The Ethical/Legal Aspects of Posting Photos of People

[Joe Hardesty]

Hello all,

I am interested in hearing your opinions about the ethical and legal implications of a posting a photograph on the Internet of a person that has not given expressed permission for doing so.

We need to look no further than this forum to find images of people that may or may not know that a photo of them has been launched into cyberspace. And of course, other photo forums and photo sharing sites are full of images for which one could logically assume that permission was not considered.

I personally would never post any image of a person on the Web without their permission, primarily out of respect for their privacy, but perhaps my morals and privacy concerns are out of step with the times.

I'm not suggesting this forum needs to establish rules or guidelines, but simply think it is an interesting topic for discussion.

Joe

 

[Asher Kelman]

Hello all,

I am interested in hearing your opinions about the ethical and legal implications of a posting a photograph on the Internet of a person that has not given expressed permission for doing so.

We need to look no further than this forum to find images of people that may or may not know that a photo of them has been launched into cyberspace. And of course, other photo forums and photo sharing sites are full of images for which one could logically assume that permission was not considered.

I personally would never post any image of a person on the Web without their permission, primarily out of respect for their privacy, but perhaps my morals and privacy concerns are out of step with the times.

I'm not suggesting this forum needs to establish rules or guidelines, but simply think it is an interesting topic for discussion.

Joe

Joe, The "rules" depend on which society you live in. In the USA, one has no right of privacy in public places. Still one cannot use the picture with no principles. Humiliating images are unethical and may end up with a lawsuit. Using the pictures in a context of something really horrid can be libel per quod.

Children one generally asks permission of the parents before or afterwards.

Finally, as you have made clear, the photographer has to have their own values and apply them in an ethical and considerate manner. To use a face to promote a product and the like may require a release of license. For news or art, no issues. M y opinions, anyone who needs guidance get a book on the law for photography in your community.

Now in Europe of other places, this same activity might be illegal. One has to check.

Asher

 

[Joe Hardesty]

Now in Europe of other places, this same activity might be illegal. One has to check.

Asher

But the Internet is International, which in my view complicates the subject.

I also can see a problem with asking permission to takes someone's photo. To me, that does not necessarily imply I am allowed to post that that photo on the web.

Another such complication, which is particularly important in the area where I live, is that some people have religious convictions against being photographed. Does my legal right to photograph that person in public, perhaps only because they are visible from a public road, trump their right not to be photographed? And how does one know that without asking?

Offered in the spirit of friendly debate.

 

[Joe Hardesty]

Let me preface this by stating that I do not have a problem of the photo referenced below, but simply offer it as an example of the ambiguity in the rules.

The "rules" depend on which society you live in. In the USA, one has no right of privacy in public places. Still one cannot use the picture with no principles. Humiliating images are unethical and may end up with a lawsuit. Using the pictures in a context of something really horrid can be libel per quod.

Children one generally asks permission of the parents before or afterwards.

So, what about the photo in this thread?

http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13374

If permission was not sought, is this little girl inside her house in public?

I don't know the answers to these questions, but they do cause me curious concern.

 

[Sandrine Bascouert]

As for myself, this question is posed even when I shoot... Do I have the right to shoot this person without being he/her aware of. I can shoot a "direct to eye" portrait, in the street but what if this person doesn't know? I don't know the answer so I do not shoot...

And even if afterward you tell, if the guy says "OK, but I don't want to be published?"
Now it's easy with the built in screen to show to the person what have been make of his/her person. But before that (with film) you can tell "I made a portrait of you, is that all right?", the person says "yes" and then discover way later that she's ridiculous...

 

[fahim mohammed]

Interesting question.

Here is what I think....

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

I consider this discussion to be a complete waste of time. No consensus can ever be achieved, that is a certainty. In the end we all do what we consider to be acceptable according to our personal values, norms and the laws we respect .

Cheers,

 

[Joe Hardesty]

I consider this discussion to be a complete waste of time. No consensus can ever be achieved, that is a certainty. In the end we all do what we consider to be acceptable according to our personal values, norms and the laws we respect .

Cheers,

I am truly sorry to have wasted your precious time, and since you are a moderator, I assume that is essentially an official edict about this type of discussion.

Thank you. I will not waste any more of your time here at the OPEN photography forum!

Feel free to delete my account.

 

[Sandrine Bascouert]

I think Cem wanted to tell you that everyone will have a personal issue on the subject, and everybody will stick to it. I don't think that nobody have wasted his time replying to your thread, even Cem. He could have ignored it, and he didn't. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the world "moderator" means that he takes some time of his to supervise the global good behaviour of the posters. AKAIK, I never saw him holding a lash. I don't think he has nothing to do with the opinions exposed, I don't think nobody here intend to solve the question of who's right or wrong. Nobody will intervene with an "official" status to tell you the truth. If some day It should happen I'll leave too, BUT IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.


PS: 'scuse my poor English, I'm not local

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

I am truly sorry to have wasted your precious time, and since you are a moderator, I assume that is essentially an official edict about this type of discussion.

Thank you. I will not waste any more of your time here at the OPEN photography forum!

Feel free to delete my account.

Well, you asked a question and I gave you my honest opinion. It is not an official stand of OPF at all. You should be able to cope with others' differing opinions or not ask questions on the net to start with.

Cheers,

 

[fahim mohammed]

I am truly sorry to have wasted your precious time, and since you are a moderator, I assume that is essentially an official edict about this type of discussion.

Thank you. I will not waste any more of your time here at the OPEN photography forum!

Feel free to delete my account.

Hi Joe. Relax.

Cem is a moderator..true. But what he said are his personnel feelings towards your
question.

Disagree with him, but he too has a right to express his opinion. He is not the kind that is impolite at all.

I, too , am a very polite person. Different cultures.

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

I think Cem wanted to tell you that everyone will have a personal issue on the subject, and everybody will stick to it. I don't think that nobody have wasted his time replying to your thread, even Cem. He could have ignored it, and he didn't. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the world "moderator" means that he takes some time of his to supervise the global good behaviour of the posters. AKAIK, I never saw him holding a lash. I don't think he has nothing to do with the opinions exposed, I don't think nobody here intend to solve the question of who's right or wrong. Nobody will intervene with an "official" status to tell you the truth. If some day It should happen I'll leave too, BUT IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.


PS: 'scuse my poor English, I'm not local

Precisely! Merci Sandrine.

Cheers,

 

[Mike Shimwell]

Joe, Cem was speaking personally, as we all do here. Don't worry.

Cem's point was that we will not agre a consensus, even if we tried to. That is similar to the 'What makes a photograph art/documentary' discussions that pop up from time to time. Nothing wrong with them, but they don't tend to conclude.

My personal view is that saying something is legal doesn't mean it's OK or right. There are other things you need to consider. However, I don't think there is a right to privacy in a public space (or viewable from a public space really) as you shouldn't really be doing something you'd be ashamed of in public anyway Plus, I think the notion is vastly overused by people who are precious about things that they need to loosen up about.

Fahim's photos are a wonderful example. I've never felt that he was exploiting people in his pictures - just read the stories and consider the whole - unlike many of the anonymous 'homeless people' who are photographed for flickr.

Best regards

Mike

 

[John Angulat]

Well, I'll guess I'll lend my two-cent's worth, since my image was used as the example...
I don't ask. I shoot people on the street. Period. No flowers, no mountains, no seascapes.
I really don't care if the subjects were offended, pleased or indifferent.
Besides, I'd spend the better part of a lifetime chasing people down with model releases.
Candid street images are just that. Here is the US there's no "right" to privacy in the open world.
True, as Asher points out there are ethical boundaries one should never cross and clearly I could never use my street images for commercial advertising (unless the proper permissions were in place).
And Cem brings up a very valid point - this is a subject that could be debated forever.
Mostly, it's what you're comfortable with.
Many members have commented they could never do what I do - just stick a camera in someone's face with impunity. I respect that. But they're missing all the fun!
A flower, mountain or seascape will never chase you down the street!

 

[Sandrine Bascouert]

A flower, mountain or seascape will never chase you down the street!

I once been chase by a young man for photographing his block of building (and not a close up - more a landscape) that have been burnt long ago and where people were still living in. He kept shooting "You are showing the "monkey" section to the others?". I didn't shoot. I ran.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Let me preface this by stating that I do not have a problem of the photo referenced below, but simply offer it as an example of the ambiguity in the rules.



So, what about the photo in this thread?

http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13374

If permission was not sought, is this little girl inside her house in public?

I don't know the answers to these questions, but they do cause me curious concern.

New Yorkers are renowned for never looking up.
...that's why it is so easy to spot a tourist.
Well, I broke the rule one day and was treated to this sight a few stories up...

Life in New York...from my wanderings
​

The fact that the adults supervising her have by the window put her in a public view and there's no expectation of privacy. If she was not suitably attired, then the picture could be deemed illegal by the police and within a short while, the photographer's computer and HD might be taken as "evidence"

If, however, one used a long lens and high ISO to reach into the depths of the apartment to get that picture, then that would likely be an invasion of privacy!

BTW, the real danger to the child I see is that the glass of the window could give way. That can be a tragedy.

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

I consider this discussion to be a complete waste of time.

The point is not to achieve consensus but to bring up the factors which we should consider. Some may not be aware of what the photographer's rights are and what our responsibilities might cover. So This discussion can have merit if it's looked at that way. I'm always refining my own actions and attitudes.

In the end we all do what we consider to be acceptable according to our personal values, norms and the laws we respect .

Cheers,

Perfect! One has to be especially aware of laws applying to children or underaged folk. Being legally right might not prevent an over-zealous policeman from taking your equipment away pending a judges ruling.

Asher

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

Unfortunately, the superfluous crowd of legal eagles in this world saw fit to engage in this field as well and has made a mockery out of common sense by force feeding legal frameworks onto photographers.

As stated before, it depends on location and governance applied.

As for privacy, google cams drive through the world and photograph your property for everyone to be found on the Internet, nice new tool for professional burglars btw., let aside other even more worrying implications.

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

Another such complication, which is particularly important in the area where I live, is that some people have religious convictions against being photographed.

May I ask, where is that?

 

[Joe Hardesty]

May I ask, where is that?

After receiving some very kind PMs from forum members, I could not resist the urge to come back and see what had happened to this thread.

Georg, since you asked a very legitimate question, the answer is Lancaster Country Pennsylvania, where there is a very high population of Amish and Mennonite people. The Amish are strictly against being photographed. As for the Mennonites, it depends on which of the various sects they belong to.

It all has to do with the biblical wording (paraphrased because there are several interpretations):

"You shall not make for yourselves idols, nor shall you set up for yourselves an image or a sacred pillar..."

I am certainly not qualified to debate the theology involved, but this is how it was explained to me by several different Mennonite friends.

In fact, when confronted by the multitude of tourists during summer, the Amish will attempt to hide their face when someone attempts to take their picture. But no laws are broken because the tourists are on the hiway and the Amish/Mennonites in their yards or farms.

However, as a member of the community, and knowing their desires, I feel an ethical compulsion to honor their wishes. After all, I would certainly feel invaded if a tour bus pulled up in front of my property and throngs of tourists jumped out and started photographing me and my family.

Perhaps that is why I am a little more sensitive to such issues.

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

awww, that makes sense. I used to live for some time in PA, but never went there.

Yeah, I am with you on that one, of course, if someone does not want his picture to be taken, this is a no brainer.

Having said that, there is quite a lot of photography on amish people available.

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

http://www.padutchcountry.com/Presentation/ConsumerPage?PageID=1115

Joe, out of curiosity, I hope it is not too invasive to ask such things. What are their views on paintings? Do they display paintings, and would they be comfortable if a painter sits there with his easel and depicts a scene where amish people are in as well?

 

[Joe Hardesty]

Having said that, there is quite a lot of photography on amish people available.

Yes there is, but some of that is also actors or Amish impersonators. There is quite a job market for such people in the tourist areas.

 

[Joe Hardesty]

http://www.padutchcountry.com/Presentation/ConsumerPage?PageID=1115

Joe, out of curiosity, I hope it is not too invasive to ask such things. What are their views on paintings? Do they display paintings, and would they be comfortable if a painter sits there with his easel and depicts a scene where amish people are in as well?

Of course, it always best to ask the individual, but if you were painting a scene it would probably be more appropriate than if you wanted to paint a portrait.

Interestingly, the Amish have different rules for business vs. personal life. So they may be more likely to be photographed/painted in a work setting than in a personal setting. But it is hard to say for sure.

In a larger sense, I think they are somewhat tired as being viewed as an oddity or something so strange that it needs to be photographed. They are just trying to lead a quiet non-modern life and yet are pursued by tourists who treat them as if they were strange exotic zoo animals.

I really don't know much more than that and feel a little uncomfortable speaking on behalf of another group of people, but that is best I can glean from living here and attempting to understand my neighbors. I also hesitate to make it sound like they are different from you and I. They are not. They just have a different lifestyle and different religious beliefs.

By the way, we lived here for almost 10 years before getting the sense that we were being accepted.

Hope that helps.

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

Yes there is, but some of that is also actors or Amish impersonators. There is quite a job market for such people in the tourist areas.

LOL that is just crazy! Hehehe

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

I also hesitate to make it sound like they are different from you and I. They are not. They just have a different lifestyle and different religious beliefs.

Yep! Thanks Joe.

 

[Joe Hardesty]

Hello everyone,

I feel like I should apologize for the take-my-ball-and-go-home attitude I exhibited earlier in this thread.

After putting a lot of thought and emotion into trying to develop a serious topic, I let my damaged ego overrule my head.

I really am very sorry to have diverted the discussion.

Joe

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Hi Joe,

Hello everyone,

I feel like I should apologize for the take-my-ball-and-go-home attitude I exhibited earlier in this thread.

After putting a lot of thought and emotion into trying to develop a serious topic, I let my damaged ego overrule my head.

I really am very sorry to have diverted the discussion.

Joe

Firstly, there is no need to apologize as you have done absolutely nothing wrong. But since you did, I should also apologize for being a bit too direct with my personal opinion on this. I gave you the wrong impression that I was trying to reprimand you for starting this thread (in an official capacity). As our regulars who know my personal style a bit better also explained, it wasn't my intention at all. I hope we can now leave this unfortunate chapter behind us.

Cheers,

 

[Sandrine Bascouert]

You're welcome (for me at least )

what I wanted to ask as well is "do you have any photos of you displayed all over the web... Do you like to be photographed (apart for family and mementos of course).

Me not, that's why I so concerned about this subject... I would be very upset If I were to see my own face displayed somewhere (even taken in the public space). and If I haven't been asked I suppose I would be more than upset...

 

[Jerome Marot]

Maybe I can add some comments on the legal aspects. I will refer to the French legal framework, which is one of the strictest in the world. However, and quite interestingly, the jurisprudence is not that much different in its principles around the world, even in countries which would appear at first glance to be more liberal.

The essential difference to be made lies between taking pictures and publishing them. Those are different actions, bearing different legal consequences.

Taking pictures: basically, one can take pictures of anything of anyone all over the planet as long as it can be seen from public ground (except matters of "national security", whatever that means in the country concerned). Yes: even in France. When on private grounds, you do as the owner says.

Publishing: that is the tricky part. Basically, one cannot do arm to people by publishing their image. Yes: even in the US. You will notice that this is very tricky, since you cannot know if a particular image will cause arm.

All the rest is case-by-case analysis. The model will try to demonstrate that arm was caused ("arm" can be as mundane as loss of revenues). The photographer will try to demonstrate that the model agreed to the picture.

Basically, as a photographer, if you can prove that:
-the person is not the subject of the photograph so that it was not really possible to take pictures without some person being in it ("landscape photography") or
-the person being photographed new about the picture and the publication is not derogatory and:
-not for profit or
-necessary to inform the public ("press photography")
you stand fair chances to win in court if the model decides to sue you. Please note the nested alternatives and conditions, I said it is tricky. Please also note that anyone recognizing themselves in a picture may sue the photographer, even if they only have a very slim chance to win.

I am only talking about photographs of people here. The law has other aspects on photographs of private properties or copyrighted materials. The latter is particularly annoying to photographers since everything manufactured in the past 100 years bears some form of copyright.

As far as the law is concerned, if you want to be 100% safe, you can take macrophotographs of wild flowers in your garden. That's about it...