The Death of Street Photography?

[tamlin]

Just by chance I caught sight of this news story today:

BBC NEWS | England | Humber | Police seize photographer's film

Have we as a society (in the UK, at least) become so paranoid and obsessed with "privacy" that street photography is now seen as a criminal activity? If such great photojournalists as Henri Cartier-Bresson or Garry Winogrand were alive today, would our over-zealous law-enforcers be seizing their film and confiscating their equipment? There's little doubt that if someone attempted a modern version of Julia Trevelyan Oman's book "Street Children" (a collection of candid photos of children playing in the street in the East End of London, published in the early 60s), they would run the risk of either being arrested or being lynched on the spot as a paedophile by the public.

I realise that "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance", but is this over-protectiveness stifling the creation of potentially great art? Am I over-reacting? Does this kind of thing only happen in the UK? What do other people think?

[foggyrain]

This is terrible! I've run into a situation where I was taking pictures of a statue in a public place/park in a downtown city in the States. Apparently the statue was owned by someone who does not like having photos taken of it. Security guards rushed me and demanded I delete the photos and leave immediately. They even called the police! Why is it that just because someone has a fancier camera than a tourist, or uses a tripod, that they are assumed to be "professional" and going to make money off of the photos they are taking?

It's not fair, especially if it is a public area. I understand the concern of those who do not want to be photographed, but this photographer did nothing wrong.

Thanks for posting this article!

[Kimmer12345]

There is definitely something to be said for the original street photography as an artform. I would hate to see it get to the point where people are too afraid to shoot what they see.

[supertackyman]

????!!!!!!???!!!

ok, i suppose i could understand if one were hiding and taking pictures, or had a massive zoom lens attachment. but COME ON!

if anyone ( at least the average joe/jane. celebs are another story, due to the drooling homeridden masses they can expect no public moments to not be photographed, ahhh i digress) is that concerened over thier privacy that they dont want thier picture taken in a public place then they probably are doing something they shouldn't anyhow.
(stepping out on a spouse, or wanted, or otherwise unscrupulous behaviour.)
now if youre on your property then thats another story.
theres a difference between taking a roll of pics in a public place, and picking out/following/(dare i say harassing) a single individual.
if someone were to politely or at least directly ask me not to take thier picture i will respect that.

in a world of security cameras and cell phone cameras . etc.
everyone should just get used to the fact that they could end up on film whether they like it or not. and behave accordingly.

[notjustgraphics]

What if, just suppose, this guy WAS one of those deviants or perverts out stalking a victim or worse, creating some kind of underground pornography using your image?

We hear more and more stories of deviants and perverts lurking with technology just waiting to capture a wardrobe malfunction or other act that seems to be of interest to people.

One can't really blame the average person for being concerned, nervous or even upset by a person they don't know pointing a camera at them, or their family.

Put yourself in their position.. if an older man is sneaking around the mall taking photographs of your child, you'd be less than tolerant. (And i dont intend to be sexist here, but i don't think anyone would argue that pedophiles are usually men)

I think there is a difference between sniping photos of a person unknowing and capturing scenes of interest that just happen to have people in them.

It is said that one must suffer for their art, but please don't encroach on my privacy to do so.

My image is my own and under my control. You can't use it for any exhibition, display, or commercial work without my permission, so there's no need to capture it in the first place.

As it is, I think society is beginning to revolt against 'big brother' watching over their every move.

While it's true most of us live in 'free' societies, we cant dispute that from the moment we leave our front doors we are under surveillance... traffic cameras, weather cameras, bank machine cameras, security cameras, and even the common tourist is capturing video as they walk around.

Just my 2 cents. Keep the change lol.

Mike.

[Tony_photoplus]

Street photography isn't dead, just changed its form - It called surveillance cameras!

The Uk loves them as it has the most!

[unleash]

notjustgraphics,

I want to say something about those "more and more stories", that can have more than one reason. One of them might be the increased attention from the media, as a result of the whole privacy thing. Then it could be so that there are more and more perverts. And last but not least, it is also possible that more and more perverts are getting caught by the law enforcement.

I think that if you make an equation out of it, with the number of perverts divided by the total number of people (in one neighbourhood, to keep things simple) that you will see that not 1 on 5 of the people has bad intentions, or is an pervert. So I think that if you arrest people because this pervert thing, that there should at least be one more reason for the arrest.

I think that privacy should never come above freedom. Because when I country starts to take freedom, so that it can give privacy than that country has a problem. Because than that country can easily become a police state like thing, in order to protect the privacy of course. And the inhabitants of that country must have something to hide, why else want to give in freedom for privacy?

And security cameras, well to much is to much...

Just my 2 cents. And I want my change.

Unleash

[tamlin]

Originally Posted by notjustgraphics

We hear more and more stories of deviants and perverts lurking with technology just waiting to capture a wardrobe malfunction or other act that seems to be of interest to people.

I think you've highlighted an important point there, Mike. We hear stories - and where do these stories come from? Mostly they are a result of hysteria whipped up by the popular media in order to sell newspapers etc. This "cause" is then taken up by the sort of illiterate cretins who, in Gwent (South Wales) in 2000, labelled a female paediatrician a "paedo" after a campaign by the News of the World to "name and shame" paedophiles in the community. (For non-UK residents: The News Of The World is the newspaper of choice for illiterate cretins. They never allow the truth to get in the way of a good story...)

The irony in the original story, I feel, is that the people who complained to the police about the guy taking photos in the shopping centre had already been captured dozens of times that day on various surveillance cameras - mostly without their knowledge. As Tony mentioned, the UK leads the world in the deployment of Closed Circuit Television camera technology - but there are no coherent, legally enforceable rules or regulations which ensure that Public CCTV schemes are run properly. It's estimated there's one CCTV camera for every 14 people in the UK - and it's claimed that every day we are caught on camera 300 times.
Compared to that, being snapped by a tourist in a busy shopping centre is pretty small potatoes, I reckon.

[FrayedSoul]

I always thought that it was perfectly legal to take pictures of any thing in public view. Which I think it should be.

I was in the Mall in DC with a tripod, and was told by park security that a tripod constituted professional photography, the rights to which had apparently been sold off. Everything is a racket.

Is it not the duty of art to help overcome such ignorance?

[Gjbphp]

This brings back memories of reading a UK photo magazine some years ago. Then the law was, you could photograph pretty much any building, providing that you were standing on public property, IE a street. This may have changed though, and I don't know if it was the same for commercial photography or not.

[notjustgraphics]

Originally Posted by tamlin

I think you've highlighted an important point there, Mike. We hear stories - and where do these stories come from? Mostly they are a result of hysteria whipped up by the popular media in order to sell newspapers etc. This "cause" is then taken up by the sort of illiterate cretins who, in Gwent (South Wales) in 2000, labelled a female paediatrician a "paedo" after a campaign by the News of the World to "name and shame" paedophiles in the community. (For non-UK residents: The News Of The World is the newspaper of choice for illiterate cretins. They never allow the truth to get in the way of a good story...)

I used the wording i did because it does not matter whether the stories are true or not, only that it contributes to the average persons psyche and fear of such situations.

I am certainly not trying to suggest that artists should not take photos in public places... only suggest that in today's society, there is going to be a reaction.

I also feel very strongly that one has the absolute right to control what is theirs.. that includes there artwork, their possessions and their likeness.

Maybe my point was lost.. but i also think that there is a big difference between taking photographs of public places and hiding in a corner to capture a candid closeup of an unsuspecting person. In my opinion that constitutes an invasion of privacy, even if I am in a public place.

Obviously i dislike paparazzi for the same reasons... i don't believe that just because a person chooses to act in movies or sing for a rock band that they give up all rights to live a reasonably private life. But in their case, it's a love/hate relationship because they depend on paparazzi for promotion and media attention and then complain when it's not in their favor.

Is there a difference between sneaking photos of a person sitting down to lunch at a shopping mall and standing outside their window and watching them sit down to dinner?

And no one with kids can argue that you spare no extremes when it comes to protecting them from what you believe is a threat.

I guess in short i'm trying to say that you have to expect a reaction.

[notjustgraphics]

Originally Posted by FrayedSoul

I always thought that it was perfectly legal to take pictures of any thing in public view. Which I think it should be.

I'm not sure about other countries, but in Canada, you can photograph anything in a public place providing there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.

The grey area is with telephoto lenses where a photographer can invade your reasonable expectation of privacy without you knowing about it. This has been argued in Canadian courts and has been ruled illegal.

[notjustgraphics]

Heres a real life example of how things can go wrong when someone takes your photograph... and in this case, the person knew her photograph was being taken!

Virgin sued for using teen's photo - Technology - smh.com.au

The short version is that a girl smiled for a camera at a church barbeque. The photographer then posted the photos of the day on Flickr to share with friends and family. An ad agency found the photos and took the picture of the girl and used it in a billboard campaign in Australia with the slogan 'Free text.. Virgin to Virgin'. (the ad was for Virgin Mobile). The ad was quickly seen by the girls brother who reported home!

The underlying issue is FlickR... The youth councellor you snapped the photo checked a box when she created her Flickr account that put her photos in an area that gave ad agencies permission to use them.

So now, you're reading a book or eating your lunch at a mall, some photographer snaps your photo and posts it to Flickr and then you're on a billboard ad for STD drugs or some other embarrassing product.

It's just not right!

[DanielM]

I firmly believe taking pictures of inanimate objects for inspiration is well within your rights if they are in public places.Taking pctures of people without there permission turns them into commodities which in no way can be justified.It seems in this time of societal growth the default is yes you are being watched the question is who is watching.

[photostar73]

I admit from my part that street photography in Italy is very difficult and near to death.
I tried to work for some blogs about street fashion, but it was almost impossible to shot people without trouble.
People believes in stupid stories and urban legends about a bad use on the web of the photos taken, and the times are changin' fast.
I don't believe anymore in street photos (of people and in Italy) as a possible form of art or documentation: if you want to play it, you need to hide for do it.
Times are changin' very fast, and photography art follows this development: what you did 40 years ago it's not replyable in these days.
I hope anyway that our art will evolve into something new, but also good: we as photographers, will create the new forms of art, and we need anyway to look ever at the tomorrow with an eye on our history.
Anyway, have fun with your camera: that's the main thing!