DSLRUsers.com

Should these folk be entitled to be protected from this kind of invasion of their privacy? Or...being able to be seen from a public place, should they have no protection against being photographed without their knowledge?
Do you have a point of view on this?

They are doing a public thing in a public place they are open to be photographed.

No problems.

Note the sign behind them they are on security video 24/7 what is the problem with a few photos?

Why should you be any different to the 24 hour surveillance they and perhaps you are featured on.

No one asked permission there either.....


Tony

I really can't see any problem with this.

For a picture of so little merit why invade their privacy? I abhor this type of intrusion - especially where there is no reason other than the dick lickin' dog syndrome.

Cheers,

Walter,

I don't think that the picture is the point here.

A question has been asked, and the image is purely for illustrative purposes.

I personally have no issues with this - the people are in the public domain - and as others have pointed out the are also subject to security video. What makes the security video - alleged security video, really, because who verifies that it (a) provides any modicum of security) or (b) that it's being properly used - any more valuable than what the general public might see?

I believe that the law, as it stands now, is sufficient to allow this type of photography, but can protect the subject from slander or libel should the image be used for malicous purposes.

I feel that everyone in a public place is fair game for photography, including me. But wo-betide the photographer who attempts use the image for deleterious intent

Sheetshooter wrote:For a picture of so little merit why invade their privacy? I abhor this type of intrusion - especially where there is no reason other than the dick lickin' dog syndrome.

Cheers,

This is a pretty strong reaction, way over the top, IMO.

What purpose does it serve to slam the photographer and photo, when it is clearly being used as an example?

You abhor this type of intrusion, but you don't specify why or how it is intrusive.

How typical of a "dick lickin dog" type of answer, which serves no useful purpose.

In the US, this is a perfectly legitimate photo, where the photo is taken a point where the photographer was legally entitled to be. From past discussions on this, it seems that Oz isn't any different.

The subjects are in public view and have no reasonable expectation of privacy, therefore, the photo does not intrude upon their privacy.

I always thought that a public place was just that - public.

Pointing the camera into someone's windows, which would be classified as their "private domain" would be morally & legally wrong, but if people are out in public space, there are certain rules and conduct that one must follow when out in society. As such, what's the big deal with being photographed ? Security cameras are in almost every store these days and surveillance on streets is slowly becoming more prevalent. If you're doing something that you don't want photographed, perhaps you also shouldn't be doing it in public ?

I agree that if the photos are taken for malicious intent, it is the wrong thing to do. If I was taking a photo of someone and they noticed, then came over and objected, I would probably delete the photo out of respect.....although I guess I technically don't need to. If the person does not notice (as is likely to be the case in the image above), they are not even aware that the photo has been taken, so is there a problem ?

If you're out in public and a someone keeps staring at you, do you have the right to tell them not to look at you ?

This is how the paparazzi make their money, taking photos of the famous (and not so famous) in public arena's.

The only law I have heard about is in the US where the photographers (paparazzi) have a limitation on the size of their lens. Any image taken with a lens greater then a predetermined size (don't remember) was regarded as an invasion or privacy / intrusion / whatever.

Hmm, this thread has all the hallmarks of a social experiment.....

Nothing wrong with this kind of shot on the level it was used to illustrate a point

The question was asked 'Is this an invasion of privacy?' I have answered that for me YES IT IS. Simple as that. It may not be illegal. It may not be the ONLY invasion of the privacy of these people at that precise moment as the signage and others have indicated. But that does not make it commendable behaviour. For me it shows a complete lack of concern for the others and their rights to privacy - an issue obviously at least considered after the event by the author who saw fit to pose the question in the first place.

Just as Shirley and the Skyhooks sang that 'EGO is not a dirty word' we should consider also that COURTESY and RESPECT are not dirty words either. With a modicum of COURTESY and RESPECT Sydney might not be witnessing the current unrest that has broken out. I have, and will continue to, interrupt the exploits of snappers shooting unaware subjects when I see it happening by either making the subjects themselves aware of their presence and activities or making the snappers aware of their trespass.

It is a deplorable image in terms of both content and intent. It was placed in the 'IMAGE REVIEWS and CRITIQUES' forum, a fact which to me carries with it the implication that this not JUST a social experiment but also a request for an image review and critique. On the basis of that I have expressed what I see and feel.

Please accept my apologies for having an opinion.

In my opinion it is not, they are in a public place dressed and behaving in a manner they are comfortable to be viewed in public, with people they are prepared to be viewed with in public. If they were in a private backyard and the shot was taken from the adjoining backyard I would say no.

For all I know the above shot may be an enlargement of 2% of a panorama of Darling Harbour, so the idea of denying the taking of that image due to a few people in a public place would be nonsensical, that would mean the only time one could take images of public places would be 4am in the morning!


Good question Matt.

Glen,

I would contend that going out into the world makes in no way FAIR GAME to snappers any more than going to post a parcel makes me fair game to armed felons (as I recently experienced).

It will become an issue of increasing currency as the present trend for al-fresco entertaining continues to increase.

We are witnessing ever increasing limitations and restrictions on photography being introduced — such as the no pix of kids at beaches by-laws — and it will increase. Now, I'm not saying for a moment that that is a good thing. Clearly, and speaking as a photographer, it is NOT a good thing: but if moderation is not forthcoming from within then it stands to reason that eventually it will be enforced from without.

Cheers,

Matt,
To reply to your question: It's not!
I do this type of photography very often and same as candid photos.
And I don't have to ask.
Why & what is the hell I have to ask for, they're in public place and I wanted to photo the sign: "24 hours surveillance camera installed"

Walter
A deplorable image? Dogs licking? An image with little merit? (In fact this image displays a high level of sophisitication in its compositional construction. It works on a number of levels and planes and is a wonderful example of the subtle placement of leading and balancing lines).

Walter...you have and will continue to interupt "snappers"??? Are you the Photography policeman? Walter, I am not a "snapper". A snapper is a fish.I am an artist. The term snapper is deregotory to the photographers who frequent this forum and grace it with the splendid imagery we are so fortunate to see. They also are skilled and concerned artisans. You are/were a newspaper photographer. Want to talk about invading the privacy of folk with a camera? Get real!

You draw a connection between my taking a photograph of diners in a public place and the disturbances at Cronulla? A profound analysis!
Lighten up Walter.

I didn't see anything wrong with the image in terms of the question asked with it. I don't care for the photo itself too much.

In fact I thought hard about how I would react if I was in a restaurant and someone took a photo that included me. Would I be angry or upset? No, unless the photog was being particularly intrusive, in which case I would politely ask them to desist.

As others have pointed out, photogs take pix of public places that include people going about their everyday business - I don't see a lot of difference.

An interesting question, thoughtfully asked.

Sheetshooter wrote:Just as Shirley and the Skyhooks sang that 'EGO is not a dirty word' we should consider also that COURTESY and RESPECT are not dirty words either. With a modicum of COURTESY and RESPECT Sydney might not be witnessing the current unrest that has broken out. I have, and will continue to, interrupt the exploits of snappers shooting unaware subjects when I see it happening by either making the subjects themselves aware of their presence and activities or making the snappers aware of their trespass.

Clearly, courtesy and respect is only a one-way street, in your mind.

You fail to substantiate your notion that a photo is an invasion of privacy. You fail to explain how a person has some expectation of privacy while in public or how a photo differs from people viewing that person.

Lastly, you show complete and utter disrespect to everyone in society, by ignoring the fact that such photography is legal and that you would interfere with said photography, without any legal basis for doing so. Such Xtreme views are disgusting and immoral. You have absolutely no right to interfere with any legal activity, in any way.

Your opinion and attitude is completely illogical, unreasonable and reprehensible. As such, it is unworthy of further consideration. You've been born at the wrong time and place. You'd fit right into the insanity of the third reich.

Walter,

I'm actually surprised that you have this attitude about this "social experiment".

Between you previously informing us that you were a photojournalist (surely you've had your fair share of public domain photography) and your previous social experiment of a bland image purposely not being put in the Image Reviews section, I actually question whether or not you're taking a fairly hypocritical stance on this one.

Also, who makes you the person to tell people what is and isn't right as a photographer?
You're certainly not perfect, and any amount of experience you may or may not have does not make you an ethical role model for those of us with cameras.

Are you going to sit out there on Bondi beach and point out to the hundreds of tourists with their cameras and video cameras that taking a picture or filming a small video entry on their miniDV is a really horrible thing because they very well might catch someone in the nude who doesn't want to be filmed or shot, a small child running around whose parents didn't authorise the image, or heaven forbid a group of men talking about something in a public spot a few other people may hear and then walk on by anyway?

How about this:
Are you going to tell the news stations or news houses that they're no longer allowed to shoot random scenes in the street or stock video of people walking by not noticing the cameras because they have their own lives... or will you perpetuate a notion about how news organisations and hobbyists or what you would consider "amateur" photographers are very different indeed with the certain rights one gets involving a optics recording device?

This image is of four people discussing something over a table.
How are we invading their privacy?
This is a digital still.
For all we know, they're talking about something illegal, but we don't know because it's only a still. We can't infer what they're doing from this image.

Behind them is a sign that points out they're being watched and recorded.
So they already know they're being watched.

Do you have a problem with being watched, Walter?
Do you not like it when you're out and your photo is taken without your permission?

It seems that an outburst of sorts like this one could well have been put more to an experience of "unauthorised" photography in your life than a sense of logic.

Code: Select all

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

^ interesting that BBCode URL tags don't work for URLs containing apostrophes!

Godwin's law strikes again.

Interesting debate guys, good to see a variety of opinions being thrashed out. Thanks for posting the image Matt!

Glen
For all you know they might be MY guests at the restaraunt, well aware that I am going to take their photograph for one of my odd-ball social experiments.

(Surely not :shock: )

Bit of a ho hum illustration of the point inquestion... MattK if you had waited until one of them picked their nose for example, and had the same composition (including the under surveilance notice visible) it might have been a more confronting debate.

Now that would have been despicable onyx. And how would I do that...hide behind a bush and watch and wait? If one hestitates more than a moment then one risks becoming a pervert. It is a fine line........

But if you didn't hestiate to line up the shot, check the exposure and then press the shutter... you must be a snapper!

The fish is a schnapper.

Cheers,

Walter,

Sorry to hear about your misfortune.

I disagree with your point of view. There is an implied right to privacy in many situations, being in a public place is not one of them. That is why it is called "public" places. (you may have noticed recently schools have now had to put up signs they are "enclosed lands", this is so they are not confused with public lands and have the full protection the law bestows them). I have a shot very similar to my avatar at A3 size sitting in front of me. Interestingly enough, included in about 3-4% of the image is an image similar to what Matt posted. They are diners at Ripples Cafe at North Sydney Pool. Should I be precluded from taking an image of both of Australia's most well known icons because people are in the image?



http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking/new ... 82772.html
One loses the right to privacy when one walks out the front door. If I did not want anyone to see me in a pink cowboy hat and bottomless leather chaps, I should not walk out the door like that. If I did not want a photo of me like that I should also not walk out the door like that. The rights of the majority are being eroded because of a few. I will not take any photos with children in the frame unless I know the parents for fear of being labelled a paedophile. This is sad and we all know most shots of children are innocent. This is potentially a case of legislating for the few, when usually legislation is passed for the majority. ie road speeds are advised for the majority, where I drive a Porsche with race suspension, no one says make these corners 100km because a few people can drive through them at that speed.

Your point about some regulation is interesting, I don't believe it is the pictures per se, but the rapid dissemination and widespread availability of equipment to take them. The speed of uptake of these technologies is faster that societies ability to accept and create social rules for them and acceptable use patterns. You may remember when hand held mobiles first came out there were many etiquette guides, some mentioning things such as not using them in a restuarant (which I still agree with), but technology is moving so fast we see no guides for phone cameras or digital cameras in general. I doubt people were hassled twenty years ago on beaches, I know I wasn't, it was looked on more as a specialised pursuit. Technology can be friend or foe, we have seen examples of both with the mobile phone in the last few days. The lightning raids by the gangs would not be possible without mobile phones, conversely an Israeli has discovered a way to allow mobile phones to make an early detection of breast cancer and heart disease, then transmit that information to doctors for assesment. Based on those two very limited pieces of information, should we turn off the mobile network in certain areas or subsidise mobiles for women in high risk categories? I can see a case for either view. As you can see, society has to accept and digest technological change (geez, even some of those large format guys are shooting digital now) and work out accepted norms, unfortunately change is so rapid these days that the accepted standards are lagging behind.

Matt. K wrote:Should these folk be entitled to be protected from this kind of invasion of their privacy? Or...being able to be seen from a public place, should they have no protection against being photographed without their knowledge?
Do you have a point of view on this?

My point of view on this is:

This is not an invasion of privacy. They are meeting in full view in a place where the public are normally expected to be. In my opinion there is no implication being drawn by the photographer apart from these people are sitting at a table at a restaurant. A normal and everyday occurrence. I think the location is important though. You could reasonably expect to walk up to and stand next to these people. However, if you shot a picture of people sitting around a table in their back yard even if you're standing in a public place, then I think that borders on an invasion of privacy.

My other comment though: As the people are clearly identifiable in the image, I think that courtesy suggest they should be asked if they mind their photograph being taken, particularly as asking the question is practical (either before or after taking the image). To me, the question is based around the subjects being identifiable and it being practical to seek authorisation.

Now if you look at my new avatar, you will see an image where I didn't seek permission to take the photo. Firstly because it wasn't practical (I didn't have a boat with me) and secondly the person is not readily identifiable (well maybe only to a few who know him and know his sail board).



Cheers, John

Matt. K wrote:Now that would have been despicable onyx. And how would I do that...hide behind a bush and watch and wait? If one hestitates more than a moment then one risks becoming a pervert. It is a fine line........

Well Mr. K,

Your avatar would suggest that you spend a grteat deal of time hiding in a bush.

Furthermore - CHECK YOUR FACTS PRIOR TO MAKING ALLEGATIONS: I HAVE NEVER BEEN, AND AM LIKELY TO NEVER BE, A NEWSPAPER PHOTOGRAPHER.

As author of the photograph you are entitled to nominate it as art and for that matter you have every right to claim to be an artist whether or not this work or others would validate that claim or otherwise.

You claim that this photograph "displays a high level of sophisitication in its compositional construction. It works on a number of levels and planes and is a wonderful example of the subtle placement of leading and balancing lines. That is your prerogative. However, it fails to communicate those particular qualities to me. An artist - and by inclusion indeed a photographer ..... even a snapper - is in the business of communicating an idea or perception to others. Clearly for others and myself this communication has been somewhat flawed in this image because we just don't see your claims manifest.

Cheers,

Glen wrote:One loses the right to privacy when one walks out the front door. If I did not want anyone to see me in a pink cowboy hat and bottomless leather chaps, I should not walk out the door like that.

This is a very wise decision Glen. I have it on good authority that to see you dressed like this is not a pretty sight.

Cheers

Matt, good point, just shows how assuming can be wrong

Johnd, your avatar is missing


Trent, can you write an internet dictionary for the rest of us? You never fail to amaze me with your internet terms. My only contribution is Wenzeled, which I learnt yesterday. http://www.wenzeled.com/site/

Digitor, I was trying to keep my outfit for the next minimeet a surprise

Firstly welcome back Walter you are the life of the party my comments to you at the time you left us were as I saw the situation and I call a spade a spade my problem not yours. Secondly reading your reply I agree 100% with your comments. We live in a shit period of time where COURTESY and RESPECT has diminished to a point that there is a free for all .So what if it is a public place so is a public toilet. How would we all feel if pictures were been taken of our dicks and when we retaliated the Photographer states that your in a public place bad luck little dick “”show me where the signs are that state photos cant be taken inside a public toilet””. My reply would after shoving his macro lens and camera up his ass would be just show COURTESY and RESPECT which seems to be some thing you have not been shown by your parents My 17 year old daughter would not dare take a photo with out permission this is some thing she just knows and was not drummed into her . At 17 she has COURTESY and RESPECT LITTLE LOZ

Walter
I don't recall where or how I came to believe you were a newspaper photographer. If that is incorrect then I apologise.

Schnapper is the correct spelling...though a bit Teutonic for my taste. Snapper is commonly used and easiliy understood.

You are not being objective in the academic deconstruction of the images composition. It has a delightful complexity.

Sheetshooter wrote: For me it shows a complete lack of concern for the others and their rights to privacy - an issue obviously at least considered after the event by the author who saw fit to pose the question in the first place.

Walter,

Actually, perhaps the image was made with the express intent of asking this question. In that case, your statement quoted above wiuld not be valid.

Further, if the image had been made with the intent of asking this question, there then arises the possibility that the image was, in fact, posed, and that this image only appears to be an invasion of privacy.

People,

KerryPierce wrote:You'd fit right into the insanity of the third reich.

Please, let's discuuss the question that was asked and not resort to personal attacks.

Thanx in advance for your cooperation.

Ultimately, what is the difference between taking a photo of these people and just staring at them, assuming the photo is used objectively. What would these people say if one of us were standing there staring at them?Would it be invasive? Begs the point then, why anyone would think that the mere act itself of taking a photo is invasive when it is no different from looking at them. What does the photo do? WHether it is untruthfully manipulated, or subjected to unethically political agenda remains to be seen. But as far as taking a photo goes, there's obviously no harm in it. As Matt said, until you know what the photo's purpose is, ethics don't come into play. It's an objective an image as the one projected to your mind.

Besides, it doesn't look like there is any privacy to invade.

My tupenth,

As the people are in a public place then they are openly on display to the world at large, therefore they are on display for capture. Should any of them do anything that would lower their dignity (pick nose, scratch arse, etc) then I believe that common courtesy would reign and the image would not (ought not) be published. The courteous thing is to not damage any persons dignity where possible.

When Glen wears his chaps and regalia it is for his enjoyment, if he wishes that enjoyment be extended to public display then he is fair game as long as the photographer is not deliberately using said image to degrade Glen, his family, his friends or his lifestyle.

When people presume the right to interfere with completely legal and morally acceptable activity by telling others what is 'proper' and can or cannot be done then they had better have a set of justifiable arguements or be strong enough to back up their opinions. Interference in others lifestyles and activities must come from well developed grounds, if you set yourself up as the arbiter of taste and acceptable moral activities then you had best choose a society that accepts your dogma or join the list of tyrants.

As to the present activities in Cronulla and other locals, the root cause of this activity is beyond my knowledge. It has been lit, stirred and fed by many, including the opinionated talk-back radio 'personalities'. In my opinion it is a breakdown in respect for others cultures and the belief that if it is different to your own then it is beneath yours and should not be accepted. The decision that your culture is better and more acceptable than someone elses is only a very small step from bigotry and cultural snobbery.

Just my opinion, as to the image, is it art? stuffed if I know, it is not my cup of tea but then again there are quite a few very famous 'artistes' not my cup of tea.

Cheers,
Terry

I am amazed at the level of angst that these discussions generate. There was a time (old bloke crap to follow...) when you could just take photos and that was that.

But much has changed. People are more aware of their rights, communication generally means that images can be distributed widely and rapidly, we are more informed in relation to issues surrounding privacy, and of course, we have global terrorism.

I think that, as photographers, we can do our bit for the retention of some degree of sense by taking a robust view of what it is OK to photograph. Matt's "seed" shot for this debate could hardly be more innocuous, and yet the response - at least from Walter (right to express an opinion duly noted) - appeared to me to be significantly out of proportion. Similarly, the ludicrous responses from various posters to Dion's shot a month or so back.

Let us not be willing slaves to moral righteousness. Walter - you can avoid taking photographs which might, in your view, be inappropriate. I will apply my standards to my photographs, Matt to his and so on.

Otherwise, let's be gracious and open minded, avoiding the censorious and judgmental.

(For the sake of good order, I fully acknowledge that Matt invited this discussion)

Matt. K wrote:Walter
I don't recall where or how I came to believe you were a newspaper photographer. If that is incorrect then I apologise.

It was probably this (from a different thread)

Sheetshooter wrote:As one who has been warned and shot at during a siege I can assure you that it is no fun - but it IS part and parcel of the job as a member of the Press covering hard news. The greatest HIGH you can encounter is being shot at and surviving to tell the tale. The greatest LOW I have encountered is seeing at close hand somebody blown to bits who survived for twenty minutes.

and, might I say, not an outrageous assumption to make!

Cheers

A member of the press who is not a newspaper photographer is a reporter.

So the assumption that a member of the press with an interest in photography is a newspaper photog is very sound, albeit apparently wrong. Seriously wrong judging by the vehemence of the denial.

No doubt Walter will explain the position behind the apparently inconsistent statements to clarify. But Matt, your assumption passes the reasonable person test.

Yes...I saw that. So what does that leave? A photographers assistant maybe? Or a journalist...either way it's not my intention to pry, my original point was the concept of privacy and the print media on the same page. They do not sit well with rational folk.

I've seen that statement also, and I agreed the call.

dooda
You made some very interesting points in your post. The "stare" can be very intimidating and yet there is little we can do about it. Interesting too is the fact that when we photograph something we are merely recording a pattern of light that is being reflected from an object. How anyone can lay claim to this pattern of light is somewhat mystifying. The light belongs to the Gods of creation....and so far they have not been intouch with me to voice their concerns.
A photograph is a very long stare. That's dedicated to you Dooda...I love it!

Hi all,
.....after much chin scratching I have decided to weight in........

It is definitely true that if you are in a public place, you should not be doing anything that you do not want others to see. However, it's not as if we have a choice regarding going out in public.... we all have to go to work, buy groceries, go to the doctor etc. I wouldn't like to think that every time I walk out the door I run the risk of being photographed, particularly if that picture was going to be posted on the internet (Hence my decision not to become a supermodel ). If I have an embarassing moment in public, maybe a handful of people will see. If my picture is on the internet.........

I have no problems with people taking pictures in public, but I do believe that if someone is the main subject of the image (versus being somewhere in the background of an image), then they should be consulted before the image is published either electronically or in print.

Again, I don't necessarily think that there is black and white when it comes to this issue - each case has to be taken on it's merits.

Kinetic, good point about being photographed in public whilst going about the daily duties. There has recently in Sydney a number of current affair shows and press reporters who counted the times they were potentially video taped in the course of the day (each camera counting as one time). I do remember one got over a 100 times

kinetic
Good points! There are laws in place for redress of having your image/images misused. For instance...if I take a casual photograph of you and publish it in some way that causes you financial or professional or even personal harm...then you are entitled to sue me for damages. The damage awards can be substantial....depending on the circumstances. It is in my interest not to cause anyone this kind of harm. So when we go about our business in public we have protection against the misuse of cameras and imagery. I have a personal policy of never photographing anyone who is in distress...or in a way that would cause them to be embarressed. Having said that...I will fiercely defend my right to photograph what I see. This is my world, my life, my existance and nobody will ever take that away from me. (Without a fight). I demand an open society.

JohnD
I was just glancing out my window and I swear I saw your avatar running down the road. My dog and I are now going out to hunt him down. I have a baseball bat and ....oooops, there he is running across the beach...(Cronulla)....c'mon Rex, let's get him!

kinetic wrote:I have no problems with people taking pictures in public, but I do believe that if someone is the main subject of the image (versus being somewhere in the background of an image), then they should be consulted before the image is published either electronically or in print.

This made sense to me when I first read it, but then I thought Why is it that a celebrity has less rights then a normal person?
For example, you wouldn't ask permission to take a photo of the prime minister during his morning walk as he passed by, but you would be obliged to ask for permission if it was an average jogger.

All politicians like to pose for taking photos without any question.
And they never shy in public, that's their job.