Ethics of shooting random people

[BAB]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

+1 to Iron Flatline

 

[Riggaberto]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Black Magic Studio]

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.