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

[Streettographer]

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?"

 

[Cherry_F]

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"

well, that's probably the stupidest answer one could forge. That will certainly not improve the situation. Plus, it's wrong in many countries. It's even wrong in the U.S. (you don't mention where you live, but you post feels typically U.S.) at least in California who passed a bill regarding the right to privacy. So you can't shoot a California resident without permission. Same in Quebec.

I can't wait to be locked up. I wonder what the food is like ..?

whats the best reply to confrontations like this? "Why are you taking my picture without my permission?"

I never shoot people without asking permission. I know it's a lot of missed opportunities but it's a matter of minimal respect.

Street Photographers go much further than respect. Respect is just the minimum. Again, you don't do Street so you don't know.

I'll take that for granted. BUt it's not only about your attitude as the photographer. Once you get your pics published, you can never assume that every viewer will feel the same.

Also, your gallery has a photo of a man asleep ..did you wake him to ask ..??

No and if it were to-day I would never post this image. I took this shot in China 12 years ago, a country where sleeping in public is considered normal, and does not offend the dignity of the person pictured.

Since then, I read a lot, I did a bit of thinking about photography in general - and what it means to me specifically, and I changed my mind.

Incidentally, privacy laws significantly changed in my country (and many others, regarding China ) and that decided me to stop street photography.

As the old saying goes, only fools don't change their minds...

 

[Cherry_F]

The CCPA - California Consumer Privacy Act (2018) does not apply to street photography that is lawfully done in public where there is no expectation of privacy. No law, policy or feelings override the Constitution. See Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitutional.

It's not about the conditions of the shooting, in public or not... it's about what could be done with the images : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Consumer_Privacy_Act

You will certainly agree that a stranger you point your camera at in the street without any explanation may not infer what you plan to do with the picture?

And, whether good or bad, some people simply don't like to be photographed. That's it.

It's my understanding that the courts have ruled consistently about our first amendment right to photograph freely in public places. We don't have to ask permission. Where has there been a case against a street photographer in the USA for lawfully exercising their first amendment right?

Let's not be naive: it's a matter of big bucks. The man in the street won't sue, but celebs can afford expensive lawyers, I'm sure you'll find some cases in your country... I can remember a story of a woman, herself a photographer, who was not - yet - famous. She got 100,000 + USD, because a photographer had used her image without her permission (for a book cover IIRC).

Even though the photographer wins in the end, - and I agree with you, it's often the case - the consequences can be bad. A few years ago we had a case in France. A guy had shot a wedding, the photo was published in a book by his camera club. The bride and bridegroom decided to sue. They lost eventually, but the camera club spent a lot in lawyers fees. They finally went bankrupt, and had to cease activities.

 

[Digirame]

For the California privacy act you need to separate what is private from that which is public. Which first amendment auditors in California have to stop sharing their videos on YouTube because of that act?

 

[larsbc]

The CCPA - California Consumer Privacy Act (2018) does not apply to street photography that is lawfully done in public where there is no expectation of privacy. No law, policy or feelings override the Constitution. See Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitutional.

It's not about the conditions of the shooting, in public or not... it's about what could be done with the images : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Consumer_Privacy_Act

That link says:

The CCPA applies to any business, including any for-profit entity that collects consumers' personal data, does business in California, and satisfies at least one of the following thresholds:

• Has annual gross revenues in excess of $25 million;
• Buys, receives, or sells the personal information of 50,000 or more consumers or households; or
• Earns more than half of its annual revenue from selling consumers' personal information.[11][12]

So for the purposes of street photography, it doesn't appear to apply.

 

[Cherry_F]

The CCPA - California Consumer Privacy Act (2018) does not apply to street photography that is lawfully done in public where there is no expectation of privacy. No law, policy or feelings override the Constitution. See Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitutional.

It's not about the conditions of the shooting, in public or not... it's about what could be done with the images : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Consumer_Privacy_Act

That link says:

The CCPA applies to any business, including any for-profit entity that collects consumers' personal data, does business in California, and satisfies at least one of the following thresholds:

• Has annual gross revenues in excess of $25 million;
• Buys, receives, or sells the personal information of 50,000 or more consumers or households; or
• Earns more than half of its annual revenue from selling consumers' personal information.[11][12]

So for the purposes of street photography, it doesn't appear to apply.

That's absolutely right. But, as I said before, when you point your camera at a stranger, it is impossible to them to know who you are, why you decided to shoot them, which kind of business you're running, and what you intend to do with the pics. Some of them won't care, others don't like it. They are perfectly right to do so.

 

[larsbc]

The CCPA - California Consumer Privacy Act (2018) does not apply to street photography that is lawfully done in public where there is no expectation of privacy. No law, policy or feelings override the Constitution. See Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitutional.

It's not about the conditions of the shooting, in public or not... it's about what could be done with the images : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Consumer_Privacy_Act

That link says:

The CCPA applies to any business, including any for-profit entity that collects consumers' personal data, does business in California, and satisfies at least one of the following thresholds:

• Has annual gross revenues in excess of $25 million;
• Buys, receives, or sells the personal information of 50,000 or more consumers or households; or
• Earns more than half of its annual revenue from selling consumers' personal information.[11][12]

So for the purposes of street photography, it doesn't appear to apply.

That's absolutely right. But, as I said before, when you point your camera at a stranger, it is impossible to them to know who you are, why you decided to shoot them, which kind of business you're running, and what you intend to do with the pics. Some of them won't care, others don't like it. They are perfectly right to do so.

Of course they're free to not like it, just like they're free to not like people even looking at them. If that's what your original point has morphed into then I guess we're in agreement: people don't have to like their photo being taken. But it's a far cry from photographers not being able to photograph someone in public in California.

 

[Cherry_F]

The CCPA - California Consumer Privacy Act (2018) does not apply to street photography that is lawfully done in public where there is no expectation of privacy. No law, policy or feelings override the Constitution. See Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitutional.

It's not about the conditions of the shooting, in public or not... it's about what could be done with the images : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Consumer_Privacy_Act

That link says:

The CCPA applies to any business, including any for-profit entity that collects consumers' personal data, does business in California, and satisfies at least one of the following thresholds:

• Has annual gross revenues in excess of $25 million;
• Buys, receives, or sells the personal information of 50,000 or more consumers or households; or
• Earns more than half of its annual revenue from selling consumers' personal information.[11][12]

So for the purposes of street photography, it doesn't appear to apply.

That's absolutely right. But, as I said before, when you point your camera at a stranger, it is impossible to them to know who you are, why you decided to shoot them, which kind of business you're running, and what you intend to do with the pics. Some of them won't care, others don't like it. They are perfectly right to do so.

Of course they're free to not like it, just like they're free to not like people even looking at them. If that's what your original point has morphed into then I guess we're in agreement: people don't have to like their photo being taken. But it's a far cry from photographers not being able to photograph someone in public in California.

I agree. Many photographers are able to shoot other persons in public, and we're flooded with too many mundane pics of people walking in the street with their mobile in hand... Images which are doomed to fall immediately in the dustbins of history... but you're right, this is another story.

Back to the point and more specifically to the first amendment: let me say it again, this amendment protects the press. Not the amateur. Referring to it in the situation evoked by the OP is somewhat exaggerated (not to say preposterous).

 

[skanter]

The CCPA - California Consumer Privacy Act (2018) does not apply to street photography that is lawfully done in public where there is no expectation of privacy. No law, policy or feelings override the Constitution. See Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitutional.

It's not about the conditions of the shooting, in public or not... it's about what could be done with the images : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Consumer_Privacy_Act

That link says:

The CCPA applies to any business, including any for-profit entity that collects consumers' personal data, does business in California, and satisfies at least one of the following thresholds:

• Has annual gross revenues in excess of $25 million;
• Buys, receives, or sells the personal information of 50,000 or more consumers or households; or
• Earns more than half of its annual revenue from selling consumers' personal information.[11][12]

So for the purposes of street photography, it doesn't appear to apply.

That's absolutely right. But, as I said before, when you point your camera at a stranger, it is impossible to them to know who you are, why you decided to shoot them, which kind of business you're running, and what you intend to do with the pics. Some of them won't care, others don't like it. They are perfectly right to do so.

Of course they're free to not like it, just like they're free to not like people even looking at them. If that's what your original point has morphed into then I guess we're in agreement: people don't have to like their photo being taken. But it's a far cry from photographers not being able to photograph someone in public in California.

I agree. Many photographers are able to shoot other persons in public, and we're flooded with too many mundane pics of people walking in the street with their mobile in hand... Images which are doomed to fall immediately in the dustbins of history... but you're right, this is another story.

You left out the part of the story of all the great street photographers, past and present, who have shot people in public contributed and continue to contribute to the art and culture of our lives.

Back to the point and more specifically to the first amendment: let me say it again, this amendment protects the press. Not the amateur. Referring to it in the situation evoked by the OP is somewhat exaggerated (not to say preposterous).

Are you referring the the 1st amendment to the US constitution? If so, freedom of speech is not just for the press, but foe the entire citizenry.

 

[Digirame]

Cherry, hi.

If you watch the YouTube videos of the first amendment auditors, you will find that they will often say we are all members of the press. The police will ask for the press credentials, but they will tell the police that they don't need one.

I agree that some people don't want their pictures taken in public without permission. They react and that gives the first amendment auditors lots of content. Some take stills along with their video, but video is what provides them income. Take a look and see.

Taking pictures of people without asking permission is what has exposed some police officers of bad behavior. More and more people are putting security cameras on their homes and cars (like dash cams).

It's my understanding that Tesla has a security video camera that automatically comes on when a person gets too close (I'm not sure of the model or years or any details). I watched a YouTube video about that, and a neighbor was caught keying the Tesla because he didn't like where it was parked on the cul-de-sac. The police were called. That neighbor had to pay the owner back for the damage.

 

[Chris Noble]

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.

 

[AlphaMcDelta]

Also, your gallery has a photo of a man asleep ..did you wake him to ask ..??

No and if it were to-day I would never post this image. I took this shot in China 12 years ago, a country where sleeping in public is considered normal, and does not offend the dignity of the person pictured.

that is 'your' perception ..not the 睡觉的人.

Since then, I read a lot, I did a bit of thinking about photography in general - and what it means to me specifically, and I changed my mind.

Incidentally, privacy laws significantly changed in my country (and many others, regarding China ) and that decided me to stop street photography.

that is 'your' perception ..not the 睡觉的人 ..also I'm not convinced you quit 'Street' and instead quit 'Candid-Photography'.

..And the law like it is offered here is like any unqualified advice off the internet.

As the old saying goes, only fools don't change their minds...

I think op should buy one of those self-help books on how to make conversation and friends and then he could ask one of those.

ant

 

[skanter]

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. Once you “approach them” and “ reduce their natural suspicions” then the candid moment is usually ruined. 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!”

--
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/

 

[Chris Noble]

Most experienced street photographers take candid photos without the knowledge of their subjects. Once you “approach them” and “ reduce their natural suspicions” then the candid moment is usually ruined.

There are some candid street photographs that are classics, but many others where the photographer has established a fleeting connection with the subject. It's not absolutely one or the other, and there are plenty of examples of both.

The OP was concerned not about candids, but about situations where the possible subject is aware of the photographer.

There have been and will continue to be lots of debates about candid vs. non-candid street photography, but that is not what the OP's question is about.

Also, sometimes the photographer intends to shoot candid, but the subject becomes aware of the photographer just before or just after the shot, and may react in a negative way. So in those situations, approaching the stranger and reducing their natural suspicions can often still be a relevant skill.

 

[skanter]

Most experienced street photographers take candid photos without the knowledge of their subjects. Once you “approach them” and “ reduce their natural suspicions” then the candid moment is usually ruined.

There are some candid street photographs that are classics, but many others where the photographer has established a fleeting connection with the subject. It's not absolutely one or the other, and there are plenty of examples of both.

The OP was concerned not about candids, but about situations where the possible subject is aware of the photographer.

There have been and will continue to be lots of debates about candid vs. non-candid street photography, but that is not what the OP's question is about.

Also, sometimes the photographer intends to shoot candid, but the subject becomes aware of the photographer just before or just after the shot, and may react in a negative way. So in those situations, approaching the stranger and reducing their natural suspicions can often still be a relevant skill.

I don’t think there are many “debates”. SP is a candid genre.

WIKI (FWIW):

Street photography, also sometimes called candid photography, is photography conducted for art or enquiry that features unmediated chance encounters and random incidents[1] within public places. Although there is a difference between street and candid photography, it is usually subtle with most street photography being candid in nature and some candid photography being classifiable as street photography. Street photography does not necessitate the presence of a street or even the urban environment. Though people usually feature directly, street photography might be absent of people and can be of an object or environment where the image projects a decidedly human character in facsimile or aesthetic.[2][3]

Though it rarely happens, if a dude says “why are you taking my picture?” I respond, “I’m not. Why would I take your picture? Do you think you’re so handsome? But I will if you’d like…”

In any case, street smarts are an essential skill if you want to shoot in this genre. And the OP needs to figure it out himself.

Hint: Blend In.

--
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/

 

[Decisive Comment]

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"

well, that's probably the stupidest answer one could forge. That will certainly not improve the situation. Plus, it's wrong in many countries. It's even wrong in the U.S. (you don't mention where you live, but you post feels typically U.S.) at least in California who passed a bill regarding the right to privacy. So you can't shoot a California resident without permission. Same in Quebec.

whats the best reply to confrontations like this? "Why are you taking my picture without my permission?"

I never shoot people without asking permission. I know it's a lot of missed opportunities but it's a matter of minimal respect.

It's not a stupid response, it's the correct response depending on how it's conveyed to the subject that got their image taken. If you are aggressive about it, things will probably head south.

If I understand even the relatively recent changes to EU laws correctly, photographing people in public is not illegal, what the legal issue actually is, is what the photographer intends to do with that photo. If it's for commercial, for-profit purposes, you need permission. If I print it and hang it up in a cafe wall, I am breaking no law. If I sell the print as 'art', I am breaking no law, but yes it does become a little fuzzy in this case interpreting 'for-profit'; however, IIRC there is an exemption for photos that have cultural or artistic merit (though you may be requested to 'prove' it).

I've never been confronted except one time by a drunk woman in an alley who falsely claimed I took a photo of her. If I were confronted, I don't have a choice but to politely defend my rights. If we abide by those who insist we need to ask for permission, we are basically letting them dictate the law as they see fit. Of course, if in the end they still demand I delete the photo, I will. Or maybe not. If I think the photo is worth keeping, I may just go ahead and call the police.

If taking photos of people in public without their consent is illegal, then online photo galleries should be taken down, sites like saatchi, where photographic prints are sold, should be taken down; and why don't police patrol the streets and inspect people's cameras for infringing captures and missing model releases -- easy pickings there, I'd say.

Beyond all this legal mumbo-jumbo though, IMO the trick to having a hassle-free experience as a street photog is up to the photog. If you know how to blend in and appear non-threatening to people while 'in their space', you should be fine. But I have seen way too many yahoos either hiding (which only makes people more aware of them), or pretending they're the next Gilden.

Moreover, I personally think that most street photos taken >>today<< have little relevance >>today<< and I don't understand the need to immediately post images to FB/IG/etc where it's mostly about sh**s and giggles anyway. Why not let the images sit on a disk for 5-10 years before showing them? By then, 1) the photographer may realize his 'keeper' isn't a 'keeper', or 2) enough time has gone by that the subject probably won't care about their likeness displayed on some cafe wall or online gallery, meaning you've already alleviated this permission nonsense just by letting some time pass.

 

[Cherry_F]

[../..]

I don’t think there are many “debates”. SP is a candid genre.

Here's a "candid" true story you'll certainly like.

A guy posted a pic of a Paris' city office employee. This employee was taking a nap.

The pic went rapidly viral. The typical comment was: hey look, happy taxpayers, here is how your money is spent.

The Paris mayor office fired the employee.

The employee sued. It appeared that this employee's job was to clean the street. They have 'funny' hours, they have to start early in the morning before the passers-by invade the streets. It appeared that he was simply taking the nap after the end of his working schedule.

Hint: Blend In.

Hint: think twice about what "candid" means:

- 1) before pressing the shutter

- 2) before posting.

 

[Digirame]

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.

 

[skanter]

[../..]

I don’t think there are many “debates”. SP is a candid genre.

Here's a "candid" true story you'll certainly like.

A guy posted a pic of a Paris' city office employee. This employee was taking a nap.

The pic went rapidly viral. The typical comment was: hey look, happy taxpayers, here is how your money is spent.

The Paris mayor office fired the employee.

The employee sued. It appeared that this employee's job was to clean the street. They have 'funny' hours, they have to start early in the morning before the passers-by invade the streets. It appeared that he was simply taking the nap after the end of his working schedule.

Hint: Blend In.

Hint: think twice about what "candid" means:

- 1) before pressing the shutter

- 2) before posting.

I am in NYC, not Paris, and don’t know the laws in Paris, so the above is irrelevant to me. One obviously must be aware of the laws of the country in which one shoots.

 

[Chris Noble]

There are some candid street photographs that are classics, but many others where the photographer has established a fleeting connection with the subject. It's not absolutely one or the other, and there are plenty of examples of both.

 

[Digirame]

Does the article talk about street photography or rather is it about celebrities not wanting to have their pictures taken? I only saw a quick review. Do you have that article?