Ethics & Photos

[Dancing David]

Someone I know once took a photo of someone without thier permission, and in fact this was against thier stated wishes. This is unethical right? I think so.

What if I tell you that the person is a very famous anthropologist, it was in 1967, in the Mexican state of Oaxaca. The person who did not want thier picture taken did not want it taken because photos 'capture the soul'. So the reason for objecting to the photo being taken was a superstitios one, from our 'modern' viewpoint.

But is there really a difference between this and the unwilling shower picture? (The one where the landlord drills a hole in the wall to take pictures of thier tenants in the shower)

 

[Michael Redman]

As someone who takes a lot of pictures, I generally rationalize that if you expose yourself to my gaze, you expose yourself to my photography. Whether or not this is a good measure of ethics, the case of the shower is different, because clandestinely peering into someone's shower is an invasion of their privacy, where simply looking at someone walking down the street is not.

Good question, though. I may have a right to take a photograph that I know wil upset the subject, but is it right to do so? Does it matter if their objection is reasonable?

 

[jimlintott]

I was thinking about this the other day and I would not take someone's photo if they didn't want me to. The reason really doesn't matter.

However, news photographers and papparazzi are always taking photos of people who don't want their picture taken. I can tolerate it from the news but the papparazzi are a bunch of thugs.

 

[rustypouch]

I've had this type of discussion a lot lately in school.( I'm studying photograpy)

I don't know about anywhere else, but in Canada, if you're on public land you're fair game. Permission is not required to make a photo of some who's walking down the street. If you're on private land, then it's different, but if you are visible from public land then things get a little hazy.

I have had people threaten to call the cops on me because I was taking pictures some where they didn't like. I just laughed at them and offered to call them for myself. For some reason that frustrated them.

 

[Cleopatra]

Good question!

Once upon a time... I was working to an archaeological excavation on a Greek island.

Some tourirts thought that it would be fun to enrich their vacation album with the photo of an archaeologist on duty.

None of us wanted to be part of any tourist's photo album and we had endless quarrels with tourists over that.

I think that you should always ask for permission, even if you want to take the picture of somebody else's dog...

It's a matter of politeness too.I think that if you ask, very few people refuse... why not to ask then.Does it limit your artistic freedom? Unless you want to take pictures of frustrated people

 

[Dymanic]

It becomes even fuzzier (er...so to speak) when you consider the practice of taking 'upskirt' photos. This is done in public places, so the question is whether there is a 'reasonable expectation of privacy'.

And some interesting questions arise around rights to photos of celebrities -- when do they belong to the subject of the photo, and when to the photographer? And what if it isn't an actual photo, but a digitally created image that happens to look exactly like the celebrity?

 

[Fade]

Of course it's ethical. When you are in public, everything you choose to reveal is already open. Taking a picture of it is no different than just looking at it.

However, I do think it would be wrong to take a picture of somebody, and without their permission use the image to promote an agenda of some sort, or make money.

I am a people-watcher. I take my cameras to Seattle and snap off pictures of interesting people. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[AmateurScientist]

Very interesting question, David.

I fall on the side of those advocating that people in public are generally fair game. I agree that paparazzi essentially terrorizing celebrities is a different case, however. They make going anywhere in public pure hell for certain celebrities of the highest status.

A casual photograph taken from outside someone's personal space is hard to object to. Dogging someone or spying on them, even in public, can quickly become objectionable. I don't think it's because of the taking of photographs per se, but rather the persistent infringement of the right to be let alone implicit in society.

AS