What are the rules...legal, moral, ethical, etc.

Mike Prec · Jan 22, 2002

I took the referenced picture last summer in downtown Detroit, Mi. Actually this is a very tightly cropped portion of a picture taken with a Kodak 4800 at 84mm. It was taken in a public area (Grand Circus Park) around noon with hundreds of people around.

Warning: You may not find this picture pleasent to look at. I make no statements or assumptions about this man.

http://www.pbase.com/image/1006514

What are the rules? Is this picture legal? I obviously did not ask permission to take this picture or to post on pbase. Do you think it was ethical for me to take this picture and/or post it publically? Do I need this man's permission?

I believe it to be legal as long as I do not use in an advertisement or make any kind of misrepentation about this man. I did feel uncomfortable taking the picture and am not sure this kind of picture should be made public.

I do not wish to put down Detroit. I often travel to Toronto and see much more of this there even though Toronto is a beautiful city.

Photography is more than just sunsets and interesting macros, etc. Do you think people want to see more of this?

Mike

Larry Mendenhall · Jan 22, 2002

Mike Prec said:
I took the referenced picture last summer in downtown Detroit, Mi.
Actually this is a very tightly cropped portion of a picture taken
with a Kodak 4800 at 84mm. It was taken in a public area (Grand
Circus Park) around noon with hundreds of people around.

the key to your question is public area.

Mike Prec said:
What are the rules? Is this picture legal?

Yes. Constitutionally, this man has no reasonable expectation of privacy as long as YOU were in a place where the public had right of way; which it sounds as if you did. The reasonable expectation is the key phrase. If I do something in a public place, I do not have reasonable expectation of privacy.

Mike Prec said:
I obviously did not ask
permission to take this picture or to post on pbase. Do you think
it was ethical for me to take this picture and/or post it
publically? Do I need this man's permission?

Are you sleeping at night? If yes, then you didn't need his permission. Do you feel like a heel? If yes, then you needed his permission. Should you feel like a heel? Not in my humble opinion. Did he even know you took his picture?

Mike Prec said:
I believe it to be legal as long as I do not use in an
advertisement or make any kind of misrepentation about this man. I
did feel uncomfortable taking the picture and am not sure this kind
of picture should be made public.

hmmmmm, not sure about that from a strictly legal standpoint when you're talking about advertising. You could, however, sell it or use it for strictly editorial purposes and not have legal concerns.

Mike Prec said:
Photography is more than just sunsets and interesting macros, etc.
Do you think people want to see more of this?

An entirely different question. I'm not very interested in seeing photos like the one you have posted. As posted, this photograph seems to be saying look at this poor man. If you could have told a story or made a point about why the man is in the situation he is in or even introduce a contrasting element (say like someone in business atire sitting next to him and ignoring him) then it would be making a stronger statement and be a more interesting photo.

--Larrym

Will Perlis · Jan 22, 2002

Mike Prec wrote:
... I did feel uncomfortable taking the picture and am not sure this kind
of picture should be made public.

Mike,

If you feel uncomfortable doing it then don't do it. It's not as if taking and showing pictures of street people is going to get them housing, or work, or off drugs or on their meds. It's not going to affect them at all.

However, it might make some suburban moron commuting to work in an SUV while chatting on his cellphone and drinking from his Starbucks cup uncomfortable for a moment and that's worth something.

Personally, I go for urban ironic. Here's a highly cropped D-30 shot from across the street.

Mike Prec · Jan 23, 2002

Will Perlis said:
Mike Prec wrote:
... I did feel uncomfortable taking the picture and am not sure
this kind
of picture should be made public.

Mike,

Will:

Nice shot. I think your picture has more of a message.

Mike

DarrenH · Jan 23, 2002

I don't take pictures of homeless people.

My personal moral codebook says that profiting (either artistically or monetarily) from someone's suffering is beneath contempt. I would never do it. I've walked past many potential homeless person photographs with my camera turned off.

I think most war photographers and other paparazzi are vultures. And I don't follow the "public awareness" argument. Because that's not why they're doing it, even if that's what they say when they're interviewed.

Do whatever you're okay with yourself . Either you think it's right or you don't.

Cheers,
D

Mike Prec said:
I took the referenced picture last summer in downtown Detroit, Mi.
Actually this is a very tightly cropped portion of a picture taken
with a Kodak 4800 at 84mm. It was taken in a public area (Grand
Circus Park) around noon with hundreds of people around.

Warning: You may not find this picture pleasent to look at. I make
no statements or assumptions about this man.

http://www.pbase.com/image/1006514

What are the rules? Is this picture legal? I obviously did not ask
permission to take this picture or to post on pbase. Do you think
it was ethical for me to take this picture and/or post it
publically? Do I need this man's permission?

I believe it to be legal as long as I do not use in an
advertisement or make any kind of misrepentation about this man. I
did feel uncomfortable taking the picture and am not sure this kind
of picture should be made public.

I do not wish to put down Detroit. I often travel to Toronto and
see much more of this there even though Toronto is a beautiful city.

Photography is more than just sunsets and interesting macros, etc.
Do you think people want to see more of this?

Mike

DarrenH · Jan 23, 2002

Larry Mendenhall said:
Should you feel like a heel? Not in my humble opinion. Did he even know you took his picture?

That, in my opinion, is not a rational reason for taking photographs of people. I shudder to think what you could photograph using that argument.

DarrenH · Jan 23, 2002

Sorry if I sound heavy-handed. I just think this world needs more people who listen to their inner voice, rather than their thirst for artistic success or fame at other's cost. And it sounds like your inner voice was trying to tell you something.

Cheers
D

darren said:
My personal moral codebook says that profiting (either artistically
or monetarily) from someone's suffering is beneath contempt. I
would never do it. I've walked past many potential homeless person
photographs with my camera turned off.

I think most war photographers and other paparazzi are vultures.
And I don't follow the "public awareness" argument. Because that's
not why they're doing it, even if that's what they say when they're
interviewed.

Do whatever you're okay with yourself . Either you think it's
right or you don't.

Cheers,
D

Mike Prec said:

I took the referenced picture last summer in downtown Detroit, Mi.
Actually this is a very tightly cropped portion of a picture taken
with a Kodak 4800 at 84mm. It was taken in a public area (Grand
Circus Park) around noon with hundreds of people around.

Warning: You may not find this picture pleasent to look at. I make
no statements or assumptions about this man.

http://www.pbase.com/image/1006514

What are the rules? Is this picture legal? I obviously did not ask
permission to take this picture or to post on pbase. Do you think
it was ethical for me to take this picture and/or post it
publically? Do I need this man's permission?

I believe it to be legal as long as I do not use in an
advertisement or make any kind of misrepentation about this man. I
did feel uncomfortable taking the picture and am not sure this kind
of picture should be made public.

I do not wish to put down Detroit. I often travel to Toronto and
see much more of this there even though Toronto is a beautiful city.

Photography is more than just sunsets and interesting macros, etc.
Do you think people want to see more of this?

Mike

Click to expand...

Will Perlis · Jan 23, 2002

darren said:
...their thirst for artistic success or fame at other's cost.

Darren,

That's the part I don't get. What's the cost to the subject? Most of the time they're totally unaware of being photographed and so do not pay even a slight emotional price in terms of loss of "privacy" or "dignity".

Near as I can tell almost all the costs are being paid by people who don't want to see those sorts of pictures or by the photographer who is uncomfortable/annoyed/enraged with either the particular situation or the general condition of a society capable of presenting those subjects.

Whatever, down-and-out is a genre that's been shot to death, and that long ago. I don't take those unless there's something striking about the composition.

Will

aaron53665 · Jan 23, 2002

if you were unsure if it was even legal, let alone ethical or moral to take and post the picture publicly then i can't understand why you did so before getting your answers. you could certainly have just described the photo or situation.

in any event, it's completely legal to take the picture. no, you cannot use it for advertising without a release. publishing it editorially is legal and no release is needed. however what larry said about having no legal concerns for editorial is incorrect. editorial photos can defame and humiliate in ways that are not legal if done knowingly and intentionally. in fact even a release isn't protection against mis-use like that (implying someone was consorting with a prostitute when you know it's false etc.)

selling unreleased photos as art is a grayer area. publishing them like you have on the web sans release is another less well defined area i think.

as far as whether shots like that should be made public or if people want to see more of them are other can's of worms, and in fact each of those questions are different cans of worms

personally, i think that you should have a compelling reason for taking shots of subjects like that and even more for showing them. this is subjective of course, but shots like yours, and that shot specifically seem a little bit like making zoo animals out of people. in this case because it doesn't seem to be saying much, certainly nothing new. i don't think there's much in the way of insight, or other qualities that might add merit to the shot. it's just a record shot showing that there is in fact a homeless man sleeping on woodward, unfortunately that's not news or noteworthy and it's not being used in a news context.

darren's opinions are too simplistic, and the idea of lumping war photographers and paparazzi into one group is silly. i have no doubt that some war photographers don't have the right balance of motives. but many of them are as committed, concerned, sensitive and human as can be. and there is no doubt that the work of many photojournalists in general, including war shooters is absolutely necessary, important, and has impact in many ways. and in fact, the work they do can be just as important or effective whether they're doing it for the "right" reasons or not

anyway, yes, photos of human problems DO need to be shown, but they need to be handled sensitively, for the right reasons and in the right contexts. does the public want to see it? well that depends on who the viewer is, and what, why and how something is being shown. i also think that what they want and what is necessary are not always the same thing

aaron53665 · Jan 23, 2002

Will Perlis said:
darren said:

...their thirst for artistic success or fame at other's cost.

Click to expand...

Darren,

That's the part I don't get. What's the cost to the subject? Most
of the time they're totally unaware of being photographed and so do
not pay even a slight emotional price in terms of loss of "privacy"
or "dignity".

Near as I can tell almost all the costs are being paid by people
who don't want to see those sorts of pictures

the question isn't only whether they're aware at the time of the photo and the question doesn't only involve the particular person being shown

first and most obviously, they, and or people who know them can see the pictures once published. secondly, if certain photos or types of photos are seen as, or are exploitative or misleading, or if they unfairly promote certain stereotypes then there can be a whole host of ramifications in many different ways. whole groups, or subgroups of people can be offended or impacted in tangable ways. and other "uninvolved" people can also be offended if they are sensitive to people

i'm speaking generally above, not about this photo. it can be very complex depending on the situation

Jason Busch · Jan 23, 2002

Mike Prec,

Many people forget that photography deals with life and how people live in it, and the things that happen to them. I recently took some photos of a large fire here in Portland, OR, and I knew that it was possible, firemen could get hurt or someone may have been hurt on the scene. I still took the pictures, knowing what could happen, and fortunately, no one was hurt.

Personally, in most cases like yours, I would post a link to my site, and not post the photo itself on DPR. It's a matter of choice, but if you feel weird about it, just tell people what the pic is about, and give them a link if they want to see the photo.

We have many photographers who have taken horrific photos of 9-11, and those photos are being kept private or shared in a very small circle of peers--which is a good thing at this point. Maybe 5 or 10 years from now, we will see much more.

It's a really difficult judgement call posting photos of real-life situations. It's not like taking a photo of a flower or a building--this is a human being in a dire situation. Some could argue that this photo is doing damage, but I've seen a huge billboard that looked just like this one, saying, "The homeless are people too. Please call XXX-XXXX for information." I think photos like these make us more human. How often do we really observe homeless people? We normally brush them off. I do it. Everyone lives in their own comfortable "boxes" and sometimes we need someone else--like you--to open our boxes from time to time.

I don't think you were saying something negative about Detroit. The place is irrelevant when it comes to the homeless. They are in every city and every town. You don't even have to post where the photo was taken. If someone asks, then tell them. If not, don't worry about it.

Kudos to you. That is a very emotionally moving photo.

The pictures that cause us to hesitate on the shutter button, are the ones that make us appreciate life and those around us.

Jason Busch
--'I do just about everything in my CCD's...'

DarrenH · Jan 23, 2002

Hi Will,

I'm speaking more about 'moral cost', which is pretty vague I know, but it really is only part of my own decision tree and not something I'm called upon to explain.

I'll try, however...there's the cliché that early Native Americans believed that taking a photograph captured a part of the subject's soul. I believe that, in a figuative sense, this is true. It allows the photographer in a sense to 'own' part of that person (which no doubt is the motivation for people to buy these so-called 'men's magazines' that seem to fill up magazine racks these days...but I digress...and no, I'm not a religious person).

I simply believe that it is possible to steal someone's dignity without them being aware of it. I know that puts me in a bad position with the many people who practice 'voyeur' or 'candid' photography, but I simply don't believe that taking photographs of people without their consent agrees with what my inner compass tells me is decent.

I also don't believe that, by entering a public space, people are signing a waiver to have their image captured and used without their consent. And many courts would agree, no doubt. Regardless, I think the 'inner voice' that our conscience gives us is more important than any legal guideline. So I don't do it.

Cheers,
D

Will Perlis said:
darren said:

...their thirst for artistic success or fame at other's cost.

Click to expand...

Darren,

That's the part I don't get. What's the cost to the subject? Most
of the time they're totally unaware of being photographed and so do
not pay even a slight emotional price in terms of loss of "privacy"
or "dignity".

Near as I can tell almost all the costs are being paid by people
who don't want to see those sorts of pictures or by the
photographer who is uncomfortable/annoyed/enraged with either the
particular situation or the general condition of a society capable
of presenting those subjects.

Whatever, down-and-out is a genre that's been shot to death, and
that long ago. I don't take those unless there's something
striking about the composition.

Will

DarrenH · Jan 23, 2002

Hi Aaron,

Yes, I have painted with a wide brush. It was a little too general, and there are many situations where certain types of war photography are more than acceptable, often very necessary (paparazzi photography I'm less tolerant of).

I just wanted to mention that. My message came off a little too all-encompassing in the interests of brevity.

Cheers,
D

aaron said:
if you were unsure if it was even legal, let alone ethical or moral
to take and post the picture publicly then i can't understand why
you did so before getting your answers. you could certainly have
just described the photo or situation.

in any event, it's completely legal to take the picture. no, you
cannot use it for advertising without a release. publishing it
editorially is legal and no release is needed. however what larry
said about having no legal concerns for editorial is incorrect.
editorial photos can defame and humiliate in ways that are not
legal if done knowingly and intentionally. in fact even a release
isn't protection against mis-use like that (implying someone was
consorting with a prostitute when you know it's false etc.)

selling unreleased photos as art is a grayer area. publishing them
like you have on the web sans release is another less well defined
area i think.

as far as whether shots like that should be made public or if
people want to see more of them are other can's of worms, and in
fact each of those questions are different cans of worms

personally, i think that you should have a compelling reason for
taking shots of subjects like that and even more for showing them.
this is subjective of course, but shots like yours, and that shot
specifically seem a little bit like making zoo animals out of
people. in this case because it doesn't seem to be saying much,
certainly nothing new. i don't think there's much in the way of
insight, or other qualities that might add merit to the shot. it's
just a record shot showing that there is in fact a homeless man
sleeping on woodward, unfortunately that's not news or noteworthy
and it's not being used in a news context.

darren's opinions are too simplistic, and the idea of lumping war
photographers and paparazzi into one group is silly. i have no
doubt that some war photographers don't have the right balance of
motives. but many of them are as committed, concerned, sensitive
and human as can be. and there is no doubt that the work of many
photojournalists in general, including war shooters is absolutely
necessary, important, and has impact in many ways. and in fact, the
work they do can be just as important or effective whether they're
doing it for the "right" reasons or not

anyway, yes, photos of human problems DO need to be shown, but they
need to be handled sensitively, for the right reasons and in the
right contexts. does the public want to see it? well that depends
on who the viewer is, and what, why and how something is being
shown. i also think that what they want and what is necessary are
not always the same thing

Larry Mendenhall · Jan 23, 2002

aaron said:
however what larry
said about having no legal concerns for editorial is incorrect.
editorial photos can defame and humiliate in ways that are not
legal if done knowingly and intentionally.

True. However, I was taught in mass communication law that it's up to the person in the photograph to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the photographer's DELIBERATELY mean to defame and humilate. That's tough. In the case of this picture presented in this context the man shown would have a tough time proving the photographer's intention was to defame and humilate.

aaron53665 said:
darren's opinions are too simplistic, and the idea of lumping war
photographers and paparazzi into one group is silly.
i have no
doubt that some war photographers don't have the right balance of
motives. but many of them are as committed, concerned, sensitive
and human as can be. and there is no doubt that the work of many
photojournalists in general, including war shooters is absolutely
necessary, important, and has impact in many ways. and in fact, the
work they do can be just as important or effective whether they're
doing it for the "right" reasons or not

Bingo! I wish I was more of an historian, but I believe photographs of children working in sweat shops during the early part of the 20th century were instrumental in part in passing child labor laws in the United States. There are definitely subject matters where visual presentation of the problem can result in changes in a society. I'd toss the Viet Nam War in as another example.

--Larrym

DarrenH · Jan 23, 2002

Hi Larry, you could use that academic argument to support why you take pictures of homeless people passed out on park benches and around heating ducts with your $500 camera. I don't choose to.

Larry Mendenhall said:
aaron said:

however what larry
said about having no legal concerns for editorial is incorrect.
editorial photos can defame and humiliate in ways that are not
legal if done knowingly and intentionally.

Click to expand...

True. However, I was taught in mass communication law that it's up
to the person in the photograph to demonstrate beyond a reasonable
doubt that the photographer's DELIBERATELY mean to defame and
humilate. That's tough. In the case of this picture presented in
this context the man shown would have a tough time proving the
photographer's intention was to defame and humilate.

Larry Mendenhall said:

darren's opinions are too simplistic, and the idea of lumping war
photographers and paparazzi into one group is silly.
i have no
doubt that some war photographers don't have the right balance of
motives. but many of them are as committed, concerned, sensitive
and human as can be. and there is no doubt that the work of many
photojournalists in general, including war shooters is absolutely
necessary, important, and has impact in many ways. and in fact, the
work they do can be just as important or effective whether they're
doing it for the "right" reasons or not

Click to expand...

Bingo! I wish I was more of an historian, but I believe
photographs of children working in sweat shops during the early
part of the 20th century were instrumental in part in passing child
labor laws in the United States. There are definitely subject
matters where visual presentation of the problem can result in
changes in a society. I'd toss the Viet Nam War in as another
example.

--
Larrym

Will Perlis · Jan 23, 2002

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/childlabor/

Here you go: Historian in a Click.

So maybe the ethical differentiation depends on intent. If you're showing the folks back home a freak show it's bad but if the intent is social change it's good.

On the other hand, the recent social change on Hollywood Blvd was simply to push the street people down the side-streets where their messy lives wouldn't annoy the tourists or merchants. And to be perfectly honest about it, it's kinda nice to be able to go to lunch without being hit on for $ every few yards.

Will

Will Perlis · Jan 23, 2002

"if certain photos or types of photos are seen as, or are exploitative or misleading, or if they unfairly promote certain stereotypes then there can be a whole host of ramifications in many different ways. whole groups, or subgroups of people can be offended or impacted in tangable ways. and other "uninvolved" people can also be offended if they are sensitive to people"

That's the problem. One can't predict how any particular picture or series is going to be interpreted. Or rather, one can predict diametrically opposed interpretations covering 360 degrees.

Think "Archie Bunker"-- He was conceived as satire, but lots of people thought of him as the smart one in the series.

Will

aaron53665 · Jan 23, 2002

Larry Mendenhall said:
aaron said:

however what larry
said about having no legal concerns for editorial is incorrect.
editorial photos can defame and humiliate in ways that are not
legal if done knowingly and intentionally.

Click to expand...

True. However, I was taught in mass communication law that it's up
to the person in the photograph to demonstrate beyond a reasonable
doubt that the photographer's DELIBERATELY mean to defame and
humilate. That's tough. In the case of this picture presented in
this context the man shown would have a tough time proving the
photographer's intention was to defame and humilate.

well, the situations i'm thinking of have to do with the end use and context it's placed in, and what is implied or stated. i also wasn't talking about this specific photo. it's generally the publisher at fault but the photographer would be a party in a suit. but lets take this photo and say a newpaper or magazine ran it as an illustration to a story about child molesters who have aids and attempt to spread it to their victims...

that's an outlandish example, but similar in concept cases have happened. the subject/victim sues, the photographer is on the hook as well as the publisher. i don't actually know or remember how this has played out in terms of the photographers liability compared to the publisher in a situation where the photographer didn't know or approve of the intended or eventual use (the stock agency didn't properly control the use, the magazine lied or mislead about the use etc.)

Larry Mendenhall said:
Larry Mendenhall said:

darren's opinions are too simplistic, and the idea of lumping war
photographers and paparazzi into one group is silly.
i have no
doubt that some war photographers don't have the right balance of
motives. but many of them are as committed, concerned, sensitive
and human as can be. and there is no doubt that the work of many
photojournalists in general, including war shooters is absolutely
necessary, important, and has impact in many ways. and in fact, the
work they do can be just as important or effective whether they're
doing it for the "right" reasons or not

Click to expand...

Bingo! I wish I was more of an historian, but I believe
photographs of children working in sweat shops during the early
part of the 20th century were instrumental in part in passing child
labor laws in the United States. There are definitely subject
matters where visual presentation of the problem can result in
changes in a society. I'd toss the Viet Nam War in as another
example.

yes, you're talking about lewis hine. he is one of the many cases i was thinking of when i made my statement. viet nam was certainly another. dorathea lang and the other wpa photographers during the depression as well

Larry Mendenhall · Jan 23, 2002

darren said:
Hi Larry, you could use that academic argument to support why you
take pictures of homeless people passed out on park benches and
around heating ducts with your $500 camera. I don't choose to.

Ahh! One of those ignore the problems and they'll go away people, huh? ; )

Seriously, smart comments from me aside, I don't believe it's an academic argument to support social issues through photography. You're assuming that photographers would do that for a less than noble reason. Maybe. Yet there are many that do it for good reasons, too.--Larrym

Larry Mendenhall · Jan 23, 2002

Will Perlis said:
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/childlabor/

Here you go: Historian in a Click.

Thanks! It was going to be one of those things I'd wake up at 3 in the morning trying to think of the person's name. Whew!

; )

Member said:
So maybe the ethical differentiation depends on intent. If you're
showing the folks back home a freak show it's bad but if the intent
is social change it's good.

Personally, that would be my opinion.

--Larrym

What are the rules...legal, moral, ethical, etc.

Well-known member

Well-known member

Will Perlis

Guest

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Will Perlis

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Will Perlis

Guest

Will Perlis

Guest

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts