p.1 #1 · Ethics/Etiquette - Photography at protests?
I hope this is a safe place to discuss this. I'd like to take pictures at protests that are occurring near me. I'm looking for advice on the ethics and etiquette around photographing the events and people there.
I've done some reading and am finding some common suggestions:
1. Understanding the difference between photojournalism and activism
2. Respecting the identities of people there (some have suggested blurring faces when posting)
3. Ask for permission (when applicable?)
Does anyone have any experience shooting at events like these? My goal is to try to document what I consider to be historic events occurring in my neighborhoods.
p.1 #4 · Ethics/Etiquette - Photography at protests?
All I will state is be totally aware of your surroundings and who is in those surroundings. Having a "Press" placard, vest, whatever ID will NOT help your safety!
Dan
p.1 #5 · Ethics/Etiquette - Photography at protests?
I have experience shooting at protests and marches, I've done so at numerous protests in DC and New York.
Nothing in your posts indicates you're a professional photojournalist, so you're not really bound by any professional association's or publication's ethics rules.
So, this is all really up to you. You could be an impartial observer to "practice" photojournalism, if that makes the experience easier for you, or you can blur the line between journalism and activism (which is what a lot of photojournalism already does -- exists in the grey area between representing something "accurately" and having one's work tell a story or have a point of view).
Anyone who is at these marches is in a public place and has no reasonable expectation of privacy. If a participant wants to conceal their identity, they can take it upon themselves to do so.
That being said, on the off chance that someone doesn't want to have their photo taken, it's polite to honor that request.
p.1 #6 · Ethics/Etiquette - Photography at protests?
Appreciate you weighing in. You're correct, I am not a professional by any means. I just wanted to be in the right mindset when approaching these events so thanks for providing your perspective!
p.1 #7 · Ethics/Etiquette - Photography at protests?
Hi Adrian,
I recently shot the No Kings Day in SF and in most cases I asked for permission since these were all individuals I took photos of. Some photos had their faces partially covered to show more of their messages.
I did some shots of crowds and didn't have an issue since it was more about the environment rather than individual photos.
The SF protest was non-violent so your YMMV if you're thinking of covering more than just the protest proper. PM me if you want to see my gallery on Smugmug.
p.1 #8 · Ethics/Etiquette - Photography at protests?
Taking the photos vs publishing them publicly is the important distinction I think. You may find some people don't want their picture taken in the moment and it's always nice to respect that, but there will be lots of photographers and it's not much different than any other public setting. What sometimes irks people the most is the photos being posted online publicly, creating a record of them attending that gov agencies can search to use against or harass marginalized/vulnerable people and groups. For the same reason many recommend not taking your phone to a protest (as the location data is stored indefinitely and can be used to identify your presence there), posting a huge gallery with tons of identifying shots is something you should weigh vs artistic intent. Public expectation of privacy, importance of documenting 'history,' personal expression of art, there's no rule that solves all these issues. Be a nice person, be kind, and have empathy for your subjects (and remember they're people, not just props for photos)
p.1 #9 · Ethics/Etiquette - Photography at protests?
I’d add, as someone who has “participated” in numerous protests and demonstrations over 25 years—as a police officer, supervisor, and Chief of Police—they are often tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving situations and in some cases have a propensity to turn violent or riotous. So, be careful and have an escape plan. Learn to read the scene and be prepared to exit/create distance quickly. Beware of becoming caught up in the crowd or even a target of the protestors and/or police. Without a legitimate press/media affiliation, you may not have the extra protections and freedoms members of the press may have during a law enforcement action.
With that being said, you are capturing and documenting an event of public interest in a public place where privacy rights are generally diminished. But I also like to say that just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.
p.1 #10 · Ethics/Etiquette - Photography at protests?
WsternLawmn wrote:
I’d add, as someone who has “participated” in numerous protests and demonstrations over 25 years—as a police officer, supervisor, and Chief of Police—they are often tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving situations and in some cases have a propensity to turn violent or riotous. So, be careful and have an escape plan. Learn to read the scene and be prepared to exit/create distance quickly. Beware of becoming caught up in the crowd or even a target of the protestors and/or police. Without a legitimate press/media affiliation, you may not have the extra protections and freedoms members of the press may have during a law enforcement action.
With that being said, you are capturing and documenting an event of public interest in a public place where privacy rights are generally diminished. But I also like to say that just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should. ...Show more →
There is no such thing as a "legitimate press/media affiliation". Journalists or photographers, whether they publish work on a personal blog or whether they work for the New York Times, have the same rights and protections (and are subject to the same laws) as every other person.
p.1 #11 · Ethics/Etiquette - Photography at protests?
Not entirely true as there may be certain narrow exceptions where sometimes members of the media may have more access which varies by state/local jurisdiction. So, while true that the media generally does not have greater rights of access than the public (the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on this), and though the First Amendment protects freedom of the press, this generally does not grant journalists special privileges to access information or locations that are not available to the general public. BUT:
In California, the media generally has the right to access disaster areas that have been closed to the public, as long as they are not crime scenes or if their presence would interfere with incident operations. This right is specifically outlined in California Penal Code 409.5(d) which allows authorized media representatives (news services, newspapers, radio, and television) to enter areas closed due to a disaster, riot, or civil disturbance. The law does not extend to crime scenes or situations where media presence would impede incident operations.
My background is from the perspective of a California LEO hence why I made the point I did.
mdude85 wrote:
There is no such thing as a "legitimate press/media affiliation". Journalists or photographers, whether they publish work on a personal blog or whether they work for the New York Times, have the same rights and protections (and are subject to the same laws) as every other person.
p.1 #12 · Ethics/Etiquette - Photography at protests?
Regarding the above sequence of posts, some context is important.
If we are (and we are) talking about attending something like the peaceful, mass “No Kings” marches, there is no indication that a “propensity to turn violent” is anything to worry about. Anyone who actually participated in those knows that they were peaceful marches attended by veterans, retirees, working folks, families, kids, and a whole bunch of other everyday Americans who are concerned about what is happening in the country and were exercising their constitutional rights to say so.
At the other extreme were a very small number of separate incidents in a few very limited areas of the LA Basin where ICE agents violently confronted citizens in a military fashion. When something like that happens, there are real risks to citizen photographers.
p.1 #13 · Ethics/Etiquette - Photography at protests?
WsternLawmn wrote:
Not entirely true as there may be certain narrow exceptions where sometimes members of the media may have more access which varies by state/local jurisdiction. So, while true that the media generally does not have greater rights of access than the public (the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on this), and though the First Amendment protects freedom of the press, this generally does not grant journalists special privileges to access information or locations that are not available to the general public. BUT:
In California, the media generally has the right to access disaster areas that have been closed to the public, as long as they are not crime scenes or if their presence would interfere with incident operations. This right is specifically outlined in California Penal Code 409.5(d) which allows authorized media representatives (news services, newspapers, radio, and television) to enter areas closed due to a disaster, riot, or civil disturbance. The law does not extend to crime scenes or situations where media presence would impede incident operations.
My background is from the perspective of a California LEO hence why I made the point I did.
I suspect you're discussing something a little different than what the OP is talking about -- you're referring to access to enter areas that are threats to public safety created specifically by a "calamity" such as a flood, earthquake, fire, explosion, etc (this is the type of situation that CA Penal Code 409.05 covers). The OP was talking about marches, protests, and demonstrations, so not really the same thing.
When attending a lawful protest or a march, such as the one the OP was interested in attending, having or not having so-called "legitimate press/media affiliation" does not make any difference; they have the same right to assemble peacefully as any other participant has. It could just be that it's not a good "look" for law enforcement to be seen arresting or detaining or injuring people clearly identified to be journalists.
p.1 #14 · Ethics/Etiquette - Photography at protests?
I’m not saying the No King demonstrations were violent as a whole beyond perhaps isolated incidents. (However, in my city a group of counter protestors showed up and there were a few incidents, but the police intervened to de-escalate tensions and kept the peace successfully.) However, I have been to numerous protests and demonstrations that were billed or started as peaceful but escalated into substantial civil disobedience, chaos, and violence against other protestors, uninvolved passing motorists, and the police, etc. In my experience, this sometimes happens because certain smaller groups with their own less noble agendas attempt to use the protests to further their group’s aims by hijacking the original purpose of the organizers (involved members have personally told me this and I’ve repeatedly witnessed this dynamic first hand).
So, again I was just advising the OP to stay alert, be prepared, and exercise caution during any large scale protest/demonstrations because you never know—things can escalate for numerous reasons (including the acts of corrupters, co-opters, counter protestors, and even the police if they mishandle things). And California law specifically references (PC 409) riots, routs, and unlawful assemblies for specific exception for "duly authorized representatives of the news media" in certain situations involving public disturbances—a limited right of access beyond what the general public has once law enforcement has declared and announced the event to be an unlawful assembly and ordered everyone to immediately disperse.
mdude85 wrote:
I suspect you're discussing something a little different than what the OP is talking about -- you're referring to access to enter areas that are threats to public safety created specifically by a "calamity" such as a flood, earthquake, fire, explosion, etc (this is the type of situation that CA Penal Code 409.05 covers). The OP was talking about marches, protests, and demonstrations, so not really the same thing.
When attending a lawful protest or a march, such as the one the OP was interested in attending, having or not having so-called "legitimate press/media affiliation" does not make any difference; they have the same right to assemble peacefully as any other participant has. It could just be that it's not a good "look" for law enforcement to be seen arresting or detaining or injuring people clearly identified to be journalists....Show more →
p.1 #15 · Ethics/Etiquette - Photography at protests?
WsternLawmn wrote:
I’m not saying the No King demonstrations were violent as a whole beyond perhaps isolated incidents. (However, in my city a group of counter protestors showed up and there were a few incidents, but the police intervened to de-escalate tensions and kept the peace successfully.) However, I have been to numerous protests and demonstrations that were billed or started as peaceful but escalated into substantial civil disobedience, chaos, and violence against other protestors, uninvolved passing motorists, and the police, etc. In my experience, this sometimes happens because certain smaller groups with their own less noble agendas attempt to use the protests to further their group’s aims by hijacking the original purpose of the organizers (involved members have personally told me this and I’ve repeatedly witnessed this dynamic first hand).
So, again I was just advising the OP to stay alert, be prepared, and exercise caution during any large scale protest/demonstrations because you never know—things can escalate for numerous reasons (including the acts of corrupters, co-opters, counter protestors, and even the police if they mishandle things). And California law specifically references (PC 409) riots, routs, and unlawful assemblies for specific exception for "duly authorized representatives of the news media" in certain situations involving public disturbances—a limited right of access beyond what the general public has once law enforcement has declared and announced the event to be an unlawful assembly and ordered everyone to immediately disperse.
Being alert and aware is always a fine idea — at a peaceful demonstration, while commuting on the train, when a traveling to foreign countries, taking an hike, driving through a Texas town with a low speed limit and radar, and more.
The context here was literally the “No Kings” demonstrations. By some estimates more than 5 million (a lot more if you believe some people) assembled almost entirely peacefully in scores of cities all across our country to exercise their constitutional right to be heard in these difficult times.
I’m sure you’ve seen plenty of the bad side of humanity in your line of work — and least that’s what my LEO acquaintances tell me — and we’re grateful to the professionals in your ranks who protect us. However, In this context — the “No Kings” event discussed in this thread — your “warning” reads as being a bit inappropriate and perhaps even paranoid.
p.1 #16 · Ethics/Etiquette - Photography at protests?
WsternLawmn wrote:
So, again I was just advising the OP to stay alert, be prepared, and exercise caution during any large scale protest/demonstrations because you never know—things can escalate for numerous reasons (including the acts of corrupters, co-opters, counter protestors, and even the police if they mishandle things). And California law specifically references (PC 409) riots, routs, and unlawful assemblies for specific exception for "duly authorized representatives of the news media" in certain situations involving public disturbances—a limited right of access beyond what the general public has once law enforcement has declared and announced the event to be an unlawful assembly and ordered everyone to immediately disperse.
I don’t think the OP wants to access closed areas or is a professional journalist?
But you are definitely correct that being alert, prepared and cautious are always good ideas in a public assembly such as a protest, march or demonstration.
I also just want to make clear once more that this is no real "legitimacy" test for how to treat members of the press in lawful assemblies. I could be wrong but I believe police officers in most jurisdictions (especially in California) are trained in this manner. Whether they act consistent with their own training is another matter...
p.1 #17 · Ethics/Etiquette - Photography at protests?
Common sense should tell us that "mostly peaceful" isn't completely peaceful. If one doesn't have that actively in mind, one risks getting caught up in problems. Some places, that's an even greater possibility than others. Others it's just a big party and aside from causing local businesses problems, blocking streets, etc., not a problem. You have to "read the room."
We look to proper clothing and environmental considerations if out in the wilds with rugged country, possible bad weather, don't play with the big furry animals, etc. have food and water, weather gear in the car, etc. One should give that level of care and attention to going to political demonstrations in areas where agitation and violence is not uncommon.
It only takes one drunk or heckler to screw up an event. It only takes a few agitators to make "mostly peaceful," not.
p.1 #18 · Ethics/Etiquette - Photography at protests?
Craig Gillette wrote:
One should give that level of care and attention to going to political demonstrations in areas where agitation and violence is not uncommon.
Actually violence is extremely UN common at these events, which is why it is news when it does happen.
p.1 #19 · Ethics/Etiquette - Photography at protests?
Beyond my imagination why you desire to Photograph a protest for personal enjoyment...if you being paid and sent to cover such a ridiculous gathering I can understand the question.
p.1 #20 · Ethics/Etiquette - Photography at protests?
I’ve shot pictures at a number of demonstrations over the last 10 years or so. The ones I’ve attended - all in the greater NYC area - have all been peaceful, if not orderly. I’ve found that most people at the demonstrations I attended were in generally good spirits, despite the fact that they were protesting something that they strongly disagreed with. And they were also quite willing to have their pictures taken, often smiling and posing with their signs and/or t-shirt messages. The NYC and local town police that I photographed were equally relaxed about it, although I never witnessed or photographed them doing anything that might be controversial.
Like any other large gathering of people - be it a demonstration, holiday parade, concert, etc. - it pays to be aware of your surroundings and alert to sudden changes in the mood that might create a safety issue.
As several others have said, it’s generally legal to take a picture of anyone as long as you are not trespassing on private property, and it’s not for commercial (i.e. advertising) use. And also as others have said, just because it’s legal doesn’t mean you should. My own rule is to generally not take photos of people who object, unattended children who can’t really consent, and others who may be able to give an informed consent for your picture.
