Nowadays most of the people own a camera, especially with the rise of smartphones. People sometimes use them for photographing in public places, and intentionally or not, those photos carry lots of strange faces. Is it ethical to take photos of strangers? What are the ethical considerations of sharing and selling such photos?

If you are acting legally then it's all down to your own conscience and ethics how you use the photos.

I dont share your opinion at all and with all its bad sides i believe that the current state is the best option there is, anyone is welcomed to shoot anything at public place unless he is doing any harm to someone else.

I agree with you.

In my opinion, I think it's OK to take photos of strangers. Let's say you want to photograph a landmark in the city, sometimes you cannot really avoid other people in your frame. I think it's all about how you use those photos, especially, how you share and sell those. I'm against sharing such photos to insult the people in those photos. However, I'm still confused about using some of those photos as editorial content. Let's say you want to report something about public transport. You cannot go and ask from all the people in a train/bus whether it's OK to take a photo of them. And it's not as same as a protest, they are most probably they are not attention seekers.

Quote from: Difydave on April 13, 2015, 06:08

The actual law varies from country to country, or at least the interpretation seems to. However it seems to me that the law is  about right where it says that people in a public place have no "right to privacy" as far as having their photograph taken goes.  Use then is a different thing, and while I wouldn't agree with defamatory use, or use which made false claims about a person, I don't see that general interest shots which don't show people in a bad light hurt anyone.
I don't really see there is any difference between being in public where anyone can see you, and being photographed in public where a lot more people might see you, as long as it's kept in context.

Well by my personal criteria even showing people in bad light is sometimes ok, so I wouldn't generalize .

For example,  public servants that are misusing their given rights by law. I stick to my rights to record any approach of theirs in my direction, and its for their protection as much as for mine. If they choose to perform under"bed lights" its absolutely their decision to do so and if they act politely with acts enforced by law im deleting the record at the spot anyways.

I already had situations from their side trying to enforce fictions of their imagination as law and from then Im recording every conversation if they like it or not its my legal right and I choose to use that right.  As they are doing public job anyways so they shouldn't be uncomfortable to appear in public if they are performing "by the book".


On the other hand, anyone chasing random people on the streets and pushing lens in their faces against their will deserves at least a punch in the nose

I think a book can be written on this matter and every single case can be a story on its own so its very slippery area.     

As you say, every case is indeed different and that does make[/size] it difficult to generalise.
[/size]Here in the UK, while there is no right to privacy in public as such, there can also be an "expectation of privacy" in some spaces which are open to the public like restaurants etc.  There are also quite strict laws against harassment.

Yeah, I'm gonna side with the expectation of privacy argument.  That, along with common courtesy should cover most ethical situations.  For example if you do a crowd shot and one poor guy up front happens to be picking his nose,  that one should probably not be the one you post to facebook or to editorial stock.

 Bruge Gilden....one of the big ones....amazing work as many of his Magnum colleagues (Martin Parr, Elliot Erwitt, Cartier Bresson, William Klein..... No problem photographing strangers on any public property. And the ones that don't find it right don't quite understand the importance of freedom of press/information and history documentation........maybe too much time photographing green apples on a white background....... 

I shot a lot of strangers, probably thousands, during my newspaper photojournalist job. I personally think is unethical, except for politicians, celebrities and such, since it's part of their job after all. Also, except situation where people call for attention intentionally, like protests, strikes, performances etc.
But taking pictures of passerby, homeless, children, mentally ill, victims of any kind (disasters, car accidents etc) is, in my opinion unethical. If you ask me, I would forbid street photography completely. And I have many years of experience of doing street photography.

Why should they be excluded?

Without street photography you wouldn't have any social record

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/lange/

or

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=kevin+carter&biw=1112&bih=842&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=RSIsVfHUE8zMOITygMgJ&sqi=2&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ#imgrc=_

It is incomprehensible that a true street photographer would exclude any group

You start down this road of self censorship then throw away the camera and take up flower arranging.

Only by recording can we shine a light on not only daily life but also on the horrors,  triumphs, losses and little kindnesses that are part of the human condition.

To answer your question yes I have and the results are never how you describe them so you must be doing it wrong.

I think has more to do with your own personal embarrassment of being caught in the act.

So don't get all cranky take a chill pill 


and I still think you are wrong! 

On the big island its impossible to go anywhere without ending up in a video or photograph. Good thread!

They are arguing over drone/video legalities, and yet people are always having their privacy invaded by being photographed and put online (usually by vacationers). I'm surprised its not a bigger issue.

....
The OP asked  us about our opinions if it's ethical or not. He never asked about importance of street photography or higher purposes it serves.
Of course, I agree with everything you say, it's so obvious.
So, my opinion is based on 20 years of photojournalism (or street photography, or whatever it is). Have you practiced it? Do you know how most people react when they SEE YOU taking a picture of them? They turn they head away, they cover their  face with whatever is on hand, they approach you with bad words. If they are passing by, they stop until you take a picture without them in a frame or they crouch down while they continue walking under your camera. They are sending you a clear message that they do not want to be photographed. Is it ethical to still take a picture of them?
When you photograph victims of war, car accidents, disasters, when you photograph dead people, their family members are around crying in a trance. Imagine what they are telling me. Can I tell them that it's for a higher purpose, that it's for social record?
When people see their family member that is mental ill and put in a sanatorium on, a double page spread, what do you think, how do they feel? I can go on and on with this.
You really have no right to give me speeches. It's my opinion and only mine.

you're dirtying the waters of the OP by throwing out red herrings - no one was asking if it's ok to photograph the mentally ill, accident victims, etc....

and your 20 years of experience has resulted in a different conclusion from what I've found in many years of travel -- if I can make eye contact first, I just point to my camera and them and wait for an ok; if someone sees I'm about to photograph them, either they smile & I take the picture, or they turn away or shake their head, etc and I lower my camera, but those are the minority

mostly my decision to try to take a picture is based as others say, on whether I would want my picture, or family member's picture taken under similar circumstances.

steve

Agree with Steve - eye contact is important. Even on assignment job i always try to use this when possible (...). Yes, subjects are different on assignment and stock-self-assignment, and not all of them are usable for stock. Street photogrpahy become a part of culture and self-culture is a reviewer for every photographer.

street photography it's 100% ethical, especially if done in your face as Bruce Guilden,  there's nothing immoral or unethical on it.

200% quote.

unethical may be the use of these pictures... but that's another story

There's quite a good documentary on a street photographer has just been released on DVD, Finding Vivian Maier

It was shown on the Beeb a couple of times last year and was excellent, but I'm not sure which of these YouTube options it was:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=finding+vivian+maier+full+movie

Quote from: Hobostocker on April 14, 2015, 06:51

street photography it's 100% ethical, especially if done in your face as Bruce Guilden,  there's nothing immoral or unethical on it.

200% quote.

unethical may be the use of these pictures... but that's another story

50 yrs from now all these street photos will be an invaluable treasure trove depicting our times, without street photographers covering all these obscure and non commercial subjects we would have no way to know how the past looked like.

said that, of course images can be used unethically but that's not our fault and on top of this if reality su-cks is not our fault too, all we're doing is documenting what's really going on without bells and whistles.

Shoot em in the face I'd say. I don't have the balls for it though. I need a longer lens. Shoot from obscurity.

50mm B&W film

all the way

I don't do street photography, but I would have thought that no interaction between the subject and the photographer would have some value. Especially in the context of historical records of our times.

The Hawthorne Effect says that subjects will modify their behavior if they know they're being observed.  That seems like an argument in favor of covert street photography for the purposes of objectively recording events..

interaction can be the subject looking at the photographer, it doesn't need to turn into a staged shot.

covert street photography is like picking up a frame from a CCTV video camera, nobody see you, nobody notice you're shooting .. where's the beef ? where's the skill ?

Me neither except if someone paying says, "go get some candid lifestyle shots".

There's no right or wrong answer to any of this. How it's done can be accomplished many ways, with a smile or a telephoto. How it's used can be a different complication.

I don't do street photography, but I would have thought that no interaction between the subject and the photographer would have some value. Especially in the context of historical records of our times.

The Hawthorne Effect says that subjects will modify their behavior if they know they're being observed.  That seems like an argument in favor of covert street photography for the purposes of objectively recording events..

And don't forget Rosenthal I think it was KCR = experimenters giving signs that change the reactions of the subjects, intentionally or not.

But here's the basic answer:

Undisguised: people in the setting know
they are being observed

Disguised: people don�t know they are
being observed

Disguised participant observation helps
control for reactivity, one of the main
problems associated with observation.

Reactivity occurs when people change their
usual behavior because they know they are
being observed.

with a smile or a telephoto.

i disgress, because using a long zoom should be left for wildlife photography and it's ridicolous to see guys hiding behind a car with a 500mm zoom to shoot their subjects "low profile".

i mean, what's the biggest valuable skill of Bruce Guilden ? that he keeps his frame and doesn't give a sh-it about anything and anyone while on the street, he owns the street, he would flash and shoot even at police officiers or bouncers twice his size ... check out his videos, he's a real mean piece of sh-it and that's the purest example of street photographer in my opinion.

Basically, I agree with you; I like your post!

I wouldn't go as far as forbidding street photography but people should use common sense with it. If someone is sick, drunk, poor, injured, mourning, I think it is pretty sick and questionable to go take a photo of them. Nowadays that people post photos where ever it is ok not wanting to be photographed. I think every photographer should as themselves - and be honest - How would YOU feel in front of the camera, and not behind it?

Every photographer should have the integrity to choose what to shoot and not to hide behind "art", and the selfish "I have the right to blah blah" attitude.

Personally, I do not ever photograph accidents, illness, poor, ill, drunk, injured, anything that I imagine the person in question would not want to be photographed.

People give signs if they like to be photographed. A smile, a nod is a yes, a go ahead sign. It's a good idea to look for that.

I shot a lot of strangers, probably thousands, during my newspaper photojournalist job. I personally think is unethical, except for politicians, celebrities and such, since it's part of their job after all. Also, except situation where people call for attention intentionally, like protests, strikes, performances etc.
But taking pictures of passerby, homeless, children, mentally ill, victims of any kind (disasters, car accidents etc) is, in my opinion unethical. If you ask me, I would forbid street photography completely. And I have many years of experience of doing street photography.

I also take many photographs of strangers in my travel photography and submit them as editorial with no problems at all.
I do however check that the strangers in the images are not shown in any disparaging light that may embarrass them if they see and recognize themselves.
IE: a women's dress caught in the wind or someone stuffing a hamburger into their mouths or things of that nature.
It is up to you the photographer to initially decide were you draw the line on what is acceptable and for the very few times someone in the street has asked about why they may be in one of my photographs i always will show them the image i have just taken and find that they are always OK with it as they can find no hidden motive or agenda on my behalf.

Lastly though you should give regard to children and people with obvious police/military uniforms or insignia's as they may have sensitive information (serial no's etc)
But if any member of the public ask to not be in a photo they have seen me take I  would also be happy to delete that image and take another without them in it think along the terms of women escaping domestic violence or any similar situations.

But in reality you will be OK 99% of the time as long as you behave in a proper manner and show respect to all.

FYI i will stand in an open area during any public photography and will be visible to all around me with my intentions quite clear that i am taking photographs of what is around me.

you said: "Personally, I do not ever photograph accidents"

I also agree that there is enough to film in the world that I do not seek out profiting from filming accidents (and the other content mentioned) either.

the source I read about india was wrong, further research says that there are restrictions in india but it does not say where.

I did read on wikipeadia just now that in Macau you are not allowed to film people in public without their permission, because they have a right to privacy in public places.

sudan requires a permit for photography in the country.

however you can film in most countries.

This topic is too hot a potato, but I have my say anyway.

I hate poverty and misery photography.

I hate it when photographers think it is cool and artsy to go to miserable places or undeveloped countries and shoot people who look ill, ugly, poor, old and miserable.

This stupid trend his so OLD and dated. Move on and shoot something NEW and MODERN!

This topic is too hot a potato, but I have my say anyway.

I hate poverty and misery photography.

I hate it when photographers think it is cool and artsy to go to miserable places or undeveloped countries and shoot people who look ill, ugly, poor, old and miserable.

This stupid trend his so OLD and dated. Move on and shoot something NEW and MODERN!

Go have a look at this site and see the reasons for this kind of photography

http://www.poyi.org/73/R04/index.php

This topic is too hot a potato, but I have my say anyway.

I hate poverty and misery photography.

I hate it when photographers think it is cool and artsy to go to miserable places or undeveloped countries and shoot people who look ill, ugly, poor, old and miserable.

This stupid trend his so OLD and dated. Move on and shoot something NEW and MODERN!

It's because it's easier to shoot down than it is to shoot up. There's less friction in the image making transaction when the power lies with the photographer, through wealth, skin colour, privilege. I'm guilty of this myself, so I try to shoot sideways at least some of the time. These pictures do serve an important purpose once they're in public though - many people simply do not realise what life is like for the majority of people. In the long term lives are improved by the sharing of these images because people will demand change.

In the majority of cases the people who wander around photographing strangers and poor people are not doing it for the education and betterment of mankind they are doing it for the money. Especially in stock. They are too lazy or lacking in imagination to do anything else and they upload as editorial to get around the need for model releases. If they were really doing it for the altruistic reasons stated they would give the shots away for free to raise awareness. But they don't because their real reason is the .25 cents per dl. Everyone makes money off the shots except the subject. All they get is exposed.

Basically, I agree with you; I like your post!

I wouldn't go as far as forbidding street photography but people should use common sense with it. If someone is sick, drunk, poor, injured, mourning, I think it is pretty sick and questionable to go take a photo of them.

I am not so sure, I think we have to take intentions into account, if the intent is to make mockery out of them, then I'd agree...but what about this...

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/iconic-images/famine-in-sudan-by-tom-stoddart-iconic-photograph-19922

This image spurred many into action and probably saved thousands of lives....?

TBH the whole thing is less than straight forward which is why there are so many different opinions.

In the majority of cases the people who wander around photographing strangers and poor people are not doing it for the education and betterment of mankind they are doing it for the money. Especially in stock. They are too lazy or lacking in imagination to do anything else and they upload as editorial to get around the need for model releases. If they were really doing it for the altruistic reasons stated they would give the shots away for free to raise awareness. But they don't because their real reason is the .25 cents per dl. Everyone makes money off the shots except the subject. All they get is exposed.

That's a lazy post:  far too sweeping a condemnation.

Which is more important: showing people what's going on in the real world or making photos of 'perfected' people pretending to do stuff? Which is more ethical, given that in both cases, with stock photography, the togs have little control over how the image is ultimately used (the documentary photo could be used editorially but with biassed captioning and the 'fake' scenario could be used to promote just about anything whether good, useless or harmful (an interesting essay or debating topic, for sure).

I'd argue that it's unethical to do as I've read some micro-shooters say, that they pay the subject (in a remote third-world area) an amount of money to get them to sign/thumbprint a release - even when the people have no way of understanding the language of the release or the ways that their image can be doctored (in many cases, they won't know anything about image editing, or computers, or magazines etc) when used non-editorially.

I don't usually return to threads I've commented on but I did today and have to say I was tickled at the responses to my comment. To be clear, I wasn't referring to photo journalists or to "artists" so much, I was referring directly to what this very site is dedicated to: microstock.

IF you are the sort of person that would take someone's pic without their knowledge or consent, upload it as editorial to conveniently bypass the need for a model release and sell it, again without consent just so you can benefit financially from some person you see on the street then I certainly understand the hostility toward me for calling you out and believe me, it's mutual. I have very very little regard for you. You rank somewhere around the used car salesman or the guy that sells knockoff watches out of the back of a van. Or you know, any * parasite that takes advantage of the unsuspecting for profit.

No judgement though, after all, who else would the paparazzi look down on?

What makes someone a "photojournalist" though