Is It Rude To Take Pictures Of Strangers?

In My Humble Opinion
81

[QUOTE=Lush Puppy]
Well, this whole business isn’t really about the law, is it? The question is if it is rude or not. I could subject you all to my horribly loud and out of tune singing on the subway but I don’t because I don’t want to:

[ul]
[li]annoy you[/li][li]encroach on any of your liberties[/li][li]make you a captive audience member[/li][/ul]
[/QUOTE]
But how do those apply in this case?

The only one that’s really germane, it seems to me, is the first one. Sure, being photographed might annoy some people, but i’m not going to stop taking photos in public places just because some of the people who end up in the shots might not want to be in them.

It might surprise you to know this, but there are plenty of times when it might appear as though a camera is being pointed at you, but you are not even in the shot. This is especially true with longer lenses. On other occasions, you might be in the shot, but a very small and insignificant part of it. If i stand in the middle of Union Square in New York and take a picture with a 28mm lens, there could be dozens, even hundreds of people in the shot, but the picture might not actually be of any of those people. Many people take pictures of crowds just to give an impression of the crowded space itself; many others take pictures of interesting places that just happen to have people in them. If you can arrange to remove all the people from the walkways of the Brooklyn Bridge so i can take a picture of the bridge alone, i’d be very happy for the opportunity, but until then the people who end up in my shot will just have to live with it.

Perhaps you could inform me, also, precisely what liberties of yours i am encroaching on when i operate my own property (my camera) in a public space.

And precisely what makes you a captive in this scenario? If you think you are being framed for a photograph, and don’t want to be in it, just move away or turn away. Unless you’re some notorious celebrity, and the photographer is a member of the paparazzi, it’s highly unlikely they would follow you. I know i wouldn’t stalk someone who was walking away from me.

82

Most people don’t even know their picture is being taken. Just think of all those images out there. Everyone is probably in someone’s photo album, unbeknownst to them.

I think (mostly) anonymous shots of human subjects makes for great art. And I believe that interacting in public spaces amounts to tacit agreement that someone may want to capture a moment in that space and you might be a part of it.

83

[QUOTE=Lush Puppy]
Well, this whole business isn’t really about the law, is it?
[/QUOTE]

I think it’s a valid offshoot of the main question.

As to your question, Kalhoun, I really don’t know. I’m not a lawyer, but the general advice given to photographers is when in doubt, get a model release. Unless you know your photograph will only be used in an editorial setting, model release whatever you can. I don’t think you’d be in trouble for displaying candids in an art gallery but, then again, I’m not a lawyer.

And even if you’re right, it doesn’t mean you might not get sued anyway. Less chance of that happening if you have a release.

Like I said, I don’t think you’ll get in trouble in an art gallery, but I have to give you the 100% safe answer to be sure, unless some lawyers can chime in who deal in this.

84

mhendo, as a trained photographer, I lean towards respecting the privacy and personal space of others. And no, it doesn’t surprise me to learn that just because a lens is pointed in my general direction, does not mean I am in the shot. And vice versa, it doesn’t surprise me to learn that even when the lens isn’t pointed at me, I can be in the shot.

Being camera shy myself, I err on the side of safety – my own personal safety, that is ;). There are all kinds of nutjobs out there after all. And let me again stress that I do not mean taking landscape shots that people happen to be in. In my earlier post, I was talking about shooting a person with them as the subject.

And once you’ve got the shot, you’ve essentially captured them on film (or bits, if you are digital).

It might surprise a great many to know that filming up a woman’s skirt is legal. It doesn’t make it right.

  • If I really want to get that shot of the Brookly Bridge sans people, I use a neutral density-400 filter.
85

[QUOTE=mhendo]
But how do those apply in this case?

The only one that’s really germane, it seems to me, is the first one. Sure, being photographed might annoy some people, but i’m not going to stop taking photos in public places just because some of the people who end up in the shots might not want to be in them.
[/QUOTE]

Then it seems that your answer to the OP is that you know there are people who will consider it rude, but that you don’t care because your photograph is more important. Is that more or less correct?

86

[QUOTE=Antinor01]
Then it seems that your answer to the OP is that you know there are people who will consider it rude, but that you don’t care because your photograph is more important. Is that more or less correct?
[/QUOTE]
Yes and no. The “yes” part of the answer comes at the end.

It’s not that i don’t care. It’s that it should not be my responsibility to ask every single person who might appear in my pictures whether or not they consider it rude, when they are in a public place and i am in a public place. Smokers don’t ask me for permission to light up when they share public space with me; cellphone users don’t stop using their phones in public just because i find the phones annoying; proselytizers of various sorts don’t ask my permission before they shove religious tracts or advertising fliers in my face. I accept that being in public means that i can’t control everything that goes on around me, even things that i might not like very much.

As for my own photography, i’m a rank amateur, and the vast majority of my outdoor shots containing people are not of particular people, but are of public spaces that happen to have people in them. If i’m lining up a shot, there’s a pretty good chance that any people in that shot are part of the crowd, rather than the main focus of the shot. If those people consider me pointing a camera in their general direction rude, that’s their fucking problem.

And here’s the “yes” part of the answer. When i get some money together and finally get myself a digital SLR with a long lens, i might start taking more candid shots of people in public, focused specifically on the people. And, if the shot i’m trying to get is one in which the person is oblivious to the camera, and is doing something interesting that i want to photograph, then i will take the picture without asking, and without caring very much whether the person in question would find it rude.

If the person became aware of me, and made clear that they would prefer not to have their picture taken, i would not take their picture, partly because the shot would probably no longer be available once they were aware of me anyway, and partly because i have no desire to make people uncomfortable.

But just because some people object in principle to having their photo taken, and expect complete strangers who don’t know of their objections to nonetheless respect them, does not mean i will do that. The default assumption should be that you can take a picture of a person in a public place, not that you can’t.

87

to MHendo regarding post #86…

I agree with the first part of what you said. As I noted earlier, happening to catch me in a picture that you’re taking of something else I don’t mind. It’s an accident and accidents happen.

I do take issue with the latter part of your statement. I won’t reiterate my prior statements but I find the attitude that it’s their problem that you chose to photograph them to be very distasteful. I strongly disagree with your last statement, the default should never be that it’s ok to take someones photo without their consent. It may currently be ok legally, but I would hope that most people would show a little more consideration.