fjablo
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: Approach to photographing people in the street | |
rscheffler wrote:
johnvanr wrote:
pmeheut wrote:
johnvanr wrote:
You’d expect in a free society that something like the First Amendment would reign supreme, but obviously not.
One of the first times I went to the UK, I bought a tabloid. There was an article about a half-famous singer who had an affair with the nanny.
Of course, they gave the name and pictures of said nanny who was around 18 at the time.
I was horrified: first, this is none of our business who sleeps with whom and second, this young girl should not have to live this.
So maybe they are limits to what the first amendment or equivalent should address? Because I lived and worked in several countries and I do not feel I'm any less free in France because we protect privacy.
I think our laws are sometimes stupid when it comes to photography but it did not prevent us to be the home of a few famous street photographers.
Bresson would have been sued in today’s France, though.
Fred doesn’t have enough bandwidth for me to engage in this discussion, so I’m merely looking at how other people deal with this. Obviously there’s still quite a bit of street photography going on, even in strict countries.
I think you just do it; your first option. And deal with any fallout when/if it happens. I mean, for me, I spent a fair amount of time in Germany from around 2000 to 2012 and less frequently until 2020. I initially assumed (yes, my bad) that the situation was similar to the US/Canada where someone out in public didn't have an expectation of privacy. I don't know when stricter privacy laws came into effect in Germany but I remember back around 2009 doing some candid 'street' type photos in Bonn while out with my cousin, who is actually Bundespolizei. He was curious why I was taking pictures of people I didn't know in a candid manner. I explained how people in the context of the scene, in their environment, told a more complete story about that scene. I guess he accepted it, as I was not lectured about Germany's privacy laws. So I remained ignorant and shot my style of street, which generally has not heavily focused on people, but I include people in compositions. Only once sometime later in the 2010s did someone (a guy in his 20s) tell me directly that I shouldn't have photographed him. We had a brief discussion where we agreed to disagree, but he didn't demand that I delete the photo (which ultimately wasn't even worth having taken). So it will probably depend on the person, whether you can convince them of your benign intentions, and if that is unsuccessful, how much you push back against their demands/requests, such as to delete the photo(s).
In other words, shoot first; ask for forgiveness second, at which point you potentially have the opportunity to discuss your intentions behind the photo with the person, rather than ruining the spontaneity of the situation by asking first.
I do think this has changed how I approach 'people in the street' situations, in that I'm more likely to do that kind of photography in areas more popular with tourists. Part of it being there are more people taking photos in these areas and it's kind of expected. As is the likelihood that tourists won't be aware of that country's privacy laws and can maybe get away with breaking them. Those areas also tend to be busier and therefore have more action. But of course, this approach risks ignoring other areas of a city worth exploring. Some of my change of coverage is also due to the overall increase in sensitivity people have about being photographed, which IMO is totally because of the negative side effects of social media. Now everyone is concerned about how their likenesses will be used (and honestly, I feel the same way). I think the most complicated now is when it involves children. As you know, children can be very interesting to photograph because they often show their true, unrestrained emotions and do quirky things that adults don't do. But now with helicopter parents and the seemingly immediate jump to accuse anyone photographing a child with a 'real' camera as a potential pedophile, it has become a real mental struggle whether or not a photo is 'worth the hassle' of the potential fallout. For me, my mental justification is that I don't have malicious intent and virtually never broadly publish my street/travel work. Therefore it's more for my personal development and enjoyment. But that might not be enough to convince someone else, especially an overly protective, irate, parent.
In your case, if you do wish to also distribute the work via an agency, that significantly complicates the situation.
With the Austrian fascists, I kind of get the impression you want to market those photos because you don't agree with their agenda, which suggests you wouldn't be opposed if the photos put them in a bad light. While I would share your position, if you take a neutral position, that is pretty much what the privacy laws were designed to protect - so that people can express their views without concern about how those views will be held against them (as much as we may disagree with their views).
Refreshingly nuanced opinion.
Fun fact: the law that governs what is and isn’t allowed with photography and related privacy rights in Germany has been in place without massive changes since 1907. Apparently it was put in place after photographers took pictures of the corpse of Otto von Bismarck, causing a scandal.
As you said it’s likely that Social Media has changed people’s attitude toward having their picture taken or in which circumstance. But at least for as long as I can remember (which is not that long compared to others here  ) it has always been considered awkward and kind of rude in Germany to take a strangers picture where they are the main subject - hence your cousin‘s reaction. But it’s considered okay (and also legal) as part of a wider scene and hence more accepted in touristy places when people feel it’s not about them.
|
