What are the moral/ethical issues surrounding the photographing of people in public places without consent?

Question

The UK legal position is that nobody has right of ownership of their image in public - otherwise CCTV, TV footage of sports fans, etc would not be permitted. My personal opinion is that consent should be sought whenever feasable - but is taking a photo of someone in a public place any worse than 'capturing' their image with my eyes and memory? This is not a question about the harrassment of so-called 'celebs' by paparazzi - that is a separate issue to my question.

Answer 1

i think if you're an artist and are using photography as your tool to communicate, then you dont need "consent". ive been feeling more and more that everything is free domain.

but of course, if you are planning on selling the image afterwords, consent is probably the right thing to do, esp for legal reasons.

but really its bullshit, the whole consent thing. you are documenting a moment in time, how can anyone tell you whether or not what you shot is acceptable?

Answer 2

OK, your speaking of morality and ethics.

Just because you can do a thing, doesnt mean you should do a thing.

Morally, it is better to ask permission from a person prior to shooting them, because that person may not want their "image" duplicated, their "personal sense of privacy" invaded, especially when dealing with the general public.

I have seen lots of great moments, expressions, while out shooting, but I will not impose on someone by photographing them without consent, even in public. People need their personal space, even in public.

About the only person that I have shot in public without consent, was a perv that was shooting thru a backpack at a young couple sitting at a public park picnic table. The perv's actions, while being legal (he was in public, from about 25 yards away, not getting crotch shots of the girl), were not moral. Even if he had the camera on a tripod in the open, obviously focusing on the couple, it would not be moral.

The only exception, I could see to this, would have been if he was taking photos of the park in whole, and the couple, and other park visitors were just a part of the park.

While there is a legal standard of "no expectation of privacy in most public settings", there should be some moral/ethical expectations to keep from invading anothers privacy. In photos, or just generally.

EDIT~~~ It seems that most of the answers here are keying on the "legal" aspects, and missing the "ethics" theme.

They arent the same thing.

Answer 3

Some people may argue the "ethical" thing to do would be to ask for and receive consent, but that would remove the spontaneity of the shot, which is often what makes for an interesting image.

However, as long as the person(s) in your image are incidental to the picture, and you are not using the images to defame or degrade the subjects, or manipulate them in such a way as to create an impression of something other than what was actually happening, there is little (aka nothing) in the way of consent required for ordinary pictures taken in a public place.

Answer 4

Interesting question. The May 2007 issue of Shutterbug Magazine had an article about "Privacy Rights & Copyrights: What Photographers Need To Know" (shutterbug.com).

In the 1940's and '50's Walker Evans did a series of clandestine photos on the New York subway and city streets. They were exhibited at the Museum of Modern Art.

Answer 5

As long as you don't intend to publish a recognizable image of someone, you don't need consent. (the exeption is for "public figures" like celebrities and polititions)

However, like you, I beleive that common courtesy should be shown, and, if a person is to be the featured interest in a photograph, the photographer should, simply, ask permission to take the shot. An example of this would be like if I came across a street musician with an interesting face or dress. I would ask this person for his permission. Same thing if I were traveling abroad and saw someone in some kind of "national" costume. I would consider it rude to "gawk" and snap photos of this person, as if they were some kind of tourist attraction. A polite, "Please?" and gesture with the camera, before shooting should be understood in most cultures, if we shared no common language.

Answer 6

Well, technically yes he can take the picture but he should have blurred the license plate, maybe you could get a lawyer to tell him to take it down and threaten legal action if he doesn't (you don't have to take action though, the threat should be enough). What do you mean he advertised it as illegal?

Answer 7

I think that with fame comes a certain loss of privacy. But the papparazzi have gone too far. The people who buy all the scandal magazines need to get a life and a library card!