Ethics of Photographing Strangers

[60D]

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?

[Dook]

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.

[fotografer]

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

[60D]

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.

[Difydave]

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.

[Lizard]

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.     

[Difydave]

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.

[Copidosoma]

I typically don't photograph people in public. Unless at a public demonstration, major event etc.

It is mostly because I personally don't like it when people put a camera in my face. Do unto others...

I wouldn't have a problem with it if I went out of my way and actually asked the person if I could take a photo of them. But I don't.

To each their own. However, it does reflect on photographers in general. I occasionally see people trying to grab street photos of people who very obviously don't want their photos taken. Pursuing that image makes you a bit of a jerk. Makes people look at me more negatively too if I happen to be walking around with my camera.

[PixelBytes]

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.

[fotoVoyager]

I hope none of you naysayers meet this guy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkIWW6vwrvM

Seriously, if photographers are questioning the appropriateness of street shooting then we're in bigger trouble than I thought.

If I had to make a unquantified guess as to why this is, I would say you are reacting the general loss of privacy and the feeling of powerlessness to do anything to change it.

[everest]

 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....... 

[dpimborough]

It's perfectly ethical otherwise we would not have documentary images of society.

Some of the first images taken were of street scenes.

Did Henri Cartier Bresson consider his work unethical? Or Dorothea Lange? Robert Cappa? No.

We are in a free society (rapidly not becoming so) and to be honest when you consider some images capture daily life and in a hundred years these will be part of the historical record no matter what the original intention of capturing that image was.

[dpimborough]

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.

[Dook]

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.

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.

[dpimborough]

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! 

[fotomine]

I don't think there's anything wrong with documenting the good, the bad and the ugly.  In North America, the 1st nation folks showed "pictures" via vivid story telling and this helped them pass their thoughts to the generations.  In modern history, many examples have shown us that without photos, verifiable proof would not exist of past atrocities.  Real life is about everything, not just white shirts and happy people.

Just my opinion.

[Leo]

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.

[etudiante_rapide]

i would say if you step in that person's shoes and it's ok with you that your picture is taken ... then ok.
but if you were that man rolling drunk on the grass or that boy puking is something you won't want it to be your son or son in law, then it's not ok.
a long time ago, even when it's ok for papers to publish anything they want of politicians and celebrities, many of us still put that "other shoes" moral attitude question first before we publish it.
iow, no one wants their wife, mother, sister, grand-parent,etc... to be the one you publish
as that poor unfortunate sod eating off a paper bag found in a garbage ,etc

is it trendy for such images to be cool and acceptable? well, from days of yore where the most atrocious is consider cool... to these days of miley cyrus, beiber, ...my undies are so cool you want to look and wank...   there is really nothing in photojournalism that would have me call that the
new W. Eugene or Henri ..or even the technological age Brady.

iow, sh*t sells...

[cascoly]

....
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

[60D]

"I would often find myself, at the age of 21, at midnight, running down a dark street on my own with 10 men chasing me. And the fact they had cameras in their hands made that legal."
http://www.bbc.com/news/in-pictures-16282985

[skyfish]

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.

[Hobostocker]

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

[mojaric]

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