What would you have done?

[Sothoth]

The underlying issue is that the photographer wants to complain about back talk from plain folks exercising free speech.

It seems like you are referring to two freedoms but only want to honor one of them.

What’s the other freedom? The right of newspaper photographers to be freed from hearing any back talk? No one is questioning his legal right to take unsolicited commercial photos of ladies scrutinizing stuffed bunnies without asking first. What annoyed him is that another citizen had the temerity to chastise him!

Okay, that's good, I'm glad you clarified that.

Do you really think he was annoyed? I didn't get that from his original post, it seemed kind of the opposite, it seemed like he was more distressed by the encounter

He himself at the end of the OP says it was the first time he was “admonished”. I suggest that he consider the remonstrance. I am having a hard time believing there would be any difference between a candid stuffed bunny appraisal and a less candid stuffed bunny appraisal, but asking first would be more polite even if the law doesn’t require it. And it would remove the grounds for remonstrance.

No. If you ask first and they say no, then you can’t take the photo.

That’s why one should ask first. Asking after the fact is a bit high-handed.

I realize the question is about what’s the right approach and response to this particular situation but you simply can’t have it both ways and say the photographer can change the situation by interacting with the person but simultaneously having an unspoiled scene. This simply doesn’t exist. If the photographer wants a pose then by all means ask or interact or solicit a response that you want to capture.

Ok, but some people will be indignant with the photographer’s behavior, and they are just as entitled to express their indignation as the photographer is to photograph first and ask questions later.

They’re allowed to get indignant. As long as they don’t break the law by assaulting the photographer or destroy the photographers camera or other property, that’s their right. It’s a jungle out there. Everyone should navigate accordingly.

 

[bodeswell]

The underlying issue is that the photographer wants to complain about back talk from plain folks exercising free speech.

It seems like you are referring to two freedoms but only want to honor one of them.

What’s the other freedom? The right of newspaper photographers to be freed from hearing any back talk? No one is questioning his legal right to take unsolicited commercial photos of ladies scrutinizing stuffed bunnies without asking first. What annoyed him is that another citizen had the temerity to chastise him!

Okay, that's good, I'm glad you clarified that.

Do you really think he was annoyed? I didn't get that from his original post, it seemed kind of the opposite, it seemed like he was more distressed by the encounter

He himself at the end of the OP says it was the first time he was “admonished”. I suggest that he consider the remonstrance. I am having a hard time believing there would be any difference between a candid stuffed bunny appraisal and a less candid stuffed bunny appraisal, but asking first would be more polite even if the law doesn’t require it. And it would remove the grounds for remonstrance.

No. If you ask first and they say no, then you can’t take the photo.

That’s why one should ask first. Asking after the fact is a bit high-handed.

I realize the question is about what’s the right approach and response to this particular situation but you simply can’t have it both ways and say the photographer can change the situation by interacting with the person but simultaneously having an unspoiled scene. This simply doesn’t exist. If the photographer wants a pose then by all means ask or interact or solicit a response that you want to capture.

Ok, but some people will be indignant with the photographer’s behavior, and they are just as entitled to express their indignation as the photographer is to photograph first and ask questions later.

They’re allowed to get indignant. As long as they don’t break the law by assaulting the photographer or destroy the photographers camera or other property, that’s their right.

Exactly!

It’s a jungle out there. Everyone should navigate accordingly.

True, though the circumstances that started this thread were pretty sedate and fortunately nothing but thought ensued.

 

[bodeswell]

That’s why one should ask first. Asking after the fact is a bit high-handed.

I don't ask first if 1) I'm in a country where the laws don't require it, 2) an event where the participants have given up their photographic rights or 3) in a country where there isn't a societal norm for a request.

In those circumstances, the dismayed, entitled person can go pound salt.

Which one is that? Seems like it could just as well be the photographer.

Am I mean or uncaring? If that's what your perception is so be it, but I long ago gave up tiptoeing through life worrying upsetting petty people, because there is no shortage of people who strive to find something insignificant to be upset about every day.

It all works both ways.

 

[mfinley]

That’s why one should ask first. Asking after the fact is a bit high-handed.

I don't ask first if 1) I'm in a country where the laws don't require it, 2) an event where the participants have given up their photographic rights or 3) in a country where there isn't a societal norm for a request.

In those circumstances, the dismayed, entitled person can go pound salt.

Which one is that? Seems like it could just as well be the photographer.

"Go pound salt" is an idom that means "get lost", "stop bothering me"

The person taking the photograph -me is not going to get lost or stop bothering the subject so no it wouldn't be me the photographer, it will be the Karen who starts trying to tell me about their right to privacy and all the rest of the non-sense they falsely believe in. The picture will be in my SD card, mission accomplished, no amount of crying, whining or tantrum is going to see it deleted

 

[David Lal]

"Go pound salt" is an idom that means "get lost", "stop bothering me"

Interesting. I wondered what it meant. In more than seven decades of speaking English, that is, English English, I have never heard this expression. It's very American apparently.

 

[bodeswell]

That’s why one should ask first. Asking after the fact is a bit high-handed.

I don't ask first if 1) I'm in a country where the laws don't require it, 2) an event where the participants have given up their photographic rights or 3) in a country where there isn't a societal norm for a request.

In those circumstances, the dismayed, entitled person can go pound salt.

Which one is that? Seems like it could just as well be the photographer.

"Go pound salt" is an idom that means "get lost", "stop bothering me"

The person taking the photograph -me is not going to get lost or stop bothering the subject

So even if you knew you were bothering the subject you would persist? Taking photos in public is legal, sure, but bothering people - that’s another story!

so no it wouldn't be me the photographer, it will be the Karen who starts trying to tell me about their right to privacy

How about the Karen who delivers a lecture about her legal right to take your picture whether you like it or not while she is photographing you photographing an unwilling subject?

and all the rest of the non-sense they falsely believe in.

You may not be legally entitled to decide which of their beliefs are false. That might be up to a judge or jury.

The picture will be in my SD card, mission accomplished, no amount of crying, whining or tantrum is going to see it deleted

Perhaps that is why some private citizens take a dim view of photographers taking their pictures unbidden.

--
Thanks,
Mike
https://travel-curious.com/home/north-america/united-states/utah/

 

[LeicaEye]

That’s why one should ask first. Asking after the fact is a bit high-handed.

I don't ask first if 1) I'm in a country where the laws don't require it, 2) an event where the participants have given up their photographic rights or 3) in a country where there isn't a societal norm for a request.

In those circumstances, the dismayed, entitled person can go pound salt.

Which one is that? Seems like it could just as well be the photographer.

"Go pound salt" is an idom that means "get lost", "stop bothering me"

The person taking the photograph -me is not going to get lost or stop bothering the subject

So even if you knew you were bothering the subject you would persist? Taking photos in public is legal, sure, but bothering people - that’s another story!

so no it wouldn't be me the photographer, it will be the Karen who starts trying to tell me about their right to privacy

How about the Karen who delivers a lecture about her legal right to take your picture whether you like it or not while she is photographing you photographing an unwilling subject?

and all the rest of the non-sense they falsely believe in.

You may not be legally entitled to decide which of their beliefs are false. That might be up to a judge or jury.

The picture will be in my SD card, mission accomplished, no amount of crying, whining or tantrum is going to see it deleted

Perhaps that is why some private citizens take a dim view of photographers taking their pictures unbidden.

 

[Ozzie SD]

Sorry, but this is uncalled for. You may disagree with the lady, but there is literally no reason to expose her picture here. This is a person who is entitled to her own opinion. No need at all to post her picture. Please be so kind to delete it.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67596096

 

[NZ Scott]

I know this is frustrating... but if this lady was the unique subject of your image, (I won't consider the stuffed toy) then the angry woman was right: you have to ask for permission before capturing her image.

It is allowed to shoot people in a public place without prior consent if a) they are not recognizable on the image or b) the purpose is to illustrate an event, showing many people on the image, as it is impossible to get approval from a large number of people.

This is annoying, as it prevents for candid shots, but it works generally better. Personnally I allways ask for permission first and I offer the person to send them a picture. Quite often, I shoot people engaged in a specific activity and I take various shots. After a few moments, the person forgets about the camera.

Your two statements are absolutely wrong. In the United States

Cherry is in France, so US laws would not apply. But I think maybe a point about good behavior was being made. If you know you want to use someone’s appearance commercially I think you should ask first not because the law requires it, but because it is high handed and possibly stressful for the subject if you shoot first and ask questions later. The law does not entitle you to candid shots for commercial use.

If you are in a public space you have no right to privacy and can legally be photographed, singly or in a group / background. You can't get candid images when asking prior permission, and the moment is gone by then anyhow. In the newspaper industry images generally don't get published if the subject won't give you their name.

_________

StevenN

You handled it well although I wouldn't have continued the discussion, or deleted the photos. I wouldn't have used them if they wouldn't give you their name, but I would not have deleted them.

But StevenN said in his OP he was shooting for a newspaper and its website (which is not commercial use) and he lives in the U.S. That is what we are discussing. Commercial use, advertising, etc, would require a model release in the U.S.

What makes you think using photos to sell periodicals is non-commercial?

I'm not sure what you guys mean by 'commercial' and 'non-commercial', but paparazzi photographers shoot people for images that they later sell, and they certainly don't ask permission.

S

 

[NZ Scott]

I know this is frustrating... but if this lady was the unique subject of your image, (I won't consider the stuffed toy) then the angry woman was right: you have to ask for permission before capturing her image.

It is allowed to shoot people in a public place without prior consent if a) they are not recognizable on the image or b) the purpose is to illustrate an event, showing many people on the image, as it is impossible to get approval from a large number of people.

Cherry, I suspect what you describe is a legal nuance that probably varies from country to country. It might or might not be true in France, say, but in the UK photographing people in public places (e.g. the street) without permission is allowable whereas on private property (e.g. a shopping mall) is not.

Right, laws vary a bit from country to country. California and some Canada provinces have their specific legislations. But, at the end of the day, the underlying principles are very much similar.

As other members have said, it is not prohibited to take photographs of people without their permission. What is regulated is the use of the images.The problem is, when someone notices he/she is being photographed, they cannot guess what the photographer does intent to do with those images...

Especially, in the situation described by the OP, when the picture would be used in a newspaper and/or published. That's why I suggested to explain first, and shoot later. Yes, the image is less candid...

I was a bit confused by your original post, and thought you must have some different laws in France.

Then I thought - what about the paparazzi photographers who chased Princess Diana the night she died?

Were they legally required to ask her permission to take her photo?

I'm certain they were not!

Cheers,

Sciott

 

[NZ Scott]

Taken without Permission & Inside a Mall..

Yes, just the kind of photo I find interesting.

I think in years to come, long after all those pictures of flying eagles/Eiffel Tower/aeroplane XYZ have long since been forgotten social historians will be looking at images like this, aying "Ah ha, so that's what life was like in 2024".

In the UK you photo would have been illegal since a shopping mall is private property, albeit open to the public. I probably would have done it too - but sneakily!

I think illegal in a Mall here. (USA)

Not illegal in a mall here (NZ).

S

 

[NZ Scott]

The comical (and maddening) thing about it is that "Aunt Sylvia" is surrounded everywhere she goes by people with their phones out, and never notices a thing or says a word.

So are we all, but it is very rarely the case that those folks are taking pictures of us for a newspaper.

I personally have taken photos of people with my iPhone for publishing in newspapers.

S

If you know in advance that you are going to ask permission then perhaps it would be appropriate to ask in advance. I am skeptical of the candidness argument.

 

[NZ Scott]

I stood there for awhile, absorbing everything she said. I probably should have walked away, but I decided to continue the discussion. I walked up to her and said, "You may not be familiar with the law, but..

Lol..People don't care about the law. Nor do they need photographers quoting it to them.

Just stop taking their pictures.

She responded, "Well, that may be the law, but it's still inappropriate!"

She's right.

I disagree on the point that it’s inappropriate if you’re in a public place and within your rights as a photographer. But I agree that I f someone asks you not to take their picture that this is where it becomes inappropriate.

Otherwise photographers would have no way to take pictures of sporting events with people in the background. Or pictures of their kids with with other people’s kids near them. Or at a private wedding with spectators. This is not always a black and white situation.

I don’t have a problem with your examples because the “others” in the shots would be background, not subjects. You would not, by my standards, be taking pictures of them.

I’m not suggesting you get up in someone’s face and take their photo if you know they don’t want it but saying you can’t take other people’s photos would have eliminated the art of people like Cartier Bresson. This would be tragic.

Agree about Cartier-Bresson, not to mention Doisneau and Brassai. And then there is Vivian Maier, a real case of art for art’s sake since she didn’t intend to share her work with the public. But the premise of many responses, not including yours, is that people who vocally express their displeasure are somehow out of line.

I’m not sure I read the other posts quite that way. I read it as most of us being on one side of the camera or the other in a similar situation (photographing people or being photographed without being asked and not liking it) and defaulting their reaction to the side they identify with more. The fact is that no one is fully wrong or right here, it’s just people muddling through a challenging situation of consent and having incomplete information on the context.

I think most people would agree that the photographer shouldn’t photograph someone if the subject doesn’t wish to be photographed and if he/she stated they don’t want to be photographed the photographer should respect that.

What if you're a news photographer and the subject is a criminal, scammer or other person of interest for your newspaper?

S

I think most people would agree that the people in attendance can’t really tell a photographer not to photograph people in general if the location is public or the host gives permission but certainly there is nuance.

I think asking first opens the door for a “no” and for anger and demands for deleting photos and sometimes it’s best to not ask if the photos are candid and the location is public. But if the person is upset and asks I personally would respect their wishes. Unless you can’t tell who it was from the photo upon inspection.

These are my opinions and I don’t mean to disrespect other people’s. Everyone will behave according to their own values and must accept the risks and consequences their own behavior. Photography isn’t always a low risk activity.

 

[Sothoth]

The comical (and maddening) thing about it is that "Aunt Sylvia" is surrounded everywhere she goes by people with their phones out, and never notices a thing or says a word.

So are we all, but it is very rarely the case that those folks are taking pictures of us for a newspaper.

I personally have taken photos of people with my iPhone for publishing in newspapers.

S

If you know in advance that you are going to ask permission then perhaps it would be appropriate to ask in advance. I am skeptical of the candidness argument.

 

[NZ Scott]

I never asked for permission to take these photos and I wouldn't have gotten them if I'd asked first:

S

--
-------------------------------
My Flickr stream:

newzild

Explore newzild’s 679 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[bodeswell]

I stood there for awhile, absorbing everything she said. I probably should have walked away, but I decided to continue the discussion. I walked up to her and said, "You may not be familiar with the law, but..

Lol..People don't care about the law. Nor do they need photographers quoting it to them.

Just stop taking their pictures.

She responded, "Well, that may be the law, but it's still inappropriate!"

She's right.

I disagree on the point that it’s inappropriate if you’re in a public place and within your rights as a photographer. But I agree that I f someone asks you not to take their picture that this is where it becomes inappropriate.

Otherwise photographers would have no way to take pictures of sporting events with people in the background. Or pictures of their kids with with other people’s kids near them. Or at a private wedding with spectators. This is not always a black and white situation.

I don’t have a problem with your examples because the “others” in the shots would be background, not subjects. You would not, by my standards, be taking pictures of them.

I’m not suggesting you get up in someone’s face and take their photo if you know they don’t want it but saying you can’t take other people’s photos would have eliminated the art of people like Cartier Bresson. This would be tragic.

Agree about Cartier-Bresson, not to mention Doisneau and Brassai. And then there is Vivian Maier, a real case of art for art’s sake since she didn’t intend to share her work with the public. But the premise of many responses, not including yours, is that people who vocally express their displeasure are somehow out of line.

I’m not sure I read the other posts quite that way. I read it as most of us being on one side of the camera or the other in a similar situation (photographing people or being photographed without being asked and not liking it) and defaulting their reaction to the side they identify with more. The fact is that no one is fully wrong or right here, it’s just people muddling through a challenging situation of consent and having incomplete information on the context.

I think most people would agree that the photographer shouldn’t photograph someone if the subject doesn’t wish to be photographed and if he/she stated they don’t want to be photographed the photographer should respect that.

What if you're a news photographer and the subject is a criminal, scammer or other person of interest for your newspaper?

You raise an interesting question, what about people who have done things that make them celebrities or even notorious? But this thread is about people who are neither celebrities nor notorious, and who were minding their own business when their picture was taken unbidden.

S

I think most people would agree that the people in attendance can’t really tell a photographer not to photograph people in general if the location is public or the host gives permission but certainly there is nuance.

I think asking first opens the door for a “no” and for anger and demands for deleting photos and sometimes it’s best to not ask if the photos are candid and the location is public. But if the person is upset and asks I personally would respect their wishes. Unless you can’t tell who it was from the photo upon inspection.

These are my opinions and I don’t mean to disrespect other people’s. Everyone will behave according to their own values and must accept the risks and consequences their own behavior. Photography isn’t always a low risk activity.

 

[NZ Scott]

The comical (and maddening) thing about it is that "Aunt Sylvia" is surrounded everywhere she goes by people with their phones out, and never notices a thing or says a word.

So are we all, but it is very rarely the case that those folks are taking pictures of us for a newspaper.

I personally have taken photos of people with my iPhone for publishing in newspapers.

S

If you know in advance that you are going to ask permission then perhaps it would be appropriate to ask in advance. I am skeptical of the candidness argument.

Do people honestly think all published photos of people are taken with permission or that the photos of people taken on the street or at private events are taken by first asking if the person is ok being photographed? This is the very nature of several entire genres of photography. I would think that readers on this forum would understand that better.

Yes, me too.

Most of the people commenting on this thread are making decent points though.

It seems to come down to the law (you can take photos) versus courtesy (some people think it's polite to ask first).

Personally, I only ask first if I want a close-up portrait photo or if the person seems bothered by me taking photos.

S

--
-------------------------------
My Flickr stream:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/scottkmacleod/

 

[bodeswell]

I know this is frustrating... but if this lady was the unique subject of your image, (I won't consider the stuffed toy) then the angry woman was right: you have to ask for permission before capturing her image.

It is allowed to shoot people in a public place without prior consent if a) they are not recognizable on the image or b) the purpose is to illustrate an event, showing many people on the image, as it is impossible to get approval from a large number of people.

This is annoying, as it prevents for candid shots, but it works generally better. Personnally I allways ask for permission first and I offer the person to send them a picture. Quite often, I shoot people engaged in a specific activity and I take various shots. After a few moments, the person forgets about the camera.

Your two statements are absolutely wrong. In the United States

Cherry is in France, so US laws would not apply. But I think maybe a point about good behavior was being made. If you know you want to use someone’s appearance commercially I think you should ask first not because the law requires it, but because it is high handed and possibly stressful for the subject if you shoot first and ask questions later. The law does not entitle you to candid shots for commercial use.

If you are in a public space you have no right to privacy and can legally be photographed, singly or in a group / background. You can't get candid images when asking prior permission, and the moment is gone by then anyhow. In the newspaper industry images generally don't get published if the subject won't give you their name.

_________

StevenN

You handled it well although I wouldn't have continued the discussion, or deleted the photos. I wouldn't have used them if they wouldn't give you their name, but I would not have deleted them.

But StevenN said in his OP he was shooting for a newspaper and its website (which is not commercial use) and he lives in the U.S. That is what we are discussing. Commercial use, advertising, etc, would require a model release in the U.S.

What makes you think using photos to sell periodicals is non-commercial?

I'm not sure what you guys mean by 'commercial' and 'non-commercial', but paparazzi photographers shoot people for images that they later sell, and they certainly don't ask permission.

This thread has been about the situation described by the OP, who does not seem to be a paparazzo. The paparazzi are worthy of discussion, but it would be a different discussion.

 

[NZ Scott]

That’s why one should ask first. Asking after the fact is a bit high-handed.

I don't ask first if 1) I'm in a country where the laws don't require it, 2) an event where the participants have given up their photographic rights or 3) in a country where there isn't a societal norm for a request.

In those circumstances, the dismayed, entitled person can go pound salt.

Which one is that? Seems like it could just as well be the photographer.

"Go pound salt" is an idom that means "get lost", "stop bothering me"

The person taking the photograph -me is not going to get lost or stop bothering the subject

So even if you knew you were bothering the subject you would persist? Taking photos in public is legal, sure, but bothering people - that’s another story!

so no it wouldn't be me the photographer, it will be the Karen who starts trying to tell me about their right to privacy

How about the Karen who delivers a lecture about her legal right to take your picture whether you like it or not while she is photographing you photographing an unwilling subject?

and all the rest of the non-sense they falsely believe in.

You may not be legally entitled to decide which of their beliefs are false. That might be up to a judge or jury.

The picture will be in my SD card, mission accomplished, no amount of crying, whining or tantrum is going to see it deleted

Perhaps that is why some private citizens take a dim view of photographers taking their pictures unbidden.

Considering all the verbiage about this subject, I wonder where ‘photographers’ stand in a list of people/groups unliked. Attorneys, car salesman, realtors.

'Press photographers' and 'paparazzi' are on a similar level to politicians and used car sellers, I would think.

I say this as a former journalist.

S

 

[LeicaEye]

I never asked for permission to take these photos and I wouldn't have gotten them if I'd asked first:

S

--
-------------------------------
My Flickr stream:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/scottkmacleod/

You obviously live in a different environment to many of us. Here in the USA, in this day and age you may well be stabbed or shot for even looking at someone the wrong way! Then of course there is ‘fun’ street..

--
Yes, It's me..