So how do you walk around in public, with your head down or something? All a photograph is is a recording of what your eyes saw in an instant. I don't think you'll find many people who think it is be unethical to photograph people in public.
In case you haven't noticed, this is the 21st century. Cameras are everywhere. People are everywhere. If you don't want people looking at you, stay home or don't do things in public that violate your "personal integrity."
But inside a church is not a public place. Churches are private property and certainly in the UK, permission should be sought before taking pictures on private property. If the activity was taking place at a public shrine, then there would be nothing to stop people from snapping, and a model release form would only be required if the photograph were to be used for commercial purposes.
Photographing people in public is not nessecarily unethical. Publishing people photographed in public against their will is unethical in my book.
Hmm. I guess I know one reason behind authorities and others being more and more agressive towards street photographers in some countries now.
How so? What difference does it make whether you are seen by tens of thousands of people while you attend a public event or walk the streets today or whether you're seen by tens of thousands of people on a Web page in a photo showing you attending an event or walking the streets?
The same right the government and private businesses have to photograph people in public areas is precisely the same right a street photographer or journalist has.
Lots of people are hostile toward other people's rights. You're suggesting that we bow down to such lunatics.
What "rules" are you referring to?
The legal situation in the UK is summarised in this document:
The difference is about being in control. If people go to a public event they should know that photographers are present. But people are forced to use the streets going from one place to another and that should be possible without having to fear being published in a photograph without knowing it.
Exactly but they can't publish them without my accept unless I was wanted because of a crime for instance.
What I have described here is how the law is in Denmark.
Churches and shopping malls, while open to the public, are not public property. They are privately owned. As such, the land-owner has the right to impose any limitations on photography. Therefore, the right to photograph can not be assumed.
Correct.
Correct.
Wrong. Unless stipulated upon entry to private property (eg. conditions on a ticket or a sign posted at the entrypoint) you are free to conduct any legal activity there. At any point the owner of the property or their employee may ask you to stop. If this occurs you must comply. If they ask you to leave, you must do so immediately.
True, but not relevant to this discussion, and again, you must be asked to stop.
News flash: We're in the 21st century. Cameras are everywhere.
Do you have any idea how absurd that sounds?
Wrong. There is no law barring businesses or government agencies from "publishing" photos of you taken in public.
Perhaps Denmark should get with the times and join the United States.
So true. There is a widespread misconception out there that "commercial purposes" equals selling a photo. Of course, it means no such thing. Anyone here can photograph anyone in public and sell a zillion prints without needing a model release -- one reason cameras are not allowed at rock concerts.
Exactly. And we have an updated data protection act taking care of that.
I prefer being able to go out knowing that I don't have to be suspicious of every photographer I meet and if I see myself published I can ask the photographer to remove that image again and he will have to do it. This is not a photography banning act. It is a publishing protecting act if you can be identified on a photo.
We have a data protecting act. Other countries are perhaps less advanced.
Thank you but I prefer being able to walk around with my camera, getting aquainted with people and maybe capture a nice portrait or situation without encountering aggressive attitudes.
Correct. It is not illegal to sell a photo as such without a model release form.
Now that complicates things although I do understand your position and I also symphatise with it.
I am so glad I live in the United States. Such a law infringing on free speech would never get past a court.
It's the other way around. The United States is advanced when it comes to free speech; other countries are not.
In the United States you can, thank God.
They should respect your right to free speech. But I guess you don't have a right to free speech in Denmark. At least not in a meaningful sense.
Not to my mind. Ethics tend to be codes of conduct agreed to by communities. For example, an organisation of advertisers may come up with a code of conduct regarding adverts targeted at children. This would be the ethics applied to the practice, and is the type of information the OP asked about.
I'm sure there are people here who would agree with you - your opinion is yours to espouse. I won't fault you for expressing it as such.
I promise I won't take your photo. I take photos of people - but none of them go in the family album. They're a record of life in my country. You may not like to know this - but there's a chance that your photo is taken every time you catch a train or a plane or walk through a shopping mall. Every time you use an ATM and every time you enter a bank or large building your photo is also likely to be taken.
Well, clearly the OP does - since he asked the question.
I won't. But I'm sure if some read them they would be infuriated.
If I remember correctly we have shown how far free speech goes here by publishing some cartoons that made 1/3 of the world population angry with us.
If you are happy to be seen doing something in public, there is little difference to being seen to being photographed. Goig to church is, I imagine, a social/community thing.
