what works and what doesn't. And I mean mostly in terms of your own behavior, provoking a given reaction from people.
If it weren't for all those amazing photographers both professional and amateur, who have captured life on our streets over the decades. Think how much social history would have been lost had they not had the freedom to photograph, kids playing in the streets or on old bomb sites, teenagers enjoying life and adults doing their daily jobs. How sad is it, that we have created such a paranoid society today. Everything has to be politically correct, to comment on another person's colour you are a racist, you can't speak your mind without offending someone. Perhaps we have gone too far? Society has become too possessive and greedy, we have turned innocent photographers into perverts if taking pictures of kids, anyone with a camera is seen as suspicious. No one trusts anyone, and no one talks to each except via social media. It will be a sad day when the law restricts the use of cameras in our towns and cities, a sad day when being able to record the way we live and work for others to see in the future is taken away from us. We maybe not there yet, but the possibility is it could happen. Food for thought!
Especially with how nosy people can be these days, and violent. Somebody could just come up to you, and snatch your camera and smash it into the ground. Maybe it's not in their legal right to do so, but some people are unpredictable, and can get violent if provoked.
@@TEAKUKAMBASSADOR In my opinion that's only half the solution. Because you can see the difference of distance between photographer and subject. A photo that has been taken from more far away with the same cut looks different than one from the near. And this makes distance between the subject in the photo and the viewer of the it.
simple in NYC, if you are on the street, you are in a public space and its fair game. I remember an old photo taken of a blind man on the street which started the conversation of ethics. did the blind man know he was a subject or was he totally oblivious? it basically came down to even people with sight don't always know they have become a subject in someones photo so there should be no difference between a photo taken of a man who is blind and a man who has sight. if you ask permission, the moment is lost. I stand by that school of thought. things change when someone knows what you are doing. posture, facial expressions, mood, etc. street for me is life unedited. that's where I stand.
Last week was interesting for me. I was out and saw a girl with a really nice jacket that matched her hair really well. I was about to ask if I could take her photo, but before I could I realized she was in the middle of a heated argument with her (I’m guessing) bf. Then a block later, one I can only assume was an instagram fitness “influencer”. Wearing next to nothing. I just keep walking lol. I did manage to catch this really sweet older couple crossing a road a bit later. Wasn’t a high shot count day.
@@madfox7777 Noted for next time. The situation was all off. She seemed like she was in a deep conversation with an older woman and I wasn't getting warm and fuzzy vibes from the body language.
The only concern to conceding to someone demanding that an image be deleted is that it just further emboldens them. They will be online and tell people incorrectly that images must be deleted and they will be that much more angry at the next photographer if they stick with their legal right and not delete the image.
Indeed - while the focus of this video being street photography and people does narrow the scope in which the willingness to actually delete photos is present, it still does have that issue that needs to be considered as well (rather than a blanket always)-will-delete) - not a slam on the person who made this video, of course. :D
Wow. Just Wow! I have seen other streams referencing law and rights of street photography. This is by far the best I have seen so far. Very, very interesting and useful indeed. In regards to the ethical boundaries, if in doubt, leave it out. Great stream. Thank you for posting.
Great video awesome info street photography is one of my passions I’ve only every been challenged once by a bloke who was in shadow backlit by the rising sun he nutted off at me I was calm polite explained what I was doing that he was unrecognisable he carried on ranting I showed him the shot he calmed down even liked it but I think to save his face he still politely asked me to delete it which I did 🙄
Thanks Sean. I find consent to be an essential consideration in general, but I also believe that it's important not to disturb people in concentration or conversation, and I also believe that there is a duty to depict with truth and accuracy. So, I find that the Compliance Culture trend is at odds with my Left wing values. Folks, here are some points of departure for ethical consideration :) Joel Meyerowitz's best photo depicts an unconscious, possible dead, man amid the crowds of Manhattan: www.phaidon.com/agenda/photography/articles/2014/september/03/why-joel-meyerowitz-thinks-this-is-his-best-photo/ Rich Lam's famous and relatively recent photo depicts an "upskirt" view of teenagers kissing surrounded by armoured police, and that dimension is what elevates the image: www.popphoto.com/how-to/2011/06/interview-photographer-richard-lam-his-vancouver-riot-kiss-photo/ Moriyama's aesthetic is driven heavily by sweat and instinct, and documents of him in action show him making regular use of lust in his actions and choices. Though his famous shots of fishnets are of one of his girlfriends, rather than a street subject: www.moriyamadaido.com/en/photogallery/#1588-6 Bruce Davidson of Magnum, who became a photographer after a chance meeting with Cartier-Bresson in Paris. There are innumerable Magnum images by him and others, of children, sexy girls, grotesque elders on the beach. Here is a close-up of a woman in a bikini who appears unaware she is being documented: www.magnumphotos.com/newsroom/environment/bruce-davidson-central-park/attachment/par88069-2/ I think we all should be braver, and that we have a duty to contest censure and censorship whether it rationalises in Right-wing or Left-wing terms of distortion.
An important subject Sean that you have covered thoughtfully. A street subject's mental health is also a factor. We simply don't know the 'story behind the face' we photograph. One in four of us is suffering a mental health issue at any one time. Most people mask it in public and would probably show little sign of upset if photographed. But we still might ruin their day unintentionally (we might make their day too!). It's a difficult one to resolve, though I struggle to justify the 'in your face' approach that some street photographers persist in pursuing.
Another informative and well considered video - Thanks Sean! I’ve had a fascination with street photography for a while but only braved taking photos at tourist spots in London, where I feel like people are expecting to see other people with cameras. Clearly quite limiting in terms of creativity and it’s great to know what freedom I actually have.
14:10 There are actually FOUR levels of law in the United States: Federal, State, County, and Municipality. But generally the county and municipality levels are silent on what applies to street photography and it's relatively rare for those levels to have anything applicable. In the larger metropolitan areas, though, you may run afoul of something. For example, if you're doing a photo shoot in a public park (even if you're not setting up a photo set), you may require a county or city permit. Same may apply if you're hanging around the area to take photographs - whether of people, wildlife, or whatever catches your interest.
If someone hassles you about a permit if you're out there with just a camera they're wrong. If you are doing a video shoot or a portrait shoot with lighting etc you will probably have issues because it looks like a commercial shoot (even if it isn't). If you are in public you have the right to be there.
I carry a small photo card with basic and considered contact details that I will give to subjects when challenged... I will always engage if my subjects want me too and try to make them realise that they are an important part of my personal photography work... I do not dress all in black, with black tape stuck over my camera, as I am not some sort of street photo ninja... And yes I will always not reproduce an image if my subject doesn't want me too (I can't delete as i use film)... The AOP is the best photo organisation ever...but I would say that as I am a member!
If I'm walking the streets with my camera taking pictures of people and I feel uncomfortable and I need to be discreet and suppress the urge to hide what I'm doing because people might get angry with me or look at me the wrong way if they noticed they are being photographed...that means there's likely a problem with what I am doing, I'm being a nuisance and I'll have a hard time defending myself on an ethical ground. I'd like nothing better than to feel the other way because that would open up a world of possibilities for me (I live near a big city) but that is my gut feeling at the moment. Please don't take this personally. What do you think of this way of thinking ? Any way to change my mind about this ? PS : I've tried street photography (not taking pictures of people, just the streets and city lights) late in the evening in the city nearby and it was very scary. Homeless people, drug addicts, drunks, ...some people get angry even if you look at them in a way they don't like, let alone photograph them. It gets even more risky with you are carrying expensive camera gear. I have respect for photographers who feel comfortable doing this, no matter the ethics. That requires some guts.
Just got yelled at by two people because I was doing a pano with my smartphone and they thought I was filming them. I apologized and I showed the pictures and how they were barely noticeable in them but they would have none of it. Then I started to loose my cool too and told them "it was public space and it was my right to take pictures of whatever I wanted"...and it escalated the conflict (of course it would - what an idiot I am). So the lesson from this little adventure is...knowing the law is on your side is purely abstract, useless knowledge in practice. The law never prevented a conflict between individuals to escalate to verbal violence. The law never prevented a street fight from happening. Bringing up the law in such consistences is worth than useless, it will make things worse. Just apologize, delete the pictures and move on. That's the only safe way to go.
You had me about ethics. I’ve had an argument per say with a New York photographer and hes the type of person who shoots people down on their luck, black out drunk, homeless etc. I simply wanted to know why he was shooting them in such a manner as it’s something that I would never shoot as I find it disrespectful unless I was intentionally going to make something out of it to prove a point. instead he felt personally attacked that I even questioned his photography and starts throwing a tantrum at me as if I was challenging him?If you don’t have a reason that’s fine it just means we have different ethical views perhaps but to get angry said a lot to me.
It s greatly helpful Sean ! I do street photography too, sometimes I do wonder to myself the issues you discussed. I do start conversation with the subject I want to get more portrait like range before I do, most people are very nice and let me take their photos. But your video is making me thinking about the issues much more clear. Thank you again for posting this video!!
Great video, Sean! My ethical boundaries as far as what I will and won't shoot are very similar to yours. Earlier this year I made a new friend and we would go out shooting street together. His ethical code was more permissive than mine, and it forced me to think about my own boundaries. This friend would not shy away from photos of homeless and vulnerable people, leering images of attractive women, and occasional "unkind" images of the sort you mentioned. Instead of challenging him about it and trying to force my own standards on him, I simply recognized that I wasn't comfortable with being party to these photographs. I somehow felt that by being present alongside him, I was indicating agreement or acceptance with what was happening, which was not the case. We haven't gone out shooting together since, and he probably doesn't know why, but I'm comfortable with my decision. Like you said, stick to your ethics, and stick to your lane. He's not a bad person, or even a bad photographer, but I learned that we weren't a good match to shoot on the street together.
From the US here. One thing that I think is interesting is the part about a picture by itself not necessarily being an invasion of someone’s privacy. They are still an anonymous person. But, I’ve been asking people that talk to me on the street if I can get a portrait. I try to ask their name to establish a connection. Ethically that seems like the right thing for me. But if I post that picture online with their name in the description, even if it is only their first name, wouldn’t that constitute more of an invasion of privacy in a legal sense?
It’s not an invasion of privacy no, because they have given their verbal consent when you engaged with them. You will need still a contract if you want use those images commercially though. What you’re doing is street portraiture though, and not candid street photography of people going about their day unaware, which is also a valid art form.
Wonderful video, especially your thoughts on photographer ethics. There's one sentence you said which I disagree with: "if they're not breaking the law, you don't really have a right to criticize." 20:15 I know there's lots of overly judgmental people too impulsively eager to point out petty flaws, and also it may not always be worth our own time nor be a healthy prioritization of our energy in every case, but I don't think it's necessarily a waste of time to share your criticism of someone else's methods, if you believe it is ethically harmful. (ruining people's day/month emotionally is form of harm). Personally I would hope somebody would share with me their critical view of something I'm doing, so I may be aware of it and decide if I should change that idea or action to be better. And in a literal sense, I believe it is totally anyone's right to criticize anything they disagree with. Or at least that should be protected as a foundational human right under all governments -- though of course it isn't. Criticism can be annoying, but also I think it is most useful for prompting each other to reconsider things in different ways, hopefully to form improved opinions and beliefs, and find out what we had been wrong about. And criticism doesn't even need to be mean!
Really useful video, well done. So many videos on RUclips about street photography but this is the first one I've seen on the ethics of it. A really basic aspect that is totally ignored by all. It's given me great guidance and should be watched by anyone wishing to take a camera out on the streets.
I get my photo taken in public all the time and it gets really annoying. People might think it’s cool being famous but it can really suck when people point at you and take your photo without even asking.
Great video. I agree with your ethics. And although it’s personal as you say I fee lots of people need to think and consider their ethics more. Particularly when shooting vulnerable people and children. Nice vid mate. 👍🏻😊
In the USA while taking pictures of a client's kids at a park, a woman called the police on me, thinking their kids could be in the background of my pictures and I had no permission to do so, then the cops when through my pictures to be sure that lady's kids were not in those photos, Yep Texas is a crap
Did they get a seach warrant? It is not illegal to photograph children. Did you know its legal to take pics into a home from a public place. Open window covers means no expectations of privacy. In the USA and Canada.
Just because you don't like them, doesn't mean they are not street-photographer, I would never go around flashing people in the face, but he is one of the most influential contemporary street photographer.
Thanks Sean. I have steered clear of street photography,. mostly because due to my concern that it somehow violates peoples' rights to privacy, legal or not. Your discussion on ethics has opened the door a little for me and perhaps I will give this a go. As always, thanks for sharing, is always exciting to see a notification of a new post from you. Cheers from BC!
To the ignorant people attacking Bruce's aproach to street photography, life is not a fairy tale, we don't live in a cotton candy world. Life is crude, raw, violent, soft, kind, everything. His work is just a repercution of life, and that's why it is so beautiful and amazing. Recording photons someone bounced out is not like killing someone. If someone doesn't want to be recognized in photos they shouldn't show themselves. It's like an exhibicionista that shows himself, the fault is his for showing himself and law punishes that, why not punish the one bouncing the photons and not the one receiving them? Sadly majority is dumb and uneducated and this gets confusing and ignored. They use emotions instead of logic or science.
Cheers Sean, you have shown us a great piece of video. You can tell you have worked hard on this and kindly had the help of Nick Dunmar from AOP. Great interest and lots to think about. Kind regards and many many thanks. PJ
I think this is a really useful video with powerful statements on morals and ethnics. This again supplement our support and appreciation of your works, to release on your 300k subs. Thank YOU, Sean - I think it is really very heartening to always be assured that despite your great works, you have a even greater heart.
I loved the discussion of ethics. I’ve always been so careful with photographing anyone on the streets, I think I just feel uncomfortable with it. But maybe if I establish my ethical ideals beforehand that will help.
I speak as a father, and I think it is a great shame that we appear to be in a world without children. To capture the smiles and joys of a child, before they become fully aware of an apparent 'big bad world', should lift the heart of any photographer, with parents being sensible enough to assess the photographers aims.
I was just on the Magnum site, and there are many photos of children and teenagers, and I feel corrupted by the conditioned reaction I feel of "oh, it's a child, is that permitted?" and also the over-emphasis that is suddenly drawn to the fact that they're on the beach, or kissing, or they're somehow exposed, or that they're lying around perhaps suggestively: the prudish conditioning takes away the clarity and strength of the image, and replaces it with a list of perversion-checks.
That is a good point. And there have been times I have taken photos of children (like at a local outdoor museum here that puts on a "Christmas in July" with fake snow that the children get especially excited about) and have wondered if a male photographer would have gotten an angry response, while noone cared that I took lots of photos.
I agree as a father as well and would never exploit children in any way shape or form! However, when I see the images of Vivian Mayer that were hidden for so many years as well as many, many others who have documented family and everyday real life, I often times feel it can be such a compelling photograph.
Children are on my list of not to shoot too. If I'm honest I don't have that many. If something grabs me a will take the shot. But I think it's down to common sense. If you think nah that's to risky etc then don't take it.
As a photographer, I still become weary of using a camera in public, especially with the fear that was instilled into me from my father, growing up. Still to this day he becomes very angry if a camera is pointed at him. I am slightly this way also. So I am sensitive to peoples privacy. But something that has helped ease this within myself is the fact that everyone has a cell phone with cameras. Therefore, the argument will be that anyone can at anytime, take pictures of whatever they want to. Public or not.
BNIBCD Creative Media Your father must walk around cities a very angry person with all the cameras. There is a camera in public for every thirteen people in the UK, and more and more surveillance.
I'm in Montreal, Canada. To shoot hanging Japanese hanging mobiles inside The Eaton Centre (15? years ago,) I had to get permission. But it was given, thankfully. I tried to take photos (architecture) inside Univ. de Sherbrooke (thought that was odd, it being a university) off of Metro Longueuil and I was challenged, so I didn't shoot. There was a very cool Oriental woman dressed in quite amazing cowgirl garb on the metro platform, I asked politely, but she declined. Too bad. Thank you for covering.
Sean: three specific instances that you do not cover (OK you can't cover everything ... ). I have encountered all of these at one time or another in my editorial role (working on books). 1. Photograph INSIDE a commercially published book. One often comes across the term 'editorial use'. I take it that such use would not be regarded as an infringement. This comes up all the time with travel books, for example. 2. Photograph of an individual on the COVER of a commercially published book. Is this still 'editorial', or is it promotion of a commercial product? If the latter, a lot of great photography and travel books published in the past are in trouble - including several I have been involved in during my long publishing career. 3. Photograph inside a book which is published to promote a commercial enterprise - for example, a COMMISSIONED book on the history of a bank, say (I have been involved in several of these). A more general question that you do not cover is whether the image of an individual forms the central theme of an image, or whether he or she is part of a group, or a crowd. This must surely make a difference. As to ethics, I have been struck by the double standards shown by some photographers who see themselves as ethically pure - for them it is ethical to thrust a camera in the face of anyone in an 'exotic' travel destination, often a wrinkled old person, harshly lit, or someone living in picturesquely poor conditions, whereas they wouldn't dream of doing the same thing in a suburb of London or Glasgow or New York. Thanks in advance for your feedback.
Long time follower Sean! You really stand out in my mind as the most thoughtful and genuine photo tuber. I've just started my journey sharing my stuff on here and, in my own light hearted childish way, just shared my thoughts on ethics in photography. Thanks for being uniquely you man!
That was incredibly useful - thank you ! Someone confronted me recently, in a very agressive way and I wasn’t prepared to defend myself. After watching this, I feel more confident.
I wanna do street photography but I'm always uncomfortable about taking shots of people and I end only taking shots of monuments :/ Even if the person is pretty far and/or you cant see his face, I'm always wondering if i shoud ask wether or not I can take the shot. What do you do?
@@DoggyHateFire I can't put a link, but there is a post on reddit about it, go in analog community and search (street photography ethical rules). It doesn't answer directly to your question but it helped me! I think if you're assuming what you're doing, it'll be fine. Be friendly with the people you meet/ that recognise you, assume your "photographer role" and it should be good!
USA, not the UK ........ Eye's cannot trespass ... You can photograph anything you can see in public/ from a pubic space. That means you can legally photograph subjects such as people, buildings, bridges, trains, police officers etc. without asking or getting prior permission. If someone doesn't want their picture taken, they can leave.
If someone from Czech Republic reads this, i have found a site from the lawyer and also photographer, who explains what rules applies to photography in our country. www.fotopravo.cz TL/DR in general it is the same as in the UK, but there is also some additional info, like copyright issues, etc. So you may want to take a look.
A very very welcome stuff. Well done! By the way the recent laws in Greater Germany have taken a bad turn. They also reflect an aggravated mood of the people. All things to consider when photographing. Luckily not all persons succumb to it. The root of the matter is the social and cultural climate - people are flooded by immoral media content even by the state run channels, many also privately seek and “enjoy” such things. So they are inclined to project the grinding of their own consciousness to what you are doing with your camera. Government legislation encourages and stimulates the growing mistrust between people as that puts it in an easier position to limit the freedom. And the human nature is that people like to point their finger to someone else’s wrongdoing even if they have absolutely no evidence of it, rather than ever think of themselves and their own wrongdoing in the first place. Out of my own needs I’ve developed the same approach like you have, but it doesn’t help me fend off the belligerent frustrated people. I got threatened only for having a camera on me, for carrying it, not even holding it in my arms. Some people like to ventilate their frustrations over strangers with the camera because governments encourages them to and they feel more important that way. It’s a cultural thing too, there are cultures where people still like being photographed or even consider it a favor and nice attention by the photographer. All this said, I’d like to make clear I’m extremely prudent with the ethical side of the matter. I’ve been with my camera when people drowned or were being rescued or had conflicts or bad accidents and never had guts or even a need to record it. My credo is to record things which will later recreate the joy of life or at least something positive on my screen, for me and others, and not vice versa. And yet, I get downplayed, threatened and sometimes even verbally abused. Even as a journalist I never felt more helpless. EU is not in a good shape, you were right to leave.
My channel looks at these issues, but in the specific context of the photographic auditing trend - hence, I have a still stricter attitude to the interpretation of data protection laws than the speaker, but still a very useful video. Genuine street photographers benefit from the special purposes exemption under Part 5 of Schedule 2 of the 2018 Act. Photographic auditors do not typically benefit from this exemption.
Laws are very different nation to nation, laws in Asia are significantly different form the West but IG, RUclips seem to not care about laws in specific countries. I wonder how IG, youtube rationalize or determine privacy laws. I see tons of RUclips clips of people who walk thru cities w/ gimbal cams, filming whatever gets in the frame including children. And if someone is monetized on RUclips is that not commercial use?
Stumbled upon your video and I am impressed by how honest this message was to me. I am a beginner in the art form of photography and I always feel shy to take pictures in public even if I'm not even trying to capture people. Thanks taking the time to explain all this and being to authentic and just in your ethics.
Excellent video!!! Very good information coming from a very good & well balanced place. It is so important to know the law & to understand the kinds of situations that you may find yourself in. It can be especially difficult in the US when dealing with over zealous private security & angry everyday folks who are ignorant of the law. Avoiding confrontation is always going to be the best way to prevent an unwanted situation.
Well done, 100% agree on ethical, specially new comers to street photography, please if you have to take pictures of "down on their luck" people, do not show their faces! On the kids, I'll say take advantage of the moment, take the shot but share it with the parents and ask for permission then! Other adults if they ask nicely delete the picture otherwise ignore them!
This was excellent. I was looking about a year ago for something like this and couldn’t find anything so thank you for starting this conversation on RUclips!
I'm in the USA and can say that: While people think we can be overly aggressive (and to an extent we can), Americans are also overly concerned with placating. With acting as if, whatever you're doing is your own business and many of us don't want to be "that person". I know that if you take 12,000 snaps, you'll eventually get the "one person" who asks you about what you're doing, but especially if you're just in a park or out in a busy city and you're just snapping away, most people are two self-absorbed to even SEE you, let alone care that you're taking pictures.
Street Photography is no joke. Its really hard. Shooting the Public I think is best when you have 'Media Credentials', so make it/one for your business. People are much more comfortable knowing there is some kind of credibility on the other side of that use, rather then it just being some random dude with a camera. Get a T-Shirt with a way other people can find your work. Name and FB/IG/YT or whatever so people can immediately look at your work. If your good, and they like it, they might even want to be in one of your pictures!
In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA two photographers were assaulted by an off duty police officer for doing their job documenting an incident at a “Black Lives Matter” rally. Camera equipment was also damaged. They person who assaulted the photographers was not charged. It’s not unheard of when some American ideas on what their liberties are will end up in violence.
I live in Belgium, i only post pictures online on public pages like instagram and facebook that i have a signed contract for that allows me to post them, which right now is zero pictures of people and only pictures of plants and trees. This video still leaves me VERY unclear what is considered "commercial use", really incredible how vague this stuff is., It seems pretty much anything can be considered commercial use. Facebook, instagram, your own photography website, anything. What about TFP? Besides making a contract do you still need to pay the model to make it legally binding?
In Brazil a person can ask you to take down their picture and you have to comply, because everyone owns their own image, but you won't be punished, unless the picture has a bad repercussion. Like, you can't take a picture that will make the person ashamed. But people here are humble, they might thank you for taking their picture.
Your 'ethical choices' mirror my own and it is great to view this content. I've always been disturbed by the sexual objectification of women by male photographers. I've always employed what I call the 'red-faced test' ( meaning embarrassed / flustered or uncomfortable ) If showing the image to the subject makes you feel this way - it doesn't pass the 'red-faced' test. It means as a photographer, that I've deliberately, or inadvertantly, crossed a boundary; and I'm happy to delete. I always ask, with a smile, and a gesture to my camera, if its okay to photograph people. My life has been deeply enriched by being welcomed into cultures; and the BEST part of digital photography is being able to share an image with a total stranger. It anchors my humanity and restores my hope in people. Images where the subject is connected to the camera evokes emotion. Some street photos rely on a cold clinical voyeurism; and then some cross deeper and evoke negativity...and approach exploitation. This is where I feel our profession suffers most. I will openly confront photographers that are ignorant.
Very well informed video, you conduct yourself professionally and have compiled a great video which has helped me out. I am starting out in photography and I'm learning more about street photography. I like taking pictures that make me happy. Thank you.
"No single shot I take is worth ruining someone else's day", what really struck me the most in this video. Thank you Sean for educating everyone! more power to your channel.
@@rbx22 uneducated neckbeard
Hear hear. Same goes for your own feeling having to discuss. Better to avoid tension.
Also ... "If somebody asks me to delete that photography, I'll delete it". It's only a photo, you've got the rest of your life to take more, many & varied.
This also struck me!! Full respect!
@@williamdavid4823 That awkward moment when you shoot film.
Superb and highly valuable content as usual. I shall direct people to this every time I get people asking these same old legal questions on my Photographing Strangers video. Congrats on hitting 300K subs too.
Cheers mate.
Jamie Windsor the both of you make such great content! Thank you 🙏
I just watched the Photographing Strangers video. I’m a big fan of both of you. You’re both great creators. It’s awesome to see two people/channels that I admire supporting one another!
Wired and Wound we leave that to the French 😩
As a lawyer (England & Wales) and photographer, this is an excellent video and helpful. The law can be open to interpretation and changes to that interpretation. But when it comes down to it, and like most things in life, it is a judgment call; and do what is right and fair in the circumstances. I agree entirely with your comments about boundaries and ethical boundaries. Thank you
Thanks James. I appreciate that.
I am not a lawyer but I would never settle until a court tells me otherwise. I will not make it easy for someone especially if I do not feel that I have done anything which requires payment (street photography)
United States this isn't an issue, now if you're some obnoxious photographer then you might have issues. Also, in the United States, folks are captured at least 10-15 times a day w/o their knowledge on all the other surveillance devices
@M3sterX Agreed. All they can do it kick you out. They cannot confiscate any footage you have taken or restrict how that footage is used. They can bar you from the establishment so there are some courtesy and respect issues you might want to take into account.
@M3sterX Actually, the property owner can set rules of behavior for people in/on their property. If you violate the rules you can be asked to stop or to leave. If you refuse, in most places you would then be criminally trespassing and subject to arrest.
NB This applies to the USA, UK and Germany. Get a lawyer.
7:00 "You can photograph anybody but..."
7:30 "Generally speaking... commercial use is the promotion of a product service or brand."
8:41 Artistic practice defined as derived from an exhibition. It's ok to sell prints and books based on an exhibition, but beyond that, it gets blurry and might be commercial use.
9:27 GDPR - a photo with an identifying marker makes a photo classed as personal data, and thus subject to GDPR. "It shouldn't affect your ability to make pictures."
10:10 GDPR has two exceptions - artistic use, and journalistic use.
11:30 Difference between a consent form and a model form. You really want a contractual model release form, where it's key that the model gets something for something, quid pro quo, to avoid issues in the future.
13:00 Key differences in Germany: It has greater breadth of privacy law than the aformentioned Anglophile countries.
14:15 Key differences in the USA: There's federal and state law. When you deal with confrontation, be nice...
17:38 Ethical considerations. We need to make ethical considerations before we consider the law.
18:09 Sean's boundaries that you shouldn't cookie cut. I won't copy it here, and will just say for me , the commenter, what is truly ethical is the unprecedented, a decision that only you can make. That said, for me, photography should have the potential for convivial conversation with those in the frame.
I think "to celebrate people" is one of the keys for street photography. it speaks of the beauty you want to capture, respect and making something nice to share. thanks, as always interesting and helpful and above all inspiring.
👏👏👏
Having a good ethical base is so important for confidence too. I like to say good photography is 10% photography, 90% philosophy.
Adam MacKintosh Photo and if your photography is 100%, then the photos will be amazing, but you might come of as a little unkind. So I think 10% photography is actually quite true because I spend most of my time telling people why I’m taking the photo, this means that I can walk away not feeling uncomfortable about lying to someone about my intensions, or not being clear in what I wanted the photo for.
No
Wise words mannnn wise words
Photography is 30% photography, 30% ideas and 40% edition
I'll try to make this short, but awhile back around the 4th of the July I went out walking with my camera taking pictures of the American Flag that people were flying on the sides of their houses. An off-duty police officer notice what I was doing and followed me around. At the time I didn't really pay much attention to it, but I saw him stop and make a call on his cellphone. A short time later a marked police car approached me and the officer got out of the car. The officer asked me what I was doing as he got a complaint from an off-duty officer and I told him I was taking pictures of the American flag. The officer said that he got a complaint that I was entering people's backyards and that I had taken pictures of a fellow police officer's house. I thought to myself this officer is a big time idiot, but I kept that to myself and simply said "Why would I go into people's backyards when I have this type of lens? Besides I am taking photos of the American flag from a public sidewalk. As for the officer, how would I know what house is his?". Just as I was finishing speaking the officer excuse himself to talk to a man that came walking up and he didn't say who it was, but one didn't need to be a rocket scientist to know who it was. He came back and after taking my personal identification info (which I also didn't particularly like either) started giving some lame excuse about having to protect police officers after 911 - he let go on my way.
First, I did nothing wrong taking pictures of the American flag from a public sidewalk and second the police is hired to protect and serve the general public not only his fellow officers. My point is even if you do everything right there is still a chance that some people will think what you're doing is illegal even though it isn't. The odds that it happening are slim, but just keep in the back of your mind that it could.
Friend of mine in Nicaragua had to show the cops what he was photographing twice. One group was fascinated by the photos of mating falcons, but finally said they had to go back to work. Other time was photographing parrots on a park dedicated to The Revolution. And this was after riots in 2018.
17:31 "Long before we hit the boundaries of the Law, we need to make ethical decisions for ourselves."
Thanks for that point. it sometimes disappoints me how many people I talk with who will dismiss any concerns about what they say or do to other people, as long as they can't be arrested for it. Just because "it's my right!" doesn't mean I ought to do it.
pretty basic stuff, I know. but if I had a dollar for every time someone's conflated ethics with legality in defense of being an ass.....
Corporates do this all the time!
Yes I agree!! I asked in a server and someone told me "The ethics will be in the laws" :/ Then someone else directed me to this video :)
For film users, who can't delete or show an image: carry a small thin book/zine with some examples of your 'intentions' or; photographs to show if anyone needs to know why you just took their picture.
This video was very useful, thank you.
This is a great idea!
I've thought about this - however, what about the people just getting into street photography? If you've got nothing to show, any ideas for what to do?
A little late, but you can always show them pictures from other street photographers you like, tell them you're trying to get into the hobby and that you want to take pictures like the ones you're showing them.
I've actually considered printing out Cards to deliver to people I shoot with a message saying "Smile, you've just been photographed ! If you would like to see your photo please head to [...]"
I think that would help with both the situation and your personal growth to the public. But maybe I'm wrong 😅
I love photography and street photography but this is the one aspect of photography I hate. They say if you're pictures are not good enough, it's because you're not close enough, well that's where you start to invade people's personal space and conflict arises. It's also a reason I'm drawn to landscape and wildlife photography. You never get a mountain complain about having their picture taken, no need to get a model release from a puffin. I've never understood why some people object to their photo being taken but then again they probably don't understand why anyone would want to take their picture either.
For me ethics rarely prevent me from taking the shot but always prevent me from posting it. Great video and food for thought Sean.
Exactly. Snap away, but ethical photographers only post those photos that would not embarrass the person/people in the photo.
That's a very intelligent and fair comment. I think it is ok to invade certain privacies if you keep it to yourself. The can of worms open when you publish it.
Sounds like the right thing, and I don't doubt you're sincere. But put yourself in the place of your subject: they see someone take a picture of them and disappear. They don't know you won't publish the photo, and even if you tell them, they have no reason to believe it.
I also would never publish without permission, but when people signal that they don't want me to photograph them, then I don't. It's called respect. If I would ignore their feelings about it, that would be called selfishness.
(And then I'm not even talking about how bad pictures can be when the subject is uncomfortable, or even annoyed.)
@@stevenvanhulle7242most people are under the delusion that they look best when posing.
I have a question. At 4:00 in the video, Nick Dunmur says: “If you are in a public place you can photograph anything.” What if you (the photographer) are located in a public place, but the subject (for example, a person) is not located in a public place? To use the example Nick gives about the South Bank, in London: if I was on the public walkway part and I took a photograph of a person on the non-public part (they were sitting at a table on the terrace of a cafe, for example), then could I use that photograph?
Im not sure about in the UK but when I researched this it was completely legal to do in Ireland and a lot of Irish law is the same as the UK's. You can stand in public spaces and shoot through a window into someones house however ethically/morally dubious it may be. The only restrictions were that you weren't impeding somebodies ability to exit somewhere from what I remember.
You're still taking an image OF a private place, but it really shouldn't be a huge deal, unless you're shooting someone's private home on a public street
Under GDPR, this is illegal, I'm pretty sure. Photographing somebody in a private space adds a ton of identifiability.
Just did a night time shoot on Thursday with around 10 members of my Camera club in Glasgow city centre. We weren't shooting people as such, more nightscapes, but there were people in the images. We did not have one adverse comment the entire night, even when shooting in a funfair with kids around. No one questioned us or our motives, most people were interested in what we were doing and when we explained it they were happy. Nearly everyone that walked in front of our cameras accidentally apologised. No doubt we were picked up quickly on the City Centre CCTV, but as we were lugging tripods around, it was clear we were not up to anything nefarious. Closest we came to being 'questioned' was outside Princess Square photographing the entrance when a security guard wandered out, looked at us for a couple of minutes, go bored and wandered off. I generally have no problem explaining what I am doing, but I do resent being told in public that I can't photograph without everyone's permission (which has happened.)
Dominic Smith I am so surprised to read this; I am from just outside Glasgow but now live in London and I was in a group doing a night shoot in soho and I had a few people coming up being a bit funny with cameras around.
@@rachelscott7348 That is a shame. London is more cosmopolitan than Glasgow and with Soho being what it is and it's reputation as a Red Light District (not sure if this is still entirely the case,) it may be a bit more problematic to photograph there. However, as you were part of a group, I think it would be fairly obvious to those not a little drunk, that you were taking the pics for your own benefit. Can you give us some examples of who approached you and what they said? Generally if I am approached in the town centre, I give a brief explanation along the lines of, "just taking some personal photo's," and if that doesn't work, I point out the CCTV cameras that invariably cover the area we are in. I was once stopped by the crew of a TV show that were filming in George Square, Glasgow and 'told' that the Producers didn't want any pics taken by the general public of the filming. I politely pointed out to him all the other members of the public filming the filming with their camera phones and that if they didn't want an pics taken then they should have stayed in the studio and not ventured into a public place. Basically, I wasn't interfering with their production so 'tough pal.'
@@photodom2000 It was right before christmas and I wasn't even photographing people I was trying to shot the lights down one of the lanes just off of Carnaby street and a drunk person kept insisting they didn't want their photo taken despite telling him he wasn't in the shot (he was also behind me), I explained as well it was a photography class. I just left and went to another lane and he left me alone.
@@rachelscott7348 You did the right thing Rachel. Some people just want to make trouble, even more so when they are drunk. In Glasgow you normally get Photo Bombed.
@@photodom2000 that dose not surprise me one bit! I have never taken my camera out in Glasgow but the buildings are so beautiful! with the right light I can imagine you would get some stunning photos!
Love this, Sean. Especially the talk about ethical boundaries at the end.
The most important point made by Sean is that each person must utilize their own ethics in the pursuit of street photography. Once you understand the specific privacy and governmental regulations you are on your own to craft a process that suits your form of expression. There is an implied bias I'm afraid with videos like this one that tend to lean to the light forms/geometric and less intimate forms of street photography. Nick Dunmur is clearly on that side of the fence giving advice that will keep photographers out of trouble. I get that as hes giving quasi legal interpretive advice and the AOP isn't going to stick their necks out. Photographers Tatsuo Suzuki and Bruce Gilden have styles that deliberately seek tension and conflict. They are clearly on the opposite end of the spectrum and have a legitimate right to do what they do. Finding our own voice and style is what is critically important to be able to say what we want to. What is ethical to Donald Trump is repulsive to others. Many of us deplore what he says BUT we are fortunate that our democratic freedom of speech protects those rights. So we are left with the careful balance of the ethical argument and its direct impact to our work. As we struggle with this balance in the pursuit of our voice we need to overcome the fears/intimidation that restrict us from pushing boundaries at the cost of creative work.
In Sweden we have even better laws. A place is considered a public place when the public has access to it, so shopping malls, stores, and streets are public and not private.
HaasGrotesk this is the same as Australia.
@@Lucy-dk5cz yes but in the UK a lot of shopping malls a privately owned so they get around that way
jack Watsonepic same as Australia. Privately owned but the act that deals with photography defines the place as public. So an owner of the private land can ask you to leave the property if they wish but can’t stop you from taking photos or deleting those you have already taken.
That sounds like common sense I-
Thank you! I live in Germany and rarely shoot there (I prefer to shoot on a holiday being a tourist...) because I am afraid of doing something illegal. I know it is easy to get information about it, but this video cleared a lot of questions I had in mind. I still try to find my way of doing street photography, e.g. I love taking shots of peoples faces but I rarely to never publish them on my Instagram; mainly because I think: If I don't feel well uploading my siblings like that, then am I in the right/ is it ethically correct to upload strangers like that? Just like you said, I try to take "positive" pictures and ones, that are celebrating beauty and art. I would never publish photos I wouldn't publish if the person/motive was me. It's hard but I'm slowly finding my own way of doing street photography and respecting privacy as much as possible and needed.
I loved this video so much! Thank you!
I'm a simple man, i see Sean Tucker video - I click on it and give it a like before watching.
Whole heartily agree with that and do the very same thing whenever I watch one of his films.
But what if it's a total bomb of a video? He'd never improve with blanket likes.
@@RolandsDad watching Sean for more than a year now and having a chance to meet and listen to him, I understood that he is the strictest critic for himself and that's what I admire about him. And with every video, even the most ''boring'' (the ones usually popular for casuals), he puts his energy and time to do it 100%. Imho I believe that he wouldn't put video out, if he would feel like he's not improving or he didn't put enough effort in it.
@@jevgenijbalezin A very fair response, well put. Also, a wee bit jealous you've actually got to meet him!
@@RolandsDad Well I'll stoke the fires of jealousy then... I've enjoyed a handful of meets with him. What you see in these films is completely what you receive in real life. Honesty and integrity.
High value content. A „must see“ for every street photographer. Thx a lot, Sean 🙏
I already said it in other videos, and I say it again now: Sean Tucker channel=High Quality Content.👍
Probably my favorite production related thing about Sean's videos is the lighting, his face half exposed and the other obscured in shadow.
He doesn't use clickbait titles. He isn't inflammatory or imposing. He asks you to think. He is thought provoking.
EVERY photograph of ANY person is a potential intrusion, if they did not in advance give you permission, and particularly so if they are the exclusive person in a given shot. This makes street photography a subject which implies a very heightened sense of responsibility. Take for instance the now utterly cliched shot of a craggy-faced shepherd or street seller in the third world. Somehow most photographers suspend their normal rules about intrusion, yet the invasion of that person's privacy and space is every bit as serious as if they'd snapped a shot of some diva in their private space who then threatens to sue.
The linking of this subject with model "releases" or contractual considerations is a mistake. The two scenarios are ENTIRELY different. The salient subject is the INVASION of the privacy of a person who never invited you, nor elected to be represented in some ambitious photographer's portfolio. The yardstick to consider includes whether YOU, the photographer, would ever consent to be a similar subject in similar circumstances. I'll give another example. You are at a PRIVATE party where you can be yourself and not feel restricted, and find that days later your movements, speech, and possibly temporary inebriation, is suddenly published worldwide without your permission on a video on facebook. The currently accepted notion is that because it happens globally it is of no consequence. That's wrong.
All photographers, whether professional or amateur, and whether the medium is a video or a still, really need to think carefully about how THEY would feel if some random shot of themselves appeared, usually out of context, in a video or shot about which they had no prior knowledge.
For all these reasons, I am no longer a street photographer, unless I can satisfy myself that I am not using another person in an intrusive way. The only exception is where people are seeking political power and are subject to a reasonably higher degree of scrutiny, but even then, privacy lines get blurred.
I think this video answers my question in regards to publishing a book or selling street photography prints. From this video it is 100% legal to do. Except, if I’m using it to promote my business actively but I’m able to sell it as an artistic body of work.
Hi Sean. Great vid subject. My experiences.... I've been shouted at by people who were working for local authorities before when taking photos of scenes across a lake where boating activities were being undertaken.. a voice shouted at me across the water saying " Oiy you stop taking pictures of the kids" in my efforts to defend myself and explain the guy was non receptive to anything I had to say and i just felt awful. I went to speak with his manageress... we had a fairly decent chat about legalities but again she had been brainwashed by her employers that i must be some sort of weirdo. Took me a long while to get over that horrible feeling. Some time later a ParkRun event took place around the same lakes. I decided to brave up and took a bunch of really great images of runners in mid flow... all black and white.. portrait style... a few first class images in the mix. I went to the race director and asked for an email address... and sent him all of the images for the runners. His reply was to thank me for the images but was unable to use them unless I signed up to his organisation as an official volunteer photographer to protect the rights of the runners and a measure of safe guarding and security should anything go wrong in having taken and distributed the images. I just couldn't get my head around that. I never replied.. and the poor runners obviously never got to see their images. I've never done anything with the images since and probably never will out of sheer fear of their attitude. Such a shame... but that's how it is. I love photography.... but I certainly hate the negativity it can create.
Steve - sign up as a ParkRun volunteer and shoot away! As a ParkRunner most people don't mind. Basically the director let's people know there's a photographer on the course beforehand and gives them a signal that'll tell the photographer that they don't want the image published. Hope that helps...I'm planning on doing this at my local ParkRun soon.
@@robspedding9520 thanks Rob.... I'll consider it. It would be useful and I would be grateful if you let me know how that all works out for you. If you did this photography for them as a signed up photographer and for example took a shot of a lifetime.... could you use it on your social media, website etc... or have you signed your rights away.?? Kind Regards.... Steve
I consider myself as a hobby street photographer who'd like to post stuff on Instagram without making money to simply share some stuff with others. I'm really unsecure about doing it because I don't want to make others uncomfy.. Anyone got any tips? .-.
I'm 1.90 and 140 kg, if you don't want your picture taken, make me!... Just kidding :) I work in media field for 15+ years now. There is no win in this "war", unfortunately. Even if you know in detail what law stipulates, it only takes one police officer or even a door guard to NOT know it. And who cares you were right from the beginning? Having said that, with practice one can learn what works and what doesn't. And I mean mostly in terms of your own behavior, provoking a given reaction from people.
If it weren't for all those amazing photographers both professional and amateur, who have captured life on our streets over the decades. Think how much social history would have been lost had they not had the freedom to photograph, kids playing in the streets or on old bomb sites, teenagers enjoying life and adults doing their daily jobs.
How sad is it, that we have created such a paranoid society today. Everything has to be politically correct, to comment on another person's colour you are a racist, you can't speak your mind without offending someone.
Perhaps we have gone too far? Society has become too possessive and greedy, we have turned innocent photographers into perverts if taking pictures of kids, anyone with a camera is seen as suspicious. No one trusts anyone, and no one talks to each except via social media.
It will be a sad day when the law restricts the use of cameras in our towns and cities, a sad day when being able to record the way we live and work for others to see in the future is taken away from us. We maybe not there yet, but the possibility is it could happen. Food for thought!
My problem is I find it hard taking photos NEAR other people.
same
Especially with how nosy people can be these days, and violent. Somebody could just come up to you, and snatch your camera and smash it into the ground. Maybe it's not in their legal right to do so, but some people are unpredictable, and can get violent if provoked.
My answer: a discreet zoom lens. That is: use a bridge camera!
@@TEAKUKAMBASSADOR In my opinion that's only half the solution. Because you can see the difference of distance between photographer and subject. A photo that has been taken from more far away with the same cut looks different than one from the near. And this makes distance between the subject in the photo and the viewer of the it.
@@Cognazzo95 You're absolutely right. But how many times did that happen to you? Many things are maybe just in your mind. Like 'what happens if...'
simple in NYC, if you are on the street, you are in a public space and its fair game. I remember an old photo taken of a blind man on the street which started the conversation of ethics. did the blind man know he was a subject or was he totally oblivious? it basically came down to even people with sight don't always know they have become a subject in someones photo so there should be no difference between a photo taken of a man who is blind and a man who has sight. if you ask permission, the moment is lost. I stand by that school of thought. things change when someone knows what you are doing. posture, facial expressions, mood, etc. street for me is life unedited. that's where I stand.
"... try to ensure them that you are not after their soul..." :D Indeed. Great - and utterly useful - content, btw.
Last week was interesting for me. I was out and saw a girl with a really nice jacket that matched her hair really well. I was about to ask if I could take her photo, but before I could I realized she was in the middle of a heated argument with her (I’m guessing) bf. Then a block later, one I can only assume was an instagram fitness “influencer”. Wearing next to nothing. I just keep walking lol. I did manage to catch this really sweet older couple crossing a road a bit later. Wasn’t a high shot count day.
If it's a ig influencer, snap away, and let them know you got the shot. Colabs are great for exposure and even leads to future clients/revenue
@@madfox7777 Noted for next time. The situation was all off. She seemed like she was in a deep conversation with an older woman and I wasn't getting warm and fuzzy vibes from the body language.
@@AlicesWondereland it's always best to listen to those vibes/instincts
The only concern to conceding to someone demanding that an image be deleted is that it just further emboldens them. They will be online and tell people incorrectly that images must be deleted and they will be that much more angry at the next photographer if they stick with their legal right and not delete the image.
Indeed - while the focus of this video being street photography and people does narrow the scope in which the willingness to actually delete photos is present, it still does have that issue that needs to be considered as well (rather than a blanket always)-will-delete) - not a slam on the person who made this video, of course. :D
Your content is a digital bible for photography.
I second on this!!....It is exactly that
Wow. Just Wow! I have seen other streams referencing law and rights of street photography. This is by far the best I have seen so far. Very, very interesting and useful indeed. In regards to the ethical boundaries, if in doubt, leave it out. Great stream. Thank you for posting.
Excellent to know, let your own ethical boundary code be present when walking the street: great advice. Thank you, Sean.
Great video awesome info street photography is one of my passions I’ve only every been challenged once by a bloke who was in shadow backlit by the rising sun he nutted off at me I was calm polite explained what I was doing that he was unrecognisable he carried on ranting I showed him the shot he calmed down even liked it but I think to save his face he still politely asked me to delete it which I did 🙄
Thanks Sean. I find consent to be an essential consideration in general, but I also believe that it's important not to disturb people in concentration or conversation, and I also believe that there is a duty to depict with truth and accuracy. So, I find that the Compliance Culture trend is at odds with my Left wing values.
Folks, here are some points of departure for ethical consideration :)
Joel Meyerowitz's best photo depicts an unconscious, possible dead, man amid the crowds of Manhattan:
www.phaidon.com/agenda/photography/articles/2014/september/03/why-joel-meyerowitz-thinks-this-is-his-best-photo/
Rich Lam's famous and relatively recent photo depicts an "upskirt" view of teenagers kissing surrounded by armoured police, and that dimension is what elevates the image:
www.popphoto.com/how-to/2011/06/interview-photographer-richard-lam-his-vancouver-riot-kiss-photo/
Moriyama's aesthetic is driven heavily by sweat and instinct, and documents of him in action show him making regular use of lust in his actions and choices. Though his famous shots of fishnets are of one of his girlfriends, rather than a street subject: www.moriyamadaido.com/en/photogallery/#1588-6
Bruce Davidson of Magnum, who became a photographer after a chance meeting with Cartier-Bresson in Paris. There are innumerable Magnum images by him and others, of children, sexy girls, grotesque elders on the beach. Here is a close-up of a woman in a bikini who appears unaware she is being documented: www.magnumphotos.com/newsroom/environment/bruce-davidson-central-park/attachment/par88069-2/
I think we all should be braver, and that we have a duty to contest censure and censorship whether it rationalises in Right-wing or Left-wing terms of distortion.
An important subject Sean that you have covered thoughtfully. A street subject's mental health is also a factor. We simply don't know the 'story behind the face' we photograph. One in four of us is suffering a mental health issue at any one time. Most people mask it in public and would probably show little sign of upset if photographed. But we still might ruin their day unintentionally (we might make their day too!). It's a difficult one to resolve, though I struggle to justify the 'in your face' approach that some street photographers persist in pursuing.
Another informative and well considered video - Thanks Sean! I’ve had a fascination with street photography for a while but only braved taking photos at tourist spots in London, where I feel like people are expecting to see other people with cameras. Clearly quite limiting in terms of creativity and it’s great to know what freedom I actually have.
In America any photos in public are legal since in public there’s no expectation of privacy
Thanks. Very informative.
14:10 There are actually FOUR levels of law in the United States: Federal, State, County, and Municipality. But generally the county and municipality levels are silent on what applies to street photography and it's relatively rare for those levels to have anything applicable.
In the larger metropolitan areas, though, you may run afoul of something. For example, if you're doing a photo shoot in a public park (even if you're not setting up a photo set), you may require a county or city permit. Same may apply if you're hanging around the area to take photographs - whether of people, wildlife, or whatever catches your interest.
If someone hassles you about a permit if you're out there with just a camera they're wrong. If you are doing a video shoot or a portrait shoot with lighting etc you will probably have issues because it looks like a commercial shoot (even if it isn't). If you are in public you have the right to be there.
Thanks Sean for an excellent video, thoroughly agree with your ethics. And thanks to Nick for outlining our rights as photographers in the UK.
I swear every video you make is so interesting and calming in a way. I have learnt so much from watching your videos, keep them coming!
I carry a small photo card with basic and considered contact details that I will give to subjects when challenged...
I will always engage if my subjects want me too and try to make them realise that they are an important part of my personal photography work...
I do not dress all in black, with black tape stuck over my camera, as I am not some sort of street photo ninja...
And yes I will always not reproduce an image if my subject doesn't want me too (I can't delete as i use film)...
The AOP is the best photo organisation ever...but I would say that as I am a member!
It was nice meeting you Sean! Thanks for this insightful video 🤙🏻📷
Great meeting you too mate:) Till next time.
If I'm walking the streets with my camera taking pictures of people and I feel uncomfortable and I need to be discreet and suppress the urge to hide what I'm doing because people might get angry with me or look at me the wrong way if they noticed they are being photographed...that means there's likely a problem with what I am doing, I'm being a nuisance and I'll have a hard time defending myself on an ethical ground. I'd like nothing better than to feel the other way because that would open up a world of possibilities for me (I live near a big city) but that is my gut feeling at the moment. Please don't take this personally.
What do you think of this way of thinking ? Any way to change my mind about this ?
PS : I've tried street photography (not taking pictures of people, just the streets and city lights) late in the evening in the city nearby and it was very scary. Homeless people, drug addicts, drunks, ...some people get angry even if you look at them in a way they don't like, let alone photograph them. It gets even more risky with you are carrying expensive camera gear. I have respect for photographers who feel comfortable doing this, no matter the ethics. That requires some guts.
Just got yelled at by two people because I was doing a pano with my smartphone and they thought I was filming them. I apologized and I showed the pictures and how they were barely noticeable in them but they would have none of it. Then I started to loose my cool too and told them "it was public space and it was my right to take pictures of whatever I wanted"...and it escalated the conflict (of course it would - what an idiot I am).
So the lesson from this little adventure is...knowing the law is on your side is purely abstract, useless knowledge in practice. The law never prevented a conflict between individuals to escalate to verbal violence. The law never prevented a street fight from happening. Bringing up the law in such consistences is worth than useless, it will make things worse.
Just apologize, delete the pictures and move on. That's the only safe way to go.
You had me about ethics.
I’ve had an argument per say with a New York photographer and hes the type of person who shoots people down on their luck, black out drunk, homeless etc.
I simply wanted to know why he was shooting them in such a manner as it’s something that I would never shoot as I find it disrespectful unless I was intentionally going to make something out of it to prove a point. instead he felt personally attacked that I even questioned his photography and starts throwing a tantrum at me as if I was challenging him?If you don’t have a reason that’s fine it just means we have different ethical views perhaps but to get angry said a lot to me.
It s greatly helpful Sean ! I do street photography too, sometimes I do wonder to myself the issues you discussed. I do start conversation with the subject I want to get more portrait like range before I do, most people are very nice and let me take their photos. But your video is making me thinking about the issues much more clear. Thank you again for posting this video!!
Great video, Sean! My ethical boundaries as far as what I will and won't shoot are very similar to yours. Earlier this year I made a new friend and we would go out shooting street together. His ethical code was more permissive than mine, and it forced me to think about my own boundaries. This friend would not shy away from photos of homeless and vulnerable people, leering images of attractive women, and occasional "unkind" images of the sort you mentioned. Instead of challenging him about it and trying to force my own standards on him, I simply recognized that I wasn't comfortable with being party to these photographs. I somehow felt that by being present alongside him, I was indicating agreement or acceptance with what was happening, which was not the case. We haven't gone out shooting together since, and he probably doesn't know why, but I'm comfortable with my decision. Like you said, stick to your ethics, and stick to your lane. He's not a bad person, or even a bad photographer, but I learned that we weren't a good match to shoot on the street together.
From the US here. One thing that I think is interesting is the part about a picture by itself not necessarily being an invasion of someone’s privacy. They are still an anonymous person.
But, I’ve been asking people that talk to me on the street if I can get a portrait. I try to ask their name to establish a connection. Ethically that seems like the right thing for me. But if I post that picture online with their name in the description, even if it is only their first name, wouldn’t that constitute more of an invasion of privacy in a legal sense?
It’s not an invasion of privacy no, because they have given their verbal consent when you engaged with them. You will need still a contract if you want use those images commercially though. What you’re doing is street portraiture though, and not candid street photography of people going about their day unaware, which is also a valid art form.
Wonderful video, especially your thoughts on photographer ethics.
There's one sentence you said which I disagree with: "if they're not breaking the law, you don't really have a right to criticize." 20:15
I know there's lots of overly judgmental people too impulsively eager to point out petty flaws, and also it may not always be worth our own time nor be a healthy prioritization of our energy in every case, but I don't think it's necessarily a waste of time to share your criticism of someone else's methods, if you believe it is ethically harmful. (ruining people's day/month emotionally is form of harm).
Personally I would hope somebody would share with me their critical view of something I'm doing, so I may be aware of it and decide if I should change that idea or action to be better.
And in a literal sense, I believe it is totally anyone's right to criticize anything they disagree with. Or at least that should be protected as a foundational human right under all governments -- though of course it isn't.
Criticism can be annoying, but also I think it is most useful for prompting each other to reconsider things in different ways, hopefully to form improved opinions and beliefs, and find out what we had been wrong about.
And criticism doesn't even need to be mean!
Really useful video, well done. So many videos on RUclips about street photography but this is the first one I've seen on the ethics of it. A really basic aspect that is totally ignored by all. It's given me great guidance and should be watched by anyone wishing to take a camera out on the streets.
I get my photo taken in public all the time and it gets really annoying. People might think it’s cool being famous but it can really suck when people point at you and take your photo without even asking.
Great video. I agree with your ethics. And although it’s personal as you say I fee lots of people need to think and consider their ethics more. Particularly when shooting vulnerable people and children. Nice vid mate. 👍🏻😊
In the USA while taking pictures of a client's kids at a park, a woman called the police on me, thinking their kids could be in the background of my pictures and I had no permission to do so, then the cops when through my pictures to be sure that lady's kids were not in those photos, Yep Texas is a crap
Did they get a seach warrant? It is not illegal to photograph children.
Did you know its legal to take pics into a home from a public place. Open window covers means no expectations of privacy. In the USA and Canada.
Bruce Gilden and other flashing in your face "street photographer" wannabes like Eric Kim should watch the end of this video.
Just because you don't like them, doesn't mean they are not street-photographer, I would never go around flashing people in the face, but he is one of the most influential contemporary street photographer.
Thanks Sean. I have steered clear of street photography,. mostly because due to my concern that it somehow violates peoples' rights to privacy, legal or not. Your discussion on ethics has opened the door a little for me and perhaps I will give this a go. As always, thanks for sharing, is always exciting to see a notification of a new post from you. Cheers from BC!
To the ignorant people attacking Bruce's aproach to street photography, life is not a fairy tale, we don't live in a cotton candy world. Life is crude, raw, violent, soft, kind, everything. His work is just a repercution of life, and that's why it is so beautiful and amazing. Recording photons someone bounced out is not like killing someone. If someone doesn't want to be recognized in photos they shouldn't show themselves. It's like an exhibicionista that shows himself, the fault is his for showing himself and law punishes that, why not punish the one bouncing the photons and not the one receiving them?
Sadly majority is dumb and uneducated and this gets confusing and ignored. They use emotions instead of logic or science.
Cheers Sean, you have shown us a great piece of video. You can tell you have worked hard on this and kindly had the help of Nick Dunmar from AOP. Great interest and lots to think about. Kind regards and many many thanks. PJ
I think this is a really useful video with powerful statements on morals and ethnics. This again supplement our support and appreciation of your works, to release on your 300k subs. Thank YOU, Sean - I think it is really very heartening to always be assured that despite your great works, you have a even greater heart.
I loved the discussion of ethics. I’ve always been so careful with photographing anyone on the streets, I think I just feel uncomfortable with it. But maybe if I establish my ethical ideals beforehand that will help.
Little tip if you are anxious about people confronting you.....other people are afraid of confrontation just like you. So don't worry!
This is fantastically executed. Thank you for a balanced view and informative without being blasé about the fine line/moral compass of it
I know you couldn't include all countries, but including Canada would have been great.
Ask bruce gilden about ethics
Sean, you are not only a great photographer, but also a fantastic human being!
I speak as a father, and I think it is a great shame that we appear to be in a world without children. To capture the smiles and joys of a child, before they become fully aware of an apparent 'big bad world', should lift the heart of any photographer, with parents being sensible enough to assess the photographers aims.
John I keep saying it's going to be a lost generation of photos. The only way they will have photos will be family ones. Which is a shame 😔
I was just on the Magnum site, and there are many photos of children and teenagers, and I feel corrupted by the conditioned reaction I feel of "oh, it's a child, is that permitted?" and also the over-emphasis that is suddenly drawn to the fact that they're on the beach, or kissing, or they're somehow exposed, or that they're lying around perhaps suggestively: the prudish conditioning takes away the clarity and strength of the image, and replaces it with a list of perversion-checks.
That is a good point. And there have been times I have taken photos of children (like at a local outdoor museum here that puts on a "Christmas in July" with fake snow that the children get especially excited about) and have wondered if a male photographer would have gotten an angry response, while noone cared that I took lots of photos.
I agree as a father as well and would never exploit children in any way shape or form! However, when I see the images of Vivian Mayer that were hidden for so many years as well as many, many others who have documented family and everyday real life, I often times feel it can be such a compelling photograph.
I have to agree with your ethical code, although I would add children to my list.
Children are on my list of not to shoot too. If I'm honest I don't have that many. If something grabs me a will take the shot. But I think it's down to common sense. If you think nah that's to risky etc then don't take it.
As a photographer, I still become weary of using a camera in public, especially with the fear that was instilled into me from my father, growing up. Still to this day he becomes very angry if a camera is pointed at him. I am slightly this way also. So I am sensitive to peoples privacy. But something that has helped ease this within myself is the fact that everyone has a cell phone with cameras. Therefore, the argument will be that anyone can at anytime, take pictures of whatever they want to. Public or not.
BNIBCD Creative Media
Your father must walk around cities a very angry person with all the cameras.
There is a camera in public for every thirteen people in the UK, and more and more surveillance.
"Human condition" has such a morbid undertone. "The human experience" sounds a lot better.
I'm in Montreal, Canada. To shoot hanging Japanese hanging mobiles inside The Eaton Centre (15? years ago,) I had to get permission. But it was given, thankfully. I tried to take photos (architecture) inside Univ. de Sherbrooke (thought that was odd, it being a university) off of Metro Longueuil and I was challenged, so I didn't shoot. There was a very cool Oriental woman dressed in quite amazing cowgirl garb on the metro platform, I asked politely, but she declined. Too bad. Thank you for covering.
Sean: three specific instances that you do not cover (OK you can't cover everything ... ). I have encountered all of these at one time or another in my editorial role (working on books).
1. Photograph INSIDE a commercially published book. One often comes across the term 'editorial use'. I take it that such use would not be regarded as an infringement. This comes up all the time with travel books, for example.
2. Photograph of an individual on the COVER of a commercially published book. Is this still 'editorial', or is it promotion of a commercial product? If the latter, a lot of great photography and travel books published in the past are in trouble - including several I have been involved in during my long publishing career.
3. Photograph inside a book which is published to promote a commercial enterprise - for example, a COMMISSIONED book on the history of a bank, say (I have been involved in several of these).
A more general question that you do not cover is whether the image of an individual forms the central theme of an image, or whether he or she is part of a group, or a crowd. This must surely make a difference.
As to ethics, I have been struck by the double standards shown by some photographers who see themselves as ethically pure - for them it is ethical to thrust a camera in the face of anyone in an 'exotic' travel destination, often a wrinkled old person, harshly lit, or someone living in picturesquely poor conditions, whereas they wouldn't dream of doing the same thing in a suburb of London or Glasgow or New York.
Thanks in advance for your feedback.
Very informative video thank you
6:25 "Buildings have... I mean they are... they do have feelings you know."
Long time follower Sean! You really stand out in my mind as the most thoughtful and genuine photo tuber. I've just started my journey sharing my stuff on here and, in my own light hearted childish way, just shared my thoughts on ethics in photography. Thanks for being uniquely you man!
Solid advice , thank you Sean and to your guest speaker.
Very interesting and informative video
That was incredibly useful - thank you ! Someone confronted me recently, in a very agressive way and I wasn’t prepared to defend myself. After watching this, I feel more confident.
I wanna do street photography but I'm always uncomfortable about taking shots of people and I end only taking shots of monuments :/ Even if the person is pretty far and/or you cant see his face, I'm always wondering if i shoud ask wether or not I can take the shot. What do you do?
Same here. I live in a small town and I just get the feeling I'll get a bunch more people confronting me than if I were in a bigger city.
@@DoggyHateFire I can't put a link, but there is a post on reddit about it, go in analog community and search (street photography ethical rules). It doesn't answer directly to your question but it helped me! I think if you're assuming what you're doing, it'll be fine. Be friendly with the people you meet/ that recognise you, assume your "photographer role" and it should be good!
USA, not the UK ........ Eye's cannot trespass ... You can photograph anything you can see in public/ from a pubic space. That means you can legally photograph subjects such as people, buildings, bridges, trains, police officers etc. without asking or getting prior permission. If someone doesn't want their picture taken, they can leave.
Many thanks for this video!
If someone from Czech Republic reads this, i have found a site from the lawyer and also photographer, who explains what rules applies to photography in our country.
www.fotopravo.cz
TL/DR in general it is the same as in the UK, but there is also some additional info, like copyright issues, etc. So you may want to take a look.
A very very welcome stuff. Well done!
By the way the recent laws in Greater Germany have taken a bad turn. They also reflect an aggravated mood of the people. All things to consider when photographing. Luckily not all persons succumb to it. The root of the matter is the social and cultural climate - people are flooded by immoral media content even by the state run channels, many also privately seek and “enjoy” such things. So they are inclined to project the grinding of their own consciousness to what you are doing with your camera. Government legislation encourages and stimulates the growing mistrust between people as that puts it in an easier position to limit the freedom. And the human nature is that people like to point their finger to someone else’s wrongdoing even if they have absolutely no evidence of it, rather than ever think of themselves and their own wrongdoing in the first place.
Out of my own needs I’ve developed the same approach like you have, but it doesn’t help me fend off the belligerent frustrated people. I got threatened only for having a camera on me, for carrying it, not even holding it in my arms. Some people like to ventilate their frustrations over strangers with the camera because governments encourages them to and they feel more important that way.
It’s a cultural thing too, there are cultures where people still like being photographed or even consider it a favor and nice attention by the photographer.
All this said, I’d like to make clear I’m extremely prudent with the ethical side of the matter. I’ve been with my camera when people drowned or were being rescued or had conflicts or bad accidents and never had guts or even a need to record it. My credo is to record things which will later recreate the joy of life or at least something positive on my screen, for me and others, and not vice versa. And yet, I get downplayed, threatened and sometimes even verbally abused. Even as a journalist I never felt more helpless. EU is not in a good shape, you were right to leave.
Solid topic
My channel looks at these issues, but in the specific context of the photographic auditing trend - hence, I have a still stricter attitude to the interpretation of data protection laws than the speaker, but still a very useful video. Genuine street photographers benefit from the special purposes exemption under Part 5 of Schedule 2 of the 2018 Act. Photographic auditors do not typically benefit from this exemption.
Laws are very different nation to nation, laws in Asia are significantly different form the West but IG, RUclips seem to not care about laws in specific countries. I wonder how IG, youtube rationalize or determine privacy laws. I see tons of RUclips clips of people who walk thru cities w/ gimbal cams, filming whatever gets in the frame including children. And if someone is monetized on RUclips is that not commercial use?
Stumbled upon your video and I am impressed by how honest this message was to me. I am a beginner in the art form of photography and I always feel shy to take pictures in public even if I'm not even trying to capture people. Thanks taking the time to explain all this and being to authentic and just in your ethics.
Excellent video!!! Very good information coming from a very good & well balanced place. It is so important to know the law & to understand the kinds of situations that you may find yourself in. It can be especially difficult in the US when dealing with over zealous private security & angry everyday folks who are ignorant of the law. Avoiding confrontation is always going to be the best way to prevent an unwanted situation.
Well done, 100% agree on ethical, specially new comers to street photography, please if you have to take pictures of "down on their luck" people, do not show their faces! On the kids, I'll say take advantage of the moment, take the shot but share it with the parents and ask for permission then! Other adults if they ask nicely delete the picture otherwise ignore them!
This was excellent. I was looking about a year ago for something like this and couldn’t find anything so thank you for starting this conversation on RUclips!
I'm in the USA and can say that: While people think we can be overly aggressive (and to an extent we can), Americans are also overly concerned with placating. With acting as if, whatever you're doing is your own business and many of us don't want to be "that person". I know that if you take 12,000 snaps, you'll eventually get the "one person" who asks you about what you're doing, but especially if you're just in a park or out in a busy city and you're just snapping away, most people are two self-absorbed to even SEE you, let alone care that you're taking pictures.
i had a woman get so angry at me today for taking a photo of part of someone's fence.....
Street Photography is no joke. Its really hard. Shooting the Public I think is best when you have 'Media Credentials', so make it/one for your business. People are much more comfortable knowing there is some kind of credibility on the other side of that use, rather then it just being some random dude with a camera. Get a T-Shirt with a way other people can find your work. Name and FB/IG/YT or whatever so people can immediately look at your work. If your good, and they like it, they might even want to be in one of your pictures!
In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA two photographers were assaulted by an off duty police officer for doing their job documenting an incident at a “Black Lives Matter” rally. Camera equipment was also damaged. They person who assaulted the photographers was not charged. It’s not unheard of when some American ideas on what their liberties are will end up in violence.
I live in Belgium, i only post pictures online on public pages like instagram and facebook that i have a signed contract for that allows me to post them, which right now is zero pictures of people and only pictures of plants and trees.
This video still leaves me VERY unclear what is considered "commercial use", really incredible how vague this stuff is., It seems pretty much anything can be considered commercial use. Facebook, instagram, your own photography website, anything.
What about TFP? Besides making a contract do you still need to pay the model to make it legally binding?
"DELETE MY PHOTO"...well sir, It's on film, so...I really can't...But I wont get the shot developed.
In Brazil a person can ask you to take down their picture and you have to comply, because everyone owns their own image, but you won't be punished, unless the picture has a bad repercussion. Like, you can't take a picture that will make the person ashamed. But people here are humble, they might thank you for taking their picture.
Your 'ethical choices' mirror my own and it is great to view this content. I've always been disturbed by the sexual objectification of women by male photographers. I've always employed what I call the 'red-faced test' ( meaning embarrassed / flustered or uncomfortable ) If showing the image to the subject makes you feel this way - it doesn't pass the 'red-faced' test. It means as a photographer, that I've deliberately, or inadvertantly, crossed a boundary; and I'm happy to delete. I always ask, with a smile, and a gesture to my camera, if its okay to photograph people. My life has been deeply enriched by being welcomed into cultures; and the BEST part of digital photography is being able to share an image with a total stranger. It anchors my humanity and restores my hope in people. Images where the subject is connected to the camera evokes emotion. Some street photos rely on a cold clinical voyeurism; and then some cross deeper and evoke negativity...and approach exploitation. This is where I feel our profession suffers most. I will openly confront photographers that are ignorant.
Fantastic. I love these videos. Your ethical boundaries, described at the end of this one, were very insightful. Thank you.
Very well informed video, you conduct yourself professionally and have compiled a great video which has helped me out. I am starting out in photography and I'm learning more about street photography. I like taking pictures that make me happy. Thank you.