Taking pictures of people outside on the streets, ethics version

There’s actually laws on this. Someone on another thread posted this link, which I found very interesting:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements

Hank, I agree that legally (at least in most of the US), there is no expectation of privacy walking on public streets. As long as you are not publishing or selling the photos, I don't see anything wrong with it.

I occasionally get other people in my photos. When I was in Turkey I took a lot of photos of locals but in that case, they were sort of showcased, so I always asked their permission before taking them. But typically for just shots of people on the street I would not do that.

Carrie really helpful thanks, and very interesting. Spain and Switzerland are a no. Rest of Western Europe okay from a legal standpoint.

I've never taken a picture of a person on the street in Switzerland, but have some pretty cool ones from Spain that are maybe 30 years old. Once again proven an international scoff law in ancient retrospect :-)

Carrie, interesting but I draw the line at using Wikipedia for legal issues. Show me the exact statute for each country and I might be convinced.

And I can see the Swiss, not the most laid-back group when it comes to public behavior. But the Spanish? I wonder what the social / political / historical context is that informs the Spanish seeing this topic so differently than the rest of Europe? Some hangover of fascism / anti-fascism?

@Mardee

For Germany this Wikipedia page is correct.

I think there's a pretty good chance most of us are in the background of YouTube videos. I kept trying to dodge this one vlogger in Amsterdam walking in front of me filming himself talking all the way from exiting the train, through the station, and up the Damrak.

May I say I appreciate you caring to even ask the question?
I am one of those contrary types and wonder if the wiki document that refers to 'a person' is different to a crowd scene where some are recognizable and others are not? I think there is intention to target an individual in the first reference and not so much in the second. I also hate having photos taken, particularly by strangers so I do a lot of turning away if I see people taking photos. I am not a fan...(and don't get me started on drones).
If photography means that much, do you have software to blur out the faces, or cut them out entirely? I would think that takes care of the problem....but may mean a less that stellar photo.
totally as an aside but perhaps food for thought, on one of my traveler FB groups, a woman paints street scenes with women going about their day - and it is always of their back.

My outdoor photography is focused on architectural subjects, so I try hard to keep people out of my pictures and usually succeed. The bigger challenge is not impeding the flow of traffic on the sidewalk or having people stop and wait for me to take my picture, which I don't expect them to do. I do try to stay out of the field of view of cameras and cellphones others are taking pictures with, but if I end up in someone's picture, I don't mind.

I have run into some officious doormen (most recently in southern Italy, no less) who had a problem with my taking a picture of the exterior of the residential building they were "guarding". It's not worth an international incident, so I just move along, but I don't think the fact that a building is "private property" (as one of the doormen said) means there's something wrong with standing on the sidewalk and taking a picture of the facade; it's not like I'm shooting photos of the interior through an uncovered window. If people don't want pictures taken of the exterior of their residence, they shouldn't choose to live is such a pretty building! No actual building resident has ever raised an issue. If they look quizzical, I point out the beautiful door or gate I'm interested in, and they smile. I had an interesting conversation with a resident of Helsinki who agreed that the Art Nouveau gate to his building's parking entrance was lovely but bemoaned how difficult it was to actually get through it in a car.

I kept trying to dodge this one vlogger in Amsterdam walking in front of me filming himself talking all the way from exiting the train, through the station, and up the Damrak.

roubrat, that made me laugh so hard!

mignon, good to know!

Maria, I think you're probably correct (that's why I like to actually look at the statute or piece of legislation). I also think that legislation targeting photos of crowds (and even individuals) is largely unenforceable unless the photographer publishes those photos. Otherwise, what if a tourist accidentally takes a photo of someone standing next to his family? According to some random law, he could possibly be criminally or civilly liable. But what happens if he deletes the photo right away? Is he still liable? There are so many issues that come up with this that it boggles the mind.

And I can see the Swiss, not the most laid-back group when it comes to public behavior. But the Spanish? I wonder what the social / political / historical context is that informs the Spanish seeing this topic so differently than the rest of Europe? Some hangover of fascism / anti-fascism?

During the Franco regime, the government maintained widespread surveillance on its citizens. In modern day Spain, this history has led to a desire for privacy, even in public spaces, and protection of personal data of individuals, including their image. That said, I believe there are exceptions where obtaining consent may not be necessary, like if the individual is a public figure or attending a public event, if individuals are not the main focus of the image, or if the image is not intended for distribution or commercial purposes.

That said, I believe there are exceptions where obtaining consent may not be necessary, like if the individual is a public figure or attending a public event, if the individuals are not the main focus of the image, or if the image is not intended for distribution or commercial purposes.

Carlos, that makes a lot of sense.

I don't know what the actual legal situation is in the UK. But what I can say is that on Monday I went to a Community lunch in a local Church Hall, and everyone attending had to give specific permission (or not) as to whether they agreed to being photographed there.
It had not even crossed my mind that there would be photography happening there.

I, personally, would expect privacy in a public setting if photographing me from the front. I really do appreciate it may be difficult if you are somewhere like, say the Tower of London, and it could be accidental, which is fine, and that you may wish to have people in for perspective. Please believe me on that.
I will go to great lengths myself to avoid getting people in shot, even if that means waiting, or even returning later. I remember once, recently, at Victoria Station, London having to go back at before 6am, it having been too crowded, even after midnight the previous night, to get the photos I needed.
It is hard to be proscriptive, and I really really don't want to fall out with Hank. I am an introvert and I have specific reasons why I wish to retain my privacy. But, and I find this very hard to do in real life, there have been circumstances where I have felt it is being down gratuitously and a friendly request/warning has not been listened to- leading to a personal confrontation, which I always wish could have been avoided.
The thing is I don't know how you are going to use the images, I don't know whether or not you use social media.

I draw the line at using Wikipedia for legal issues. Show me the exact
statute for each country and I might be convinced.

Wikipedia does a good job of citing its sources. Check out the footnotes if you are interested in reading the actual laws.

During the Franco regime, the government maintained widespread
surveillance on its citizens. In modern day Spain, this history has
led to a desire for privacy, even in public spaces, and protection of
personal data of individuals, including their image. That said, I
believe there are exceptions where obtaining consent may not be
necessary, like if the individual is a public figure or attending a
public event, if individuals are not the main focus of the image, or
if the image is not intended for distribution or commercial purposes.

Carlos thanks very much for the context, mush appreciated.

Even where it is legal (e.g., the U.S.), one needs to be mindful of the beliefs and customs of certain groups of people. For instance, it would be wrong to try to photograph the Gullah people in South Carolina.

This discussion reminds me of when I was photographing a really interesting building in Lisbon, no people whatsoever visible in the frame, when a man came running out screaming ‘Não!’ and throwing garbage at me. I'm guessing that he thought I could see him through the window, and apparently had a deep-seated conviction that he shouldn’t be photographed.

No problem. In practical terms if you are a tourist taking photos in touristy areas of Spain I don't think anyone will trouble you. However people have the right to ask you not to photograph them in the streets.

What about when I am at a site and want to take photos of an important scene like a building or even scenic view and others are "in the way?" It is either you get a photo with some people in it, or you can't take a photo. I take the photo.

So, this is something I have wondered about (mental detour) as I research places to go.

Personally I am like acraven - I don’t want random people in my pictures and am happy to wait till they are not there and then shoot quickly. Sometimes that requires patience. Occasionally I travel with someone who doesn’t care - and they have a stranger’s face right in the photo clearly. They don’t think it distracts from their photo, nor do they bother to think about it - but it actually drives me nuts.

In researching, I use the photos on Google Maps often to help me visualize a place. Sometimes those are beaches and people just post photos of random people (on the beach, not posing for a photo) in their bathing suits, often recognizable, which just makes me wonder…..

What about when I am at a site and want to take photos of an important scene like a building or even scenic view and others are "in the way?"

Taking and publishing photos of a landscape or building where the person is an insignificant or coincidental element is ok in Germany for example.

Interesting conversation, Hank!

If I would like to take a photograph highlighting one person, specifically, I will ask their permission before taking it. A man dressed for a medieval festival in Lucca holding a little terrier immediately comes to mind. He smiled after I asked, posed, and it’s a darling photo.

Even a guide on a recent whale watching tour in Hawaii responded when I asked that she appreciated that I asked, first, before assuming it was okay.

This opinion is in a gray fuzzy zone of ethics. (I also have the flu today, so my brain decision-making is feeling foggy!). Regardless of country, if someone has a camera out and is preparing to take a photo, people can have the chance to turn their head away or move away from the picture. But, if the method is purposely “covert”, it feels less ethical.

I have occasionally actually taken photos with my arms high in the air to try and shoot above the immediate congestion of people to try and reduce recognition. It helps to have some height and long arms but may look dorky and more obvious. Otherwise, I do wait for a lull in the crowd, or try and crop people out once home. I generally don't travel high season and often like close up details of architecture over wide angle, but I realize from my India photos efforts didn't always pay off. Our poor guide is resigned to being in many photos.

I was going to link a few of my candid street photos for reference, but it's interesting that publication, which ostensibly publicly opening an online album would be is, in many places, If not a hard no, quite the gray area.

And then what's more certain is that commercial publication without permission is generally a no-no in most places.

I'm curious if a person has to be positively identifiable in most of these cases for the publication to be illegal? Reviewing my photos that have people as subjects, More than half of them you can't see the person's face.

Maybe have a look at the eminent British street photographer Martin Parr's seaside series The Last Resort. I really admire Parr's work, the choice to move to supersaturated color slide film particularly. I can't imagine that all of these people signed off. And the photos certainly have value as art and documentation. Parr himself declares that he loves the British people, and thinks that they are under appreciated as public aesthetics.

Maybe though the mom of the children with the ice cream all over them would be embarrassed? It's such a famous photo. And I like the one of the older couple in the restaurant. It was the early '80s but you can just see the phone in her hands nowadays.

If I'm not identifiable then I'm not fussed. It's way beyond my ability, but presumably you can photo shop, fuzz faces or something.
What makes me nervous is you first said these were for friends.
Now you are talking about having an online photo album. That's a change which doesn't instill trust.
I'll be honest- reading this has just made me work out how to do a google photo album- that's how good (not) my competence is.

What makes me nervous is you first said these were for friends. Now
you are talking about having an online photo album. That's a change
which doesn't instill trust. I'll be honest- reading this has just
made me work out how to do a google photo album- that's how good (not)
my competence is.

No need to worry, I'm not going to put anything online against the laws of countries that I don't live in. That's why I didn't do that. I'm also not escalating to selling some sort of pirate coffee table book.

I don't agree with you though that having one's likeness in a frozen moment of time out in public existing somewhere online is worrisome. And I don't think the legal or ethical lowest common denominator ought to be making the people who feel the least comfortable about something comfortable.

But what I can say is that on Monday I went to a Community lunch in a local Church Hall, and everyone attending had to give specific permission (or not) as to whether they agreed to being photographed there. It had not even crossed my mind that there would be photography happening there.

That's probably for liability reasons - it's possible the photos will be used for marketing or event publicity. I volunteer with a non-profit here in town that offers education and classes for senior citizens, and everyone that takes a class or attends an event is asked to sign a waiver saying that they agree to being photographed and that said photos could be used for marketing. Anyone that does not sign does not have their photo taken.

RS is very good about his still frames. But in the videos, there is no way he got permissions from everyone.

Hungary has a rather unworkable law requiring permission of everyone, everywhere, every time. Can't imagine it being enforced.

its a very good question because, how far away, is far enough, from any sort of facial recognition.

RS is very good about his still frames. But in the videos, there is no
way he got permissions from everyone.

Probably? If you go to the RS homepage, explore Europe, Netherlands, photos, and then browse a bit, you'll see people who are clearly the subjects of photos that appear to be candid. Lots of same all over RS.com and in the books.

It's technically illegal to use images of individuals for commercial use without permission in the Netherlands. Probably licensed stock photos from Getty or the like?

For instance from RS website:

https://d3dqioy2sca31t.cloudfront.net/Projects/cms/production/000/031/021/large/9767fe7d9609679f2a5438775e8521bc/article-netherlands-amsterdam-boat-girl.jpg

In Germany I witnessed this sort of thing one time, stuck around to hear all of the negative reaction that this photo shooting generated. This was in 2009 in Weimar, my first time there.

A woman , German, came by the Imbiss stand in the Goetheplatz. I was standing there too along with others, all locals or German tourists, no foreign tourists. The Imbiss guy must have suspected that this woman was intent on taking a picture of his cooking the Würste as he looked up once in a while with a negative suspicious look.

She did exactly as he had guessed : she took that picture of him. Immediately he started yelling at her in German. I stuck around to witness all this, to hear how both parties would respond to each other. No doubt, the Imbiss guy was pretty annoyed, plainly obvious. He chastised her, saying among other things that she had not even asked first. (Einwilligung) (That was true, she didn't) The woman, taken aback, shot back at him in German....getting interesting. I was wondering if any others would intervene in this scene.

The Imbiss guy calmed down basically after telling off the woman in no uncertain terms....she got yelled at.

Traveling in Germany I'm glad that I never did something as blatant as she did, ie, shooting a point blank photo of a person in public and then doing it without even asking permission. I have my own philosophy on that matter.

My travel photography is generally focused on scenery, buildings or historic sights. I typically try to minimize or eliminate people from the shots, but sometimes that's not even possible even with "creative shooting angles". In some photos, it adds to the composition to have some people in view. I just checked a couple of my galleries and in many cases the people were moving so were blurred, and in other cases the photo was taken from behind or at an angle, so the people weren't easily identifiable.

I don't know if anyone has taken photos of me, but I'm not overly concerned about that. I always assume that there's no expectation of privacy in public places.

One of the camera app's on my phone has a "Monuments Mode" which eliminates moving subjects from photos, so that's one option I can use in countries which don't allow photos of people. I haven't tried it yet but I'm sure it works reasonably well.

I was very shocked by the naked toddler bottom I found in one of my travel photos from my trip to Norway. I was taking a photo of a fountain in a park and failed to notice the child taking a wee with his trousers around his ankles that was off to the side of my main subject. I have now cropped the photo to remove the toddler.

I've been taking pictures with people in the background for decades. I guess it's only a matter of time before the dark suits come to my door and arrest me. Men in black. To me taking pictures of objects with no people around is often sterile, especially if it's a touristy site.

I couldn't care less if I'm in someone else's pictures. What's to be concerned about?

I have experience in this. We are in the Netherlands. Three days ago we were in Haarlem. There is a carnival in the Grote Markt Square. We were sitting on a bench enjoying some fried fish when a woman stood a few feet in front of us and took our picture. No asking for permission, no words at all. She just nodded at us . I said the fish was good and she moved on. Was the picture for a promotion? For her personal photo album? For a contest? I guess we’ll never know.

Apropos the mention of Martin Parr, above, the BBC radio programme
This Cultural Life had an episode with him last week (it may have been
a repeat), and he was asked about getting permission. He said he
mostly didn't (even in countries where strictly he should), but did
note that one thing that has changed since The Last Resort
photographed in New Brighton in the 1980s was that these days took
more care to avoid photographing random children (especially at the
beach as he did back in the 80s). He also mentioned that he'd met some
of the people since at exhibitions and the nearest thing to criticism
he'd received was from a woman photographed who wanted to make clear
that the ice cream covered child in the same image wasn't hers! The
programme might be available on-line.

Nick thanks very much, this is so very interesting. I'm going to track down the podcast if I can. Again, fantastic thank you and cheers

EDIT: listened, superb! Death By Selfie is a fun concept, very true to the artist

I don't care if I'm in some one else's photo for any reason: But my wife does.

She had gone first, up some stone stairs in France, and some guy started taking photos of her, walking up the stairs. Nothing revealing or odd. But he was insistent to take these pics.

He had really good equipment and was in full on, "Get the picture of the scene," mode.

This did piss me off. And I told to him, that you can't have a face of my wife doing this. And we reviewed his pics in camera: No Face. So it was Okay. There was no identity to the photos. And nothing looked stupid. We didn't sign a release.

I half expect, that this photo will appear somewhere on the internet in someway, or in a travel guide. And that's okay. It might even be a thrill when, and if, we find it. We will be the only people, that know where and when it was taken. :)