Bad Street Shooters

[Andrew1]

Making it bad for the rest of us.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/20.../20271596.html

[rpcrowe]

Legality and good taste are two entirely different subjects.

In the USA, it is legal to shoot an image of anyone in the public venue who does not have the expectation of privacy, even if the shot is not in good taste. This would include bikini shots on the beach and gals bending over while wearing short skirts.

This definitely rules out paparazzi shots like those of the Dutchess of Kent behind a wall. She should have had the "expectation of privacy" in that case.

However, there are some photos which are legal but which I will not use. I remember one I shot at a Highland Games which showed a marcher in kilts with his underdraws showing. Although legal, I don't think that he would want a photo like this shown. If he had been wearing gym shorts or some other begnign covering beneath his kilts, I would not have any problems with this and would probably have titled the image "What does a Scotsman wear beneath his kilts?"

Along the same line, I don't shoot images of the homeless beause, despite the fact that many are very interesting looking, I don't like to take advantage of their situation.

OTOH, I don't feel it is necessary to ask for permission to shoot people in a public venue and asking for permission will often change the subjects demeanor - even if permission is given.

[Mark von Kanel]

dont really know what to say about this, as somebody who enjoys documentary photography, i obviously would not take or publish such images because they are pure voyeurism. but what do we do? do we ban public photography? do we have an ombudsman that decides if an image is in good taste? im at a loss....i dont see any way out of this apart from to rely on the good taste of photogs not to publish images that are in bad taste..... (of course media photogs are exempt by their right to earn huge amounts of cash)

[almanzam]

What ever happened to courtesy and a bit of politeness from a stranger?

"Madam, I have just taken this photograph of you, because [legit non-creeper reason here]. If you don't mind, I'd like to use it with your consent."

Proceed to either give a model release or delete the photo if the said person does not agree.

[davidedric]

This situation in the UK is a confusing mess, especially with regards to children. Basically, you can't risk doing it in public without being certain of the child's "status", which is impractical.

Photographing children in public places is, for most children, exactly the same as photographing adults under the same circumstances. That is, there is no right to privacy and hence it is legal.

The exception is children (and vulnerable adults) who are wards of court or subject to a child protection order, or on the 'at risk' register. The Children Act 1989 creates special rights of privacy ('the rights of the child') which make it an offence to publish any photo that might place them at risk from, say, an estranged violent parent by divulging their location. A photograph of a child in a public place wearing school uniform, or accompanied by others whose whereabouts are known to the would-be assailant, might conceivably do this.

The Children Act is also the cause of problems at sports clubs and similar venues, as the supervising adult has a legal duty to safeguard these enhanced rights to privacy. And since part of that right is confidentiality about the child's status, usually they will not know themselves which children in their charge the Act applies to. Their safest course of action then becomes one of challenging any photographer as an imminent threat.

But by far the biggest issue surrounding photographs of minors is public fear of paedophiles. There seems to be a widespread assumption that the only possible explanation for any adult photographing children who are not their own is that they are a pervert with a camera. Proceed with extreme care and sensitivity, and if at all possible ask permission.

[Shadowman]

dont really know what to say about this, as somebody who enjoys documentary photography, i obviously would not take or publish such images because they are pure voyeurism. but what do we do? do we ban public photography? do we have an ombudsman that decides if an image is in good taste? im at a loss....i dont see any way out of this apart from to rely on the good taste of photogs not to publish images that are in bad taste..... (of course media photogs are exempt by their right to earn huge amounts of cash)

Based on the authorities response, it wasn't the public photography that warranted their response (the anger about his style of photography came from others who viewed his website) it was the offensive comments he applied to the images. However, certain types of intentional voyeuristic photography (upskirt, downblouse, lurking around public schoolyards) can be considered illegal in various countries.

[Dulaigh]

[QUOTE This definitely rules out paparazzi shots like those of the Dutchess of Kent behind a wall. She should have had the "expectation of privacy" in that case.
.[/QUOTE]

May I point out Kent is not in the Netherlands whatever the contents of photo implied.