Comments on: On Photography and Rights

By: Thorf

Thorf — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 16:08:49 +0000

Interesting subject. My father is a professional photographer, and I grew up taking cameras and photography for granted anywhere and everywhere – or so it seemed to me. (I suspect Anthony must have the same impression. In general it saddens me when I see “No Photography signs”. (No flash photography I can totally understand.) In the case of museums and such it immediately lessens my interest level – especially here in Japan where I like to snap the descriptions to study later at home.

The worst case I’ve had of being told not to take pictures was actually at the city hall here in Akita. My wife and I were filling in and submitting our marriage license, with her mother and my father as witnesses, and my father taking pictures as we did it. We got some great shots from this, including one of us holding the form just before we submitted it, on which you can actually read the whole form. Shortly after that (and by which time my father had taken about 50 shots, over a period of at least 15 minutes) one of the office workers told us to stop taking pictures. We were a bit taken aback – don’t most people want pictures of their marriage? I’m just glad that the guy waited until we had pretty much all we wanted before laying down the law.

By: Jon Van Dalen

Jon Van Dalen — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 16:56:45 +0000

I see both sides of this. Of course we all have our own ethics about taking pictures. That line is different for everyone. For instance, I would gladly fire away at strangers walking around luxury shops, etc and publish them online with no consent; but I hate “artists” using the homeless to evoke sympathy and make “interesting” portraits, so I never shoot homeless or disadvantaged people. And it’s obvious to most people you shouldn’t shoot women’s dressing rooms or hide cameras in showers.

However, I do strongly support “militant” photographers when it comes to security guards and concerned soccer moms in the States enforcing laws that do not exist. For instance, I’ve been personally told that I can’t take pictures inside DC’s Metro rail system. Not only is that not true, it’s clearly stated in Metro’s policy documents that photography is allowed. I’ve gotten the same flak from security guards at the World Bank, who told me I can’t shoot their building from the sidewalk, even from across the street, standing in a public park. We all know there is no law against this. I can’t tell you how frustrated that makes me!

On the other hand, some photographers do take it too far and attempt to resist or be rude to others in the process of defending their values.

It’s important not to be too much on either side. Both privacy and freedom are important.

By: Ben Pharr

Ben Pharr — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 17:09:48 +0000

I completely agree. Most people’s “moral compass” will keep them within legal bounds. That’s true for more than just photography.

By: Ben Pharr

Ben Pharr — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:41:46 +0000

One interesting exception to the American “anything goes” policy is that you can’t take a picture of someone through their house’s window, even if you’re on public property. Apparently courts have ruled people have an expectation of privacy while in their homes.

I’ve heard various stories related to this, usually hinging on whether the view was clear from public or not. Jamming the lens up to a crack in the curtains, or holding the camera up over your head to get a view over a fence are different than taking a picture of a row of buildings that happens to include people visible behind wide-open windows. Google’s “street view” map-related service had images of people in their homes, via windows that were left wide open, for example. I don’t know the law that would be applied in each case, but for myself, hopefully my common sense (and common decency) happens to lie within those legal bounds. I’m no paparazzi, that’s for sure. —Jeffrey