# Ethics of shooting random people



## Riggaberto (Mar 1, 2007)

I saw another thread about finding subjects, but I want to provide my own dilemma. 

I dont work for any newspaper, school or otherwise. My only current goal is to take pictures of people and things in public and share them with people I know. Not just random meaningless crap obviously, but compelling photography. Is there anything wrong with that? I always feel so uncomfortable taking pictures of unsuspecting people, who then look at me like I'm a creeper. Should I care? Should I start a photo blog or something so I have a "higher purpose?" I want more subjects also, and I realize that they're all around me, but everyone is afraid to have their picture taken. 

Someone also mentioned talking to people if I want to look professional. 

(snaps photo, and gets noticed)
Person: So what's the photo for?
Me: Just a hobby
Person: ...ok (gives a weird look)

That's what I'm experiencing so far. Thanks for helping out someone who doesn't know what they're doing.  I really really appreciate it!


----------



## avcabob (Mar 1, 2007)

Firstly, I'm sure the law is slightly different wherever you happen to be, especially in different countries. But a VERY quick search for laws in the United States, I found this website: http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm. Basically, for the most part, if you are on public property, you are allowed to take pictures of whatever you can see. But if you really want to be sure on what you can and can't do, I would suggest talking to a legal professional in your area.


----------



## bnz506 (Mar 1, 2007)

I currently live by that motto of "In public if I can see it I can shoot it" the only thing thats holding me back is my shyness (I think thats the issue). I dont mind shooting unsuspecting people its the possibility of confrontation if the person sees me taking their picture that bothers me and I live in NYC people here are VERY *VERY* confrontational.

Im working on getting over that though. If they have a problem ill put them down hard (jk... maybe).


----------



## neea (Mar 1, 2007)

This discussion comes up quite often, as do the debates about what is right and what is wrong.
It doesnt say where you're from but I do know that the above link says it's ok to take pictures of law enforcement officers. However, in canada you can absolutley not do this!!! Why.. we're not sure.. nor is the secretary at my local police detachment, nor could you find any information regarding Canadian laws.

I've tried to research the heck out of this so I hope you have better luck.

That's my 'technical' answer. I won't get into my opinionated answer.

Good Luck


----------



## EOS_JD (Mar 1, 2007)

If you are using the images to market  something and the image gives the impression that the people in the image are endorsing the product you would probably requuire a model releae other than that you are probably ok.


----------



## DeepSpring (Mar 1, 2007)

It's just a shyness that can take some time to get over. 

One thing that helped me a lot was I would find a busy intersection by my house and just sit on a small wall or fence or something. I would hold the camera to my face pretending like I am taking a picture of something else and then when someone walks into frame snap snap. Sometimes the people even jump back and try to apalogize for getting in your shot, those make great shots.


----------



## eddiesimages (Mar 1, 2007)

I was thinking the same thing - if you ever want to use these photos of people you will have to have a model release from each of them.


----------



## bnz506 (Mar 1, 2007)

DeepSpring said:


> It's just a shyness that can take some time to get over.
> 
> One thing that helped me a lot was I would find a busy intersection by my house and just sit on a small wall or fence or something. I would hold the camera to my face pretending like I am taking a picture of something else and then when someone walks into frame snap snap. Sometimes the people even jump back and try to apalogize for getting in your shot, those make great shots.


 
HAHA thats clever, I might have to give that a try.


----------



## craig (Mar 1, 2007)

I have a very opinionated view on the subject. As photographers we should respect our subjects. Taking someone's photo and then walking away is disrespectful. If you are shooting some one jumping over a puddle "Decisive Moment" style. Shoot it. If they see that you took the shot introduce yourself and explain the shot is for personal use. May or may not be in a gallery or editorial article. Specify not for commercial use. If it is they have to sign on the line that is dotted. If you see a hot chick sitting by a water fountain "Photography Moment" style. Ask first. Again be personable and explain your self. If you are photographing a potentially sensitive subject i.e police station, airport, government building. Plan on being harassed. It will be harder to explain yourself. I just do what the pigs tell me and walk away. Their job is hard enough. They do not need some photographer wasting their time.  


These methods are tried and true on this end. Just the way I operate. You may find that gorilla photography works for you. Be comfortable with your style. If not it will clearly show in the photo.


----------



## Johnboy2978 (Mar 1, 2007)

Interestingly, I had 2 situations this week that I am very disappointed that I missed.  In the first, I was going home from work and saw 4 elderly women on the corner of a busy intersection with protest signs regarding the war.  I have been carrying my camera w/ me for the past couple of weeks thinking that I will take pics on my lunch break but something always comes up.  Anyway, I was running late or I would've come back and captured them.  I wouldn't have asked their permission as they were clearly there to attract as much attention to themselves and would probably welcome the opportunity. Also that is an example where I figure you are in public view and I have every right to photograph you.   I keep looking for them again and I'm sure they'll re-appear at some point. 

The second case was a guy I saw yesterday painting a scene and was set up on the sidewalk.  I saw him on my way to work and when I went back at lunch he was gone.  Even though I am normally a bit shy about going up to strangers and asking for permission to photograph them, I am determined to overcome that and will do so if I see him there again.  

Two perfectly good photo ops that I missed


----------



## craig (Mar 1, 2007)

Generally you will find that people are just as personable as you are. One of the few rules of photography is; do not be shy.


----------



## neea (Mar 1, 2007)

I agree that we need to respect our subjects. I for one would not want someone to take my picture and then walk away... I'd track them down for two reasons 1. Why are you taking my picture (i'd be a little upset) 2. I like talking about photography.

This is a subject that will go round and round till the end of time.

Everyone has their own thing. I'd feel like a paparazzi if I just randomly took pictures of people I didn't know.
If I ever came across a webpage and seen a picture of me relaxing under a tree or something I'd be furious and demand it be taken down.

And because there's people like me out there  , I'd always ask permission and give them a business card. 
Of course the best pictures are taken when they dont know they're being photographed so I would introduce myself after.


----------



## Riggaberto (Mar 1, 2007)

Well what I'm doing is very unofficial.  I'm just an 18 year old college kid, I sort of know what I'm doing.  I produce some stuff that looks pretty cool (imo of course) but I'm sure I'm breaking all sorts of technical rules.  

So if your photograhps are for sale in a gallery but just a single print, does that count as commercial?  Would I have to get a release for that?


So basically the consensus is that I should shoot people if I want to and dont worry about it, but if they ask or notice me I should talk to them?

Really interesting to hear people's philosophy on this, thanks.  Look for some pics in the critique thread soon, this seems like a great place and the imput is awesome.


----------



## nealjpage (Mar 1, 2007)

I guess another way to look at it:  If you can see someone, you're photographing it with your eyes.  The camera just gives you a better medium for remembering it


----------



## darich (Mar 2, 2007)

Possibly try going to an event where there are large crowds and lots of cameras eg an air show.
When you have the camera up at your face you'll just  be one of several and the subjects will more than likely be watching the airshow and not be interested in one particular photographer.


----------



## LaFoto (Mar 2, 2007)

Well, I have taken photos of people in the city and never asked them if they were ok with it and even showed them here, though the photo makes very obvious they saw me take their picture. But their reaction looked positive enough, so I thought I could walk away with it.*

I saw someone else sitting having a break from work in a doorway, we established eye-contact, I pointed at my camera with a question mark on my face (you all know how to produce that, don't you?), he shook his head in "No"-style ... and I left the photo untaken. 

I have taken photos of people on many, many occasions, but unless they are total, total, total strangers to me and the place where I came upon them is far-far away, I only have those photos for myself and do not display them neither in an internet forum nor otherwise ... or I get myself release first. 

But - like I have said in other threads on this self-same issue - our German regulatations are quite a bit strict on that matter.

(*It is these_photos_here that I am referring to- and I was specifically thinking of the first -, and I was a bit uncertain whether to post them or not, but what use is there in going into "street photography" if you must never let anyone see your photos!?!?)


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 2, 2007)

*Ethics of shooting random people* 

.. it is really good that on this forum we all know it is all about photography 

if this was taken out of context, we would be in serious trouble :lmao:


----------



## Goran Katic (Mar 2, 2007)

"If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough." Robert Capa.

In Croatia is no problem to photograph people, but if you sell picture to third party, the people on photo can ask for their fee. I think the same law is in America.


----------



## Aquarium Dreams (Mar 2, 2007)

Smiling is very important.  If you look grumpy when you take someone's photo, they might take it the wrong way!

It seems like when I shoot people and they look at me, they know I'm taking their photo, but sometimes it seems like they have this internal dialogue going on: "Is she taking my photo?  I don't want to say anything, because what if she's not taking my photo?  She must be taking my photo.  Why would anyone take my photo?  I can't say anything because I'll look like a jerk," etc.


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 2, 2007)

If you shoot ultrawide angle and got them slightly off centre, they will believe they are not in the picture 

or one could just hide with a telephoto


----------



## dewey (Mar 2, 2007)

http://www.naturescapes.net/store/product.php?productid=150


----------



## Riggaberto (Mar 2, 2007)

dewey said:


> http://www.naturescapes.net/store/product.php?productid=150


Hahahahaha that's awesome.  Just be a camo lump on the streets.  You would get some interesting facial expressions for sure!

I thought about just getting a big ass telephoto lens in ignorance of the cost....def not going to happen.


----------



## LaFoto (Mar 2, 2007)

I tell you a story ... I was on the Isle of Wight in summer and there was this French Market. And this lady with REALLY BIG hair. I mean: REALLY. And dyed red since actually it would have been grey. And she walked along the stalls there and back and I thought: I so want a photo of that lady! That hair is ever sooooo big! 

So since I was with a friend and her s-i-l and daughter, we arranged that they pose tourist-like for me when we saw that lady approach, I'd aim my camera at THEM and quickly turn towards that lady when she was there.

It worked.
What do you say, after all those months? You think I can show her on here? (I haven't as yet, too reluctant to do so).


----------



## Riggaberto (Mar 2, 2007)

LaFoto said:


> I tell you a story ... I was on the Isle of Wight in summer and there was this French Market. And this lady with REALLY BIG hair. I mean: REALLY. And dyed red since actually it would have been grey. And she walked along the stalls there and back and I thought: I so want a photo of that lady! That hair is ever sooooo big!
> 
> So since I was with a friend and her s-i-l and daughter, we arranged that they pose tourist-like for me when we saw that lady approach, I'd aim my camera at THEM and quickly turn towards that lady when she was there.
> 
> ...


I certainly want to see it!  As far as the legality of it in Germany I have no idea   It _should _be ok as you're not making any money off it and it was in public but who knows.


----------



## Jim Gratiot (Mar 2, 2007)

Interesting... the title of this thread is "ethics of shooting random people," but people seem to be focusing in on "legality."

Entirely different situations, in my view.

I think the most obvious example is the paparazzi... while they might have a _legal_ right to stalk Britney Spears driving into a rehab clinic... I don't know how any of them can sleep at night from an _ethical _standpoint.

Several years ago in San Diego there was a huge storm... and the front page of the Union-Tribune printed a photograph of several elderly people on the front lawn of an apartment comlex, many of them in just their underwear.

Perfect example... legally these poor people were on public property, so the photographer "was just doing his/her job."  But running the picture was still a HUGE exercise in poor taste... as the 8,240,923 letters to the editor proved.

Which brings us back to a good rule of thumb.  If you want to photograph somebody... imagine that your subject was your mother/sister/child/grandparent, etc.  And if you wouldn't want somebody else to take that picture, think twice about taking the picture.


----------



## dewey (Mar 2, 2007)

Jim Gratiot said:


> Several years ago in San Diego there was a huge storm... and the front page of the Union-Tribune printed a photograph of several elderly people on the front lawn of an apartment comlex, many of them in just their underwear.
> 
> Perfect example... legally these poor people were on public property, so the photographer "was just doing his/her job."  But running the picture was still a HUGE exercise in poor taste... as the 8,240,923 letters to the editor proved.



I have to disagree 100%... let's not mix news photos in here.  Whether you think it's poor taste or not what a powerful image that must have been.  When that photographer captured that scene he or she captured news.  Some amazing photos come out of disasters and it's certainly news worthy and perfectly ethical.  To call a news photographer unethical for that or to accuse him or her of bad taste is unfair.


----------



## dewey (Mar 2, 2007)

Jim Gratiot said:


> Which brings us back to a good rule of thumb.  If you want to photograph somebody... imagine that your subject was your mother/sister/child/grandparent, etc.  And if you wouldn't want somebody else to take that picture, think twice about taking the picture.



And this rule of thumb would work for some photographers, but not news photographers.  When I stop at an accident scene and I grab a shot of someone who is being extricated from a wrecked vehicle, emotion is not part of the mix.


----------



## Jim Gratiot (Mar 2, 2007)

> Some amazing photos come out of disasters and it's certainly news worthy and perfectly ethical. To call a news photographer unethical for that or to accuse him or her of bad taste is unfair.


Definitely agree... I've seen some amazing disaster photos... but I won't entirely agree that just because you _can_ print a photograph you _should_ print a photograph.

Perhaps this has been discussed... but there was a lot of "ethical" talk after 9/11 about whether or not to show pictures of the bodies jumping out of the Towers.  Although I saw a few, the general consensus seemed to be not to print them... even though I'm sure several exist.

Bottom line, it comes down to personal taste... for instance, when the local news shows a brutal car accident, I think that's a newsworthy image to show.  When they show (and they do every time) the bloody shoe of the driver on the street... I personally don't think that's necessary.  

Going back to the San Diego storm... I still think that if the elderly person had been the grandmother of the newspaper publisher... that picture never would have run.


----------



## Jeremy Z (Mar 2, 2007)

Well, I think if you see something that might make a good picture, take it. (if in public)

If you're questioned, be polite, maybe even flattering.  "The way you were positioned, it just kind of made a nice scene."  or something similar.

Or you could say: "It is a wide angle lens, I was shooting the building behind you.  You will be a very small object in a large picture."

Know what works for me?  When I get spotted, I just smile, wink, and walk away while the person is deciding whether they approve or not.

For more research on this subject, you might do some reading over at www.rangefinderforum.com.  Those guys are *masters* at street photography, and they run into this a lot more often than we do.


----------



## Goran Katic (Mar 5, 2007)

always smile, explain and leave bussiness card - you will look professional and wirh good manners.


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 5, 2007)

Jeremy Z said:


> Or you could say: "It is a wide angle lens, I was shooting the building behind you. You will be a very small object in a large picture."


 
Errm, if you leave photography circles, many people will not know what a wide angle lens is! 
And they do not know what it means and does ... when I shoot buildings at 17mm, people often step out of my line of sight, trying to be polite as in not to be in the image ... but they never understand that they are maybe not dead centre, but still well in the frame


----------



## castrol (Mar 5, 2007)

I also disagree with telling them before you shoot. The facial expressions of
a person not paying attention to you and doing what they do are always 
better than the person who knows you are taking their picture and they are
trying to do that fake smile they do.


----------



## RMThompson (Mar 5, 2007)

Several issues have been discussed, so I will respond in my opinion.

1. Ethically, taking pictures of anyone in the public view that isn't harassment in OK to me. If a little old lady is sitting in her underwear outside, and I think it's a particularly interesting shot, I'd take the picture. 

2. LEGALLY taking a picture and PUBLISHING the picture, in the USA, are two different animals. I can take ANY picture, even on PRIVATE property, since the act of trespassing and the act of taking a picture are two different events. No one ever ever ever ever EVER has the right to take your camera/film etc... Publishing that picture is a different story, and matters for different reasons, but the rule of thumb is you cannot use the picture you took for COMMERCIAL reasons. That doesn't mean you can't sell the picture, or even prints of it, as ART, but you cannot use the picture of a girl in front of a fountain as part of a perfume ad! 

3. How to handle this situation? Well personally I only have two experiences where I had some trouble. 

The first, I was in the mall, taking some pictures of random people like this one:







I took these pictures in the mall... without many people noticing. Is it wrong for me to take these pictures, especially of a little girl? I personally don't think so, although I got some funny looks from some of the participants. At one point, one of the guys I just took a picture of walked up to me, and I was preparing to explain to him my rights as a photographer... and he asked for the time. I could tell he wanted to ask to see the picture, and he was smiling, but he didn't. I should've offered... 

Second time when I was taking pictures of the Tampa Skyline:






For this series of shots a friend of mine and I went behind Tampa General Hospital, technically private property. I even was behind a construction fence on the edge of the seawall. Eventually a police boat drove near us, put a light on us for a second but never said a word. Soon though, they were docking right behind us, at which point I packed up and left.... I am positive they were going to ask us what we were doing, but they seemed content with letting me leave.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Mar 5, 2007)

You really would be well-advised to learn how guys like Garry Winogrand or Lee Friedlander worked. Both just fired away at strangers without asking. It may be uncomfortable, but it is hardly immoral. 

Winogrand especially had a technique where he would keep the camera up by his eye for hours on end. He was a big, crazy-red-haired, hard-to-miss guy wiht a huge and friendly personality. Winogrand shot film like some of us shoot digital. After attending a celebrity party in NY he was asked if he had a good time, and he answered "35 rolls!"

One technique that Friedlander apparently used was to find a location he liked (lighting, background, mood) and then waited for interesting people to walk into the shot - just as you described doing. 

To get back to the first point I made: ask yourself if your question regarding the morality of photographing strangers isn't a sort of excuse about pushing yourself creatively. If you are pursuing "street photography" creatively (rather than journalistically) you will need to push yourself to get the shots you really want. So what, big deal, someone may yell at you, or possibly even threaten you. Smile, apologize, and move on - but don't give up the shot. Being liked by everyone was important in pre-school, it does NOT matter when being creative.


----------



## megapaws (Mar 5, 2007)

Something that I learned during a TPF meetup (thanks Raymond) was to "shoot from the hip". I too am also shy about shooting strangers especially after my first experience at street photograhy (lots of people were not very happy with me - people reaching for the lens or covering their faces), so when the idea of shooting from the hip was presented to me, I felt that would be a good way to try my luck and see what I came up with. I have only done this once with a few shots when I was wondering around downtown, but I did end up with a shot that I was pretty happy with. This could make for some interesting photography IMO.


----------



## Mr. Bananagrabber (Mar 9, 2007)

if they are in public they are fair-game, i find most people dont mind. every where ive gone ive taken random pics of people, no one minds except those that stand on street corners yelling about the government, that the only time ive ever had a problem, it was at pioneer square (seattle) i was shooting film so there was nothing i could do. lucky for him i over fixed that roll and had to throw it out. so anyway thats my 2 cents. happy shootings everyone. :camera:


----------



## Riggaberto (Mar 9, 2007)

Thanks everyone, the only advice on here that doesnt apply to me is the business card part, as I am completely unemployed, and new to photography.  So you can sell prints of people without getting a release, but you cant publish it?  Can I put them in a gallery online?


----------



## ArmyOfNone (Mar 9, 2007)

Riggaberto said:


> Thanks everyone, the only advice on here that doesnt apply to me is the business card part, as I am completely unemployed, and new to photography.  So you can sell prints of people without getting a release, but you cant publish it?  Can I put them in a gallery online?



Legally, in the US, you can even go so far as to sell the art. Go to the wikipedia article on street photography, they have a decent section on this.


----------



## billybob (Mar 25, 2007)

I was ready to post this as a new post in the beginner's section, but I decided I'd have more luck getting opinions from more experienced people if I moved it to this section. Then, I ran into this thread and, although I don't like the title as much as the one I had intended, it does address many of the questions I had. It's late and I was  hoping to read the responses in the morning, so rather than re-writing everything, I will paste my original post here. Some of the questions have already been answered throughout this thread, but I'd still like to get input into my specific situation, and I'd love for this thread to keep going and for more people to add their experience and advice.


I would like to open this discussion up to the subject of sociology as it applies to shooting pictures. This is the result of something that happened to me today, which has raised many questions about the future. I am still a beginner, but I hope that more experienced photographers who have faced these kinds of issues before and have devised their own strategies will provide their input.

I am working through some books on composition and assigned myself certain projects that would help me learn the various things the book is teaching. One of my assignments was to take pictures of actions at their decisive moments. I had gone to the park to take pictures of a waterfall when I saw a good opportunity to fill that project by shooting these kids who were playing football. This turned out to be a bad idea when I was approached by a loud and angry mother demanding to know why I am taking pictures of her kids.

This brings up a variety of questions. Was it a bad idea to shoot that at all? How should I have approached shooting at that location (if at all)? Hopefully some day in the future I'll be able to respond to people who ask questions by explaining that I'm a professional and sell pictures to _____, but until then, how should I respond if anything like this were to come up again?

Moving beyond the actual situation and looking towards the future, this brings up even more questions. My favorite kinds of shots involving people are unscripted shots rather than shots of people acting for the camera. How can I get these shots while being sensitive to the possibility that the person may not like having his picture taken? Is it simply a bad idea to take pictures of people you do not know at all? I would hate to think that is the case since these are often the most interesting subjects, specially when traveling.

Basically, I would like to open this subject up to discussion on the sociological aspects of photography and how best to handle them. If you have examples you'd like to share, please do so.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Mar 25, 2007)

Well, kids are always a bad example, and an abnormal situation. People are very uptinght about shooting kids, and many parents think that having kids gives them the right to unleash all their fears and anger on and about society. I have a 3-year old and a 4-year old, so I know a lot of parents right now - I think half of them are actually nuts.

Continue your thoughts and questions about shooting in public, but please be aware that kids are a whole different thing, whether you like it or not. It's too loaded to be part of that particular discourse.


----------



## Cheesewheel (Mar 25, 2007)

I don't think you need to actually be a professional photographer to have a business card.  Just put your info on them and carry them around so if people want a copy they can contact you.  Heck, you might even get a gig that way and earn some cash 

At any rate, I've always been taught to let people know when they've been photographed just out of common courtesy.  That's assuming they (or their property) are the subject of the photo, of course.  Whether or not you _have to_ is another thing.


----------



## LaFoto (Mar 25, 2007)

Oh... you would even let people know when you photograph their _property_ or part of it? I have photographed so many farmsteads by now or details of farm houses ... and not one of the farmers who live there know anything about it - unless they have seen me take that photo. 

Sometimes then they would come and ask about what I am doing there and I will tell them that hadn't they seen how wonderful that window looked in the surroundings of the half-timbered house? (For example) And I just liked that sight and wanted to capture it, for myself, because it is beautiful. Mostly then they would say: go about it to your heart's content then. As long as it is private...

People are a different matter and even though I have a good many people photos in my archives from events of the half-private to totally public nature, I only ever post or make public those photos when I get release. Or when I know that on the same occasion the press photographer has been there and some of his photos appeared in the local paper. Then I know that similar photos have been published before and understand that a silent agreement must have been reached that photos from said event can be made public. 

I am less squeamish about *total* strangers photographed in a far-away city where there are many tourists around who all take photos and where other people will always and quite necessarily so get into ever so many other tourists' frames. 

There must be room for _street photography_ somewhere, after all.


----------



## f8lranger4x4 (Mar 30, 2007)

Basicly in the way i was explained the law was if you take a picture of someone in public their is nothing they can do as long as you are not useing it for personal gain (ae. selling it.) I take pictures in public places just keep in mind as a friend of mine learned no police, police stations, or fed. Buildings this could end with you being hassled.


----------



## RMThompson (Mar 30, 2007)

Iron Flatline said:


> Well, kids are always a bad example, and an abnormal situation. People are very uptinght about shooting kids, and many parents think that having kids gives them the right to unleash all their fears and anger on and about society. I have a 3-year old and a 4-year old, so I know a lot of parents right now - I think half of them are actually nuts.
> 
> Continue your thoughts and questions about shooting in public, but please be aware that kids are a whole different thing, whether you like it or not. It's too loaded to be part of that particular discourse.


 

1/2? More than that! Us parents are crazy! 

One time on Halloween a guy was photographing every kid that walked up to his door... which was a cool idea, but he wasn't really asking, which I didn't like.

This year I took pictures of everyones pumpkins! LOL


----------



## Jim Gratiot (Mar 30, 2007)

> 1/2? More than that! Us parents are crazy!


You beat me to it... it's in the 85-90% range where I live.

And for what it's worth, if my kids were playing at a public park and some person I'd never met came up and started taking pictures of them _just because it was their legal right to do so_, I would have a pretty big problem with that.

Speaking strictly as a parent, anyway.  (I can't help thinking about that scene in _Desperate Housewives_ when Lynette walks into the room that has an entire wall filled with pictures of half-naked children.)


----------



## BAB (Mar 30, 2007)

In public it is generally ethical and legal so therefore fair game.  Having said that, I feel we as photographers have an obligation to be respectful and considerate.  My modus operandi is, if it is a decisive moment kind of shot, shoot it and then approach the person with your purpose and ask permission, if they balk offer to destroy the image (film) delete in the case of digital.  This also gives you the opportunity to have them sign a model release, in the event you later have an opportunity to enter a contest, public display or sale of said photograph.  If the potential subjects are other than a decisive moment situation, I would ask first and if agreed ask to have them sign a model release.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Mar 30, 2007)

NO WAY am I asking anyone for permission. I do this purely as a creative outlet. I'd rather get the shot as part of my creative street photography and lose a possible-but-highly-unlikely opportunity to exploit my shot commercially some day. I really don't want to open the door to some person getting weird and saying "no" because I want some complete stranger's permission for something I'll simply post on my blog, or possibly within a gallery some day. 

Ask for permission and get the release if you're out there shooting for commercial purposes. No question about that. But half the time I think people want to "do the right thing" and ask for permission because they feel it is the "nice" thing to do. I believe "nice" is higly overrated, esp. if you're being creative.


----------



## Riggaberto (Mar 31, 2007)

Iron Flatline said:


> NO WAY am I asking anyone for permission. I do this purely as a creative outlet. I'd rather get the shot as part of my creative street photography and lose a possible-but-highly-unlikely opportunity to exploit my shot commercially some day. I really don't want to open the door to some person getting weird and saying "no" because I want some complete stranger's permission for something I'll simply post on my blog, or possibly within a gallery some day.
> 
> Ask for permission and get the release if you're out there shooting for commercial purposes. No question about that. But half the time I think people want to "do the right thing" and ask for permission because they feel it is the "nice" thing to do. I believe "nice" is higly overrated, esp. if you're being creative.



So wait, I cant post pictures of people on a blog or just on flickr or something otherwise public without consent, even if it's _not _for financial gain?  

I get so many conflicting views.  I've been told you only need a release if you are using it for commercial purposes, like using it for advertisments or for corporate display, ect.  

I've been told that you both do, and dont need a release to sell prints of people to other individuals.  

Now I've heard that you both do, and dont need a release to make images of other people simply public (myspace, flickr, blogs, ect)

I'm going nuts!!!!  What's the truth for the US (specifically washington state)


----------



## brighteyesphotos (Mar 31, 2007)

For WA, it would be best to do some research into your state's laws. A visit to WA's site may or may not give you the answers you're looking for. 

Ethically, you can take anyone's picture you want. If the person is unidentifiable, you have free range of what to do with it. A person with an umbrella blocking his or her face could be anyone. 

Ideally, people who do street photography will follow certain rules. Many will avoid minors for the consent and pedophile reason. Some will only take pictures where you cannot indentify the person easily. One rule of thumb is that if you're in a public place, you have no right to privacy, therefore your picture can be taken and used. Newspapers do it all the time, right? You cannot be forced to delete pictures or to pull out film. If someone tries to physically force you to do one or the other, YOU can have THEM arrested for assault, especially if you're in a public place. 

I believe many pictures of people that have been reprinted several hundred times over don't have releases. If you are trying to make money off a person's picture, the polite thing to do would be to ask for permission. However, if the picture was taken in a public place like the beach or fair, you do not need their permission. They had no right to privacy. 

Why don't you do a little research on street photography? You may find some answers there. But the biggest thing I would do is check into your local laws and find out just what is considered "public property" in your area for sure.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Apr 1, 2007)

You can post images on your blog. If you're an artist, you can even use someone's likeness in a book or piece of art. 

You cannot sell a picture of a person to Nike for an ad. And if you took the picture of the person on private property (at a mall, for instance) then you would need permission from (read: pay) the person and the location. 

Simpler: if you hope or plan to earn money through photography, then everyone's entitled to a cut. If it is just a creative pursuit, you don't owe anyone anything. Except good manners, and that's a border you'll have to draw yourself.


----------



## f8lranger4x4 (Apr 1, 2007)

+1 to Iron Flatline


----------



## Riggaberto (Apr 1, 2007)

Iron Flatline said:


> You can post images on your blog. If you're an artist, you can even use someone's likeness in a book or piece of art.
> 
> You cannot sell a picture of a person to Nike for an ad. And if you took the picture of the person on private property (at a mall, for instance) then you would need permission from (read: pay) the person and the location.
> 
> Simpler: if you hope or plan to earn money through photography, then everyone's entitled to a cut. If it is just a creative pursuit, you don't owe anyone anything. Except good manners, and that's a border you'll have to draw yourself.



Well said, but what about selling the occasional print to recover costs?


----------



## Iron Flatline (Apr 2, 2007)

Depends on whom you're selling that print to. If it is going to some friend's office, or even jsu a friend's house, then "yes" - theoretically you should have a release from the person. But there are a few things to consider:

A: what is the likelihood of the subject ever finding out he or she is part of some artistic endeavour?

B: What is the person going to do? Sue you? For what? Are you a millionaire? Then yes, think about protecting your assets. But if you're just a normal guy living a normal life, the person will not incur the costs of a lawsuit. If anything, a lawyer will say "hey, ask the person to get that image removed." Ok, at that point you can still have the image taken down, or possibly give the person the few bucks that you got for the image after recouping your costs.

My answer has nothing to do with the ETHICS of shooting random people. That you need to work out in your own heart and head.


----------



## Kingpatzer (Apr 5, 2007)

Iron Flatline said:


> Continue your thoughts and questions about shooting in public, but please be aware that kids are a whole different thing, whether you like it or not. It's too loaded to be part of that particular discourse.



Legally, it is not a different issue at all.

Being a child, or a person with a child, does not suddenly create an expectation of privacy different from that shared by any other person in a public place.

That most parents are ignorant of this fact is not the photographer's problem.

That many police are ignorant of this fact can be the photographer's problem, but the proper answer is, as always, be polite, professional and courteous, but refuse to submit to any search or seizure unless it is pursuant to an arrest . . . in which case get on with arresting me so I can have my lawyer file the civil suit against the moron behind the badge and his superiors.

The ethics of it are this: Always be polite. Always answer polite and reasonable questions. But there is no obligation on the part of the photographer to not take any shot in a public place that he or she pleases.

There is nothing ethically wrong with taking a picture you have a legal right to take unless the act of taking that picture endangers another. For example, if you take a picture of someone dying in a car from an accident, and you're the only one there, there's a huge ethical issue -- you should be helping the person, not photographing them.  But in most general situations, there is no ethical question in taking a picture of a person in a public place.


----------



## Moxi (Apr 5, 2007)

Wow, Ive never thought so deeply about taking photos anywhere once I step outside my house. When I know Im in the right, no one else can intimidate me. 
Ive been confronted and remained calm. Sometimes I explain, if theyre open to listening, what my rights and interests are in taking the photos. Sometimes theres no sense in explaining. 
Now at this point its really a question of....do I stay here and continue to photograph once confronted? For the most part I do. If I feel Ive genuinely bothered someone Ill move on. But if its just a person being a rag, then I say rag on.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Apr 5, 2007)

Intellectually I agree with Kingpatzer, but a photographer really needs to weigh the conflict he or she is willing to endure in pursuit of a hobby. I won't go toe-to-toe with some Fox News-watching Super-Dad because I like the romantic innocence of his kids playing on the swing - even at my size (6'3", 230 pounds.) It's just not worth my time. If I had commercial goals, I would ask (and offer to pay) but that hasn't been my point throuhgout my responses in this thread, I'm simply giving advice to street photographers being creative.

But yeah, normal people get nothing from me except a smile.


----------



## Kingpatzer (Apr 5, 2007)

Iron Flatline said:


> Intellectually I agree with Kingpatzer, but a photographer really needs to weigh the conflict he or she is willing to endure in pursuit of a hobby. I won't go toe-to-toe with some Fox News-watching Super-Dad because I like the romantic innocence of his kids playing on the swing . . .



Absolutely, each situation you have to assess what risk you're willing to take. You can be right -- legally, morally and ethically -- but if someone's looking for a confrontation it's probably smart to pick up your gear and move on.

But just because you probably should do so doesn't mean you where wrong in taking the picture in any respect what-so-ever.


----------



## BAB (Apr 5, 2007)

Iron Flatline said:


> You can post images on your blog. If you're an artist, you can even use someone's likeness in a book or piece of art.
> 
> You cannot sell a picture of a person to Nike for an ad. And if you took the picture of the person on private property (at a mall, for instance) then you would need permission from (read: pay) the person and the location.
> 
> Simpler: if you hope or plan to earn money through photography, then everyone's entitled to a cut. If it is just a creative pursuit, you don't owe anyone anything. Except good manners, and that's a border you'll have to draw yourself.


 
Essentially true but most photography contests rules mandate a consent signed by recognizable people in the photograph, regardless whether money changes hands.  So by not obtaining a release, you preclude yourself from not only selling the photograph but submitting to many contests as well.  If these are not the intentions of the photographer, then no need to ask for a signed consent.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Apr 5, 2007)

Interesting BAB, I didn't know that. Good point, something to consider.


----------



## Black Magic Studio (Apr 6, 2007)

Yes.  It feels weird to take pictures of random people.  Mainly because you know that some of them (or most of them) will feel weird and possibly resentful knowing that a stranger is taking their picture.  Partly because there is a risk that someone will feel so weird and resentful that an altercation will ensue.

First of all, the law is on your side.  Learn about the legal implications, and you will have a position to stand on.  Then you have a choice to make.  Even though you can do something, that doesn't people will like it.  So which is more important to you?  Getting those photos and succeeding at something you strive to do?  Or limiting your behavior such that no one can possibly be offended?

Assuming you choose a course that is going to bother some people, what remains is for you to get over the uncomfortable feeling of making people feel uncomfortable.  Like many things in photography, this comes with practice.  Push yourself to take those photos.  And when those conversations inevitably come up, remember you are talking to someone who does not know the law the way you do.  Be polite, nod your head, maybe flatter them, maybe give them your business card, but don't let them shake you.  Eventually, you will get accustomed to it.


----------



## Moxi (Apr 6, 2007)

I posted a thread last night in the equipment forum about a right angle spy lens. Sure would solve alot of problems with folks feeling uncomfortable about having the lens pointed at them. But I have never used one and dont know how well they work, if at all. 
And btw, I am not selling this item nor do I know who is. Just happened to see it on ebay looking for FZ50 goodies.
http://cgi.ebay.com/Spy-Right-Angle...QQihZ013QQcategoryZ116191QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem


----------



## spazoid1965 (Apr 16, 2007)

megapaws Mentioned shooting from the hip. That is a good way for a shy person to not be noticed. Another way is to use a 90 degree spy lens. These work best with telephoto lenses as wide angle and standard focal lenth lenses will viginette. The best way to use these attachments is to point the camera toward the ground. You then can take pictures of what in front of you without being noticed. Noone pays much attension to the person looking down and fiddlin' with their camera.


----------



## iainmacd (Apr 16, 2007)

Interesting subject. I've quite often wanted to take some snaps, but haven't as they were the sort of situation where it would be obvious, I'd have needed to ask, and ended up not.

Most recently in a little coffee shop, and this tiny old lady with the most amazing old face was sat, with her little coffee and cake, perfectly laid out in front of her, looking every bit like she was straight out of a David Lynch movie.

Next time!


----------



## Jim Gratiot (Apr 16, 2007)

After today's massacre at Virginia Tech, I find the topic of this thread to be nauseatingly ironic.


----------



## RMThompson (Apr 16, 2007)

I mentioned the dual-meaning title of this thread weeks ago, when it was started, and I agree.

But it also brings up another point: Photography during a live, breaking news event. My instinct tells me that if I was unfortunate to be near something similar to the tragedy that happened today, I'd probably just run, but assuming I had my camera with me, would I be compelled to take pictures?

Yes, I would... but would all of us? Would we want to look at them?

It reminds me of the terrible yet powerful photograph where a recently shot protester lies dead on the ground while a fellow picketer (and a teenage runaway I believe) lets out a cry of anguish towards whomever shot her friend... what was going through this photogs head, or was it purely instinct?

Regardless, I truly hope that none of us knew anyone who was involved in the seemingly senseless slaughter today, and that those that believe in prayer, please do so for the families of the many killed today (over 21).


----------



## tanjh (Apr 16, 2007)

Now this is something That really irks me. I don't like people shooting me for no reason..


----------



## Flashley (Apr 27, 2007)

Tough subject. Personally I have developed a subconscious nack for making places look deserted, either by framing or timing. Recently when reviewing shots from my trip to Florida people commented how empty the parks looked, when in fact I was there for a fortnight through Spring break of all times, and they were packed.

I did have a rather unpleasant incident shooting on the street however. I was in the middle of Chester on a gorgeous sunny weekend (a rare enough thing in Britain of course) and the streets were packed, the energy and buzz amongst the age old buildings just compelled me to capture it.
After I took one shot, down a street with a slightly overhead perspective, this group of youths accosted me, shouting and swearing, started threatening me and trying to nick my camera, calling me a pervert accusing me of taking photos of kids (them).
Despite my protests and explanations the grief and hassle it attracted really shook me up. Had I not been photographing I would not have attracted their attention, but it also put me on my back foot when they did accost me, instead of being indignant and taking charge of the situation I started off defensive and was made to feel like I was doing something fundamentally wrong.

Obviously this is more about their reaction than the ethics of the picture I was taking (of which they were not the subject and as I later noticed, barely in shot), but of how negative the attention you can receive as a photographer is.
Before this I didn't have any reservations about photographing in public, but since I have always thought twice before pressing that shutter release.


----------



## digitalfrog (Apr 27, 2007)

I shoot people in nightclubs all the time, when are drunk or sober, dancing or kissing (or worse).... people LOVE to be taken in pictures as long as they feel you are one of 'them'.
So I make sure I show I enjoy the music and the crowd and I melt into the motion and become transparent. Even my flash disappears with the clubs lights


----------



## Seefutlung (Apr 27, 2007)

Riggaberto said:


> Well what I'm doing is very unofficial.  I'm just an 18 year old college kid, I sort of know what I'm doing.  I produce some stuff that looks pretty cool (imo of course) but I'm sure I'm breaking all sorts of technical rules.
> 
> So if your photograhps are for sale in a gallery but just a single print, does that count as commercial?  Would I have to get a release for that?
> 
> ...



There have been a lot of good suggestion here.  I shoot in the streets a lot. And I used to be a photo journalist for a major market newspaper(s).  All my suggestions relate to US law.

My first recommendation is to look professional.  When I street shoot I always wear long pants and a a nice shirt (not necessarily a starched and ironed affair but better than a T-shirt with an obscene statement).  Behave like a professional, pretend you are a news photog on assignment.  Have cards printed ... if you have a web site make sure the site is on the card.

In the US, everybody has a right to privacy, but you give up that right the moment you step out of your front door.  If they're in public they are fair game (there are exceptions some increase and some decrease from the above statement.)  

NEVER chase a person for a shot.  

You can stalk ... if the subject is very interesting ... but not for more than a minute or two then move on.

Don't worry about model releases ... you only need them if you commercially use the photo.  Which means for advertising or stock photos.  You can use the photos for yourself.  You can even publish a book (art book) of your street candids without model releases from your subjects.

You cannot misrepresent your subject nor can you make negative /untrue statements in any associated text.

For me I have developed a sixth sense about street photos ... typically I shoot first and ask questions later.  What happens if you ask permission first ... all/most of the elements which made the photo interesting tend to vanish ... the candidness is gone.  So for moi, it's shoot and walk... shoot and walk.  After a while you'll know who you can talk too and who you should avoid ... a business card goes a long way.

Don't shoot the down-and-out just because they're there.  Be sensitive to their plight and way of life and shoot in a manner that has some depth.

I have found that being above board, out in the open, not hiding my cameras gets me a better reception amongst more people than being sneaky about the whole thing.  Like most things in photography and in life ... the more you do the better you will become.

Gary

PS- Some Links to my Street Shots
Downtown LA / Broadway Street Shots from the '70s
^ before auto anything

Downtown LA / Broadway Street Shots Today

Some Hollywood Stuff

G


----------

