"Why are you taking my picture without my permission?" how do i reply?

Streettographer

New member
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
what's the best reply to questions like that? they arent asking why i'm taking the picture but why didn't i ask for permission.

i told someone that i dont need permission nor consent in order to take a picture in a public area, but they said "you should ask permission"

whats the best reply to confrontations like this? "Why are you taking my picture without my permission?"
 
  • Paulmorgan wrote:
what's the best reply to questions like that? they arent asking why i'm taking the picture but why didn't i ask for permission.

i told someone that i dont need permission nor consent in order to take a picture in a public area, but they said "you should ask permission"

whats the best reply to confrontations like this? "Why are you taking my picture without my permission?"
Interesting debate about legal "rights". But they are just a social safety net. Part of the challenge of street photography is reading strangers, how to approach them, how to reduce their natural suspicions, and recognizing that every situation and person is different, so there is no simple rule-book.

Some people who want to try street photography find that very frustrating, but avid street photographers think of it as a very positive and creative challenge.
No, most experienced street photographers take candid photos without the knowledge of their subjects.
You have a very naive and dull view Sam,
lol!
Once you “approach them” and “ reduce their natural suspicions” then the candid moment is usually ruined.
No its not, it all depends on how you go about it.
We are trying to portray life as it is -without- the interference of the photographer’s presence. If you like smiling portraits of people on the street, then go right ahead and ask permission before shooting. Don’t forget “say cheese!”
Lots of really really good award winning wedding photographers are working with the candid approach these days, capturing life as is, lots of smiles as well.
Street vs wedding photography. Seems you dont understand the difference.

The dude shoots candid wedding photos and makes good money. Not exactly anything new, or brilliant, and has nothing to do with street photography. If I were doing weddings (god forbid) i would probably shoot in a similar way, but I would not call it street or tout it with youtube videos.
By your definition it seems one is a tucked away cctv camera.
I’ll just let my photos speak for themselves, you can do the same.

BTW, why do you post here at all as you are hostile to this forum?

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66386271
Well interestingly the poster of this thread never came back and your views really are very naive.

The culture in here really is very boneheaded and toxic.
So, I’ll ask again: why do you continue to come here to this “boneheaded, toxic” place?

--
Sam K., NYC
“I’m halfway between tightrope walker and pickpocket.” HCB

__
Smugmug Galleries:
http://skanter.smugmug.com

Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/sam.kanter/
 
Last edited:
  • Paulmorgan wrote:
what's the best reply to questions like that? they arent asking why i'm taking the picture but why didn't i ask for permission.

i told someone that i dont need permission nor consent in order to take a picture in a public area, but they said "you should ask permission"

whats the best reply to confrontations like this? "Why are you taking my picture without my permission?"
Interesting debate about legal "rights". But they are just a social safety net. Part of the challenge of street photography is reading strangers, how to approach them, how to reduce their natural suspicions, and recognizing that every situation and person is different, so there is no simple rule-book.

Some people who want to try street photography find that very frustrating, but avid street photographers think of it as a very positive and creative challenge.
No, most experienced street photographers take candid photos without the knowledge of their subjects.
You have a very naive and dull view Sam,
lol!
Once you “approach them” and “ reduce their natural suspicions” then the candid moment is usually ruined.
No its not, it all depends on how you go about it.
We are trying to portray life as it is -without- the interference of the photographer’s presence. If you like smiling portraits of people on the street, then go right ahead and ask permission before shooting. Don’t forget “say cheese!”
Lots of really really good award winning wedding photographers are working with the candid approach these days, capturing life as is, lots of smiles as well.
Street vs wedding photography. Seems you dont understand the difference.
By your definition it seems one is a tucked away cctv camera.
I’ll just let my photos speak for themselves, you can do the same.

BTW, why do you post here at all as you are hostile to this forum?

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66386271
Well interestingly the poster of this thread never came back and your views really are very naive.

You said.

"Street vs wedding photography. Seems you dont understand the difference"


https://dennisberti.com/my-journal/wedding-street-photography
I agree, candid-style wedding shoots can be very streety. I shot my cousin's wedding back in 2008 -- actually only the church ceremony and 20-30 minutes before/after, outside the church as people arrived and left. She didn't want any of those typical formal shots, just for me to go around and catch whatever interesting unscripted moments I could. I thought this was going to be a very dull experience (if she wanted me to do the usual formal shoot, it probably would have been and I probably wouldn't have done it) -- well I had a blast and that I was drunk the entire time made it all the more fun :) . Many of the shots I've kept in my street folder, couldn't care less if anyone thought they didn't belong there.

Ahh a few years before I also shot my bother-in-law's wedding, also mostly informal, and that ended up being fun too. Images weren't so great though as I was well inebriated for that one :D
 
  • Paulmorgan wrote:
what's the best reply to questions like that? they arent asking why i'm taking the picture but why didn't i ask for permission.

i told someone that i dont need permission nor consent in order to take a picture in a public area, but they said "you should ask permission"

whats the best reply to confrontations like this? "Why are you taking my picture without my permission?"
Interesting debate about legal "rights". But they are just a social safety net. Part of the challenge of street photography is reading strangers, how to approach them, how to reduce their natural suspicions, and recognizing that every situation and person is different, so there is no simple rule-book.

Some people who want to try street photography find that very frustrating, but avid street photographers think of it as a very positive and creative challenge.
No, most experienced street photographers take candid photos without the knowledge of their subjects.
You have a very naive and dull view Sam,
lol!
Once you “approach them” and “ reduce their natural suspicions” then the candid moment is usually ruined.
No its not, it all depends on how you go about it.
We are trying to portray life as it is -without- the interference of the photographer’s presence. If you like smiling portraits of people on the street, then go right ahead and ask permission before shooting. Don’t forget “say cheese!”
Lots of really really good award winning wedding photographers are working with the candid approach these days, capturing life as is, lots of smiles as well.
Street vs wedding photography. Seems you dont understand the difference.
By your definition it seems one is a tucked away cctv camera.
I’ll just let my photos speak for themselves, you can do the same.

BTW, why do you post here at all as you are hostile to this forum?

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66386271
Well interestingly the poster of this thread never came back and your views really are very naive.

You said.

"Street vs wedding photography. Seems you dont understand the difference"


https://dennisberti.com/my-journal/wedding-street-photography
I agree, candid-style wedding shoots can be very streety. I shot my cousin's wedding back in 2008 -- actually only the church ceremony and 20-30 minutes before/after, outside the church as people arrived and left. She didn't want any of those typical formal shots, just for me to go around and catch whatever interesting unscripted moments I could. I thought this was going to be a very dull experience (if she wanted me to do the usual formal shoot, it probably would have been and I probably wouldn't have done it) -- well I had a blast and that I was drunk the entire time made it all the more fun :) . Many of the shots I've kept in my street folder, couldn't care less if anyone thought they didn't belong there.

Ahh a few years before I also shot my bother-in-law's wedding, also mostly informal, and that ended up being fun too. Images weren't so great though as I was well inebriated for that one :D
All very true.

SP is a state of mind, you can take this anywhere and also use it anywhere.

 
Last edited:
Hi Cherry. It's my understanding that the photography rights in France are much different than the USA. So there may be more to this story that we don't understand. Any time we travel to another country it's important that we learn about their laws regarding taking photos of people in a public place without their permission etc.
Hello,

I really appreciate your balanced position in this interesting debate.

Yes, laws are different. But that was not really my point. I believe it's the opportunity to think about the difference between Right (as imposed by Law) and what is really right to do.

Historically, laws have been decided by a tiny fraction of the population. Some of the laws were genuinely written with general interest in mind, but many of them favour a certain "class" of people (sorry, I didn't find a more appropriate word). Just think that slavery was considered as right until the end of the 19th century. Or, the fact that in many countries, stealing groceries may lead poor people to jail, while huge fraud tax very rarely does.

In the U.S. - at least in some states - women are perfectly entitled to buy firearms, but are not allowed to abort (I refer to this young pregnant girl in Louisiana whose parents are dead, and has been judged too young to decide by herself upon abortion, but is deemed as perfectly able to care about a baby).

Back to photography: why are celebrities in a position to protect their image, while you and me (I assume you're not a celeb 😉) are not entitled to? Why should the right to shoot strangers - without permission - supersede the right to privacy?
 
Back to photography: why are celebrities in a position to protect their image, while you and me (I assume you're not a celeb 😉) are not entitled to? Why should the right to shoot strangers - without permission - supersede the right to privacy?
My guess is someone who stalks celebrities with their camera intends to sell the photos for profit, and the buyer in turn intends to publish them for profit. It's not really comparable to someone just out there wanting to do street photography. I would also guess that if there was no such thing as the paparazzi business (and using images out of context to create gossip), cleberities probably wouldn't care too much.

--
Your first 10,000 opinions are your worst
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://world-street.photography/en/profile/mschf/photos
 
Last edited:
Celebrities are treated the same as non-celebrity strangers in regards to photography rights in the USA. I'm not aware of any differences. Celebrities (and people in general) may not want to be stalked or chased, which I can understand, especially since that could be a safety issue (like car crashes).

Basically, it's not only our laws but our culture that allows for us to take lawful pictures of everyone in a public place where there is no expectation of privacy. Like yesterday I was at a fair and took pictures of thousands of people openly. I had two cameras with attached lenses. Not a single person said a single thing to me (like why are you taking my picture or you have to ask my permission etc.). Two people waved to me or gave me a peace sign. I was practicing with the video too, using one of my mirrorless cameras. I got it set up in the menu where I can use the shutter button to turn on and shut off the video (instead of this difficult tiny button that's hard to find). I was zooming in and out. I did this a number of times. At a fair there's lots of motion and sounds, so it's a good place for that.

Our laws and culture makes it simple to allow people with their millions of cell phones, cameras, drones in our country to take photos as such without any hassle. Occasionally someone might object if you're taking pictures of them for a very long time (like some of the first amendment auditors) or for some other reason. As I have said previously if they object or it's bothersome to them, I won't continue even though legally I could. It's just being human or kind beyond what the laws may state.

It should be noted that such culture may vary in our country. So we have to be aware of that. If you are in an area where there's lots of cameras & cell phones and people are snapping like crazy, it's probably a good place for hassle-free photography. But if you are in isolated area where they might object to photography, it's best to find out first. Like once I was in an area where the surfers did not want their pictures taken. Why was that? They wanted to keep their surfer location secret. Go read about surfer localism. The locals want to protect their own turf and they don't want you to take pictures of it. It's not legal to prevent you from taking pictures or harm you, but in isolated areas police protection can be scarce. So be aware of your surroundings any time you are outdoors...for anything...anywhere.
 
Back to photography: why are celebrities in a position to protect their image, while you and me (I assume you're not a celeb 😉) are not entitled to? Why should the right to shoot strangers - without permission - supersede the right to privacy?
My guess is someone who stalks celebrities with their camera intends to sell the photos for profit, and the buyer in turn intends to publish them for profit. It's not really comparable to someone just out there wanting to do street photography. I would also guess that if there was no such thing as the paparazzi business (and using images out of context to create gossip), cleberities probably wouldn't care too much.
Correct. Please allow me to focus on your phrase: out of context.

What kind of images do celebrities ( and the people that live at their expenses) consider "correct"? A celeb has to generate envy. Has the most desirable of lives. Is allways smiling and nicely attired. Elegant, even when wearing jeans and a t-shirt.

So if one manages to shoot a famous actress in a wonderful dress, going up the stairs of the Cannes film festival Palace, it's ok. If that same actress is shot in the street during shopping, she has to be smiling too, to be carrying many large bags boasting the name of the most famous fashion designers. Of course, it must have been shot in the most expensive street of the city. One can imagine the limo is waiting to drive her to the next shop, eighty yards away.

But if one happened to shoot the same person in the Walmart parking lot, loading a mundane car with a trunkful of groceries, then it is not at all flattering. This image would be judged as "out of context".

Fortunately, celebs have employees to do all those derogatory tasks, so there's little chance for us to get this opportunity...
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top