The ethics of candid

[Mufasa]

I recently bought a canon 75-300 lens and upon dooing so at socal events i had the abbility to take poeples pictures without them knowing. Now they knew i was there and anyone that knows me also knows that you have to be comfy with your picture being taken if i'm there. But i was think that this can do the same for people in the real world. I see candid photography as a wayof looking at humanity not posed. You are seeing how ppl interact with each otheron a daily basis it is a true representation of the world as everyone sees it.

Thats my view, but my buddy (also a photographer) just thinks it's plain creepy but i think that as long as the pics arn't going to be used maliciously it ok.

what are some of your belifs on candid photography and when it has been taken too far

 

[rmh159]

I think it's really too vague of an issue to say "These are the rules". Some people will get a model release for every person in a pic, others won't care.

I personally don't see an issue with taking shots of people without them knowing as long as you're not going to use them for profit. That said... the price tag is going to be ****ing people off and having to defend / explain your actions to others.

If you don't want to explain yourself all of the time then you should get prior permission but I do see your point (and think it's valid) that if someone knows that they might be photographed it's no longer "candid" even if they're not being posed deliberately.

 

[skieur]

I think it's really too vague of an issue to say "These are the rules". Some people will get a model release for every person in a pic, others won't care.

I personally don't see an issue with taking shots of people without them knowing as long as you're not going to use them for profit. That said... the price tag is going to be ****ing people off and having to defend / explain your actions to others.

If you don't want to explain yourself all of the time then you should get prior permission but I do see your point (and think it's valid) that if someone knows that they might be photographed it's no longer "candid" even if they're being posed deliberately.

Take a look at 'Taking pictures of other people' in this forum where this is being discussed.

skieur

 

[Garbz]

Down here in Australia you can make as much profit as you like from it. Ethically speaking I don't see a problem with it either. You as the photographer capture it how it is, if someone wants to buy the slice of reality then so be it.

I do see a problem ethically morally and legally of taking candid pictures of something obscene or detrimental to the subject though, and when there is a blatant invasion of privacy (i.e. photographing people through the windows of their homes)

 

[deanimator]

If your photographs are not ridiculing or defaming people, then you will be fairly safe.
However. there is a risk you will get sued if the picture ever earns big money...they will see you as a money tree to shake for as much as they can get. The problem is not really about their face being recognised. These people are just simple minded and greedy.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

use a model release.

 

[rmh159]

Take a look at 'Taking pictures of other people' in this forum where this is being discussed.

skieur

Sorry I don't search the forums before every post to make sure it isn't being discussed elsewhere (which I'm sure 75% of the content is). If it's relevant post it in this thread and enlighten us.

 

[fmw]

There is nothing unethical about candid photography. Some of it can be excellent. There can be something illegal about using images for commercial purposes without written permission, however.

I remember a famous case in which a photographer made a candid shot of a young girl riding a carousel. This was a person in a public place and the image showed nothing at all unflattering or defamatory about the subject. Eventually, the image was used in a magazine ad. The girl's father won a stiff settlement in court which, I understand, paid for the girl's college education. In effect, she became a professional model unwittingly.

The issue isn't whom you shoot, it is what you do with image afterward.

 

[AUZambo]

Paperozzi make a killing doing this, so I don't think it's illegal to make money without a waiver signed by the subject.

Of course, as rmh159 pointed out, you can really **** some people off doing it should they find out.

 

[jstuedle]

Paperozzi make a killing doing this, so I don't think it's illegal to make money without a waiver signed by the subject.

Of course, as rmh159 pointed out, you can really **** some people off doing it should they find out.

Once a person becomes a public figure, they have a hard time suing when their pic is published. The example of the young girl on the carousel is a totally different situation. A private individual has a higher expectation of privacy than a public official or movie star. That said, it is true you can photograph anyone in a public place. It's also true that it's what you do after the capture that can cause you heartburn.

 

[abraxas]

There is nothing unethical about candid photography. Some of it can be excellent. There can be something illegal about using images for commercial purposes without written permission, however.

I remember a famous case in which a photographer made a candid shot of a young girl riding a carousel. This was a person in a public place and the image showed nothing at all unflattering or defamatory about the subject. Eventually, the image was used in a magazine ad. The girl's father won a stiff settlement in court which, I understand, paid for the girl's college education. In effect, she became a professional model unwittingly.

The issue isn't whom you shoot, it is what you do with image afterward.

Fred,

Maybe you could help me on something; Recently, I shot a parade. The first cars had the local Grand Marshal, Community Man of the Year, and Honorary Mayor. The local chamber of commerce can't stand me- and accordingly they all either went blank or gave what I can only think of as 'unflattering' looks at my camera. One of the ladies carrying a banner promoting a local music festival went out of her way to make faces at the camera. Very petty and revealing. I have more than enough awesome shots of people having fun, but figure these are so far out of the spirit of the day that they are priceless.

I suppose even in an editorial context they could be considered defammatory and maligning? I'd love to display them in their own 'special' section of the slideshows I'm preparing for my local web site. Any take on that?

 

[fmw]

If people don't subscribe financially to your website and if they aren't used to sell copies of the images or your photographic services, post away. Simply publishing images made in public can't get you in trouble - whether it is a parade or a mountain range. When money changes hands the rules change.

 

[Funky]

didnt we have a 20 page thread about this a few months back?

 

[abraxas]

If people don't subscribe financially to your website and if they aren't used to sell copies of the images or your photographic services, post away. Simply publishing images made in public can't get you in trouble - whether it is a parade or a mountain range. When money changes hands the rules change.

Thanks, that answers it!

 

[Alpha]